Talk:Eastern Orthodox Church/Archive 2

message: In the sixteenth century, Pope Gregory I called for a switch to the Gregorian calendar.  However, like the Protestants of that time (and till the mid eighteenth century in England), the Orthodox rejected this call, and so remained on the Julian calendar. By far the majority of Orthodox worldwide remain on the Julian Calendar. However, today, many Orthodox, particularly in the West, have switched to a Revised Julian Calendar, which mostly matches the Gregorian Calendar, but places Easter and related feast days (e.g., Ascension, Pentecost) on the same day as does the Julian Calendar. The actual algorithms for calculating the date of Easter used by both calendars are quite complex, as are the algorithms for calculating the Jewish date of Passover. See the external link concerning the calendar for further details.
:The Orthodox never rejected the call.  They never RECEIVED the call, as far as I can tell.  Likewise, it was Gregory XIII who ordered the calendar reform. Dogface 19:48, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: These are all good suggestions. I haven't been entirely comfortable with the list of who's in communion with Constantinople, but haven't thought of a better idea yet. Do you have a specific suggestion? Regarding the attention given to North America, it is just as you guessed; hopefully we'll get more contributors familiar with other areas who can give those areas more attention. I'll go ahead and "asterisk" the OCA's listing as you suggest. Wesley 17:43, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

text: I agree, Oriental Orthodoxy is quite distinct from Eastern Orthodoxy; a better term to encompass both might be Eastern Christianity, analogous to Western Christianity to encompass Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. Would it be best to merge the content from Eastern Orthodox Church with this article and then make Eastern Orthodox Church a redirect to Eastern Orthodoxy? Wesley 18:04, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly Eastern Orthodox Church could be moved to Eastern Orthodox Church organization (small "o" in that last word), i.e., it's about how it's organized rather than about doctrines, traditions, practices, etc. Michael Hardy 01:13, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: And don't get us started on strong coffee vs. samovar tea. Dogface 19:48, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: A few more details:  There is no such thing as a "Constantinopolitan Orthodox Church".  There is the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople.  This Patriarchate has jurisdiction over various dioceses, eparchies, autonomous churches, etc.  However, as an organization, it actually has no specific name.  Instead, we refer to those groups under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople as "Those groups under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople".  It really isn't called a "Church of <foo>" or "<foo> Orthodox Church" by anyone within Orthodoxy. Dogface 19:53, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good explanation, Dogface. I would only add that in general, the Greek Orthodox Church doesn't mind recognizing that OCA parishes and members are Orthodox; it's just their autocephaly that is in question. Many members of our OCA parish have received the Eucharist from the local Greek Orthodox priest, with his full awareness. Our two parishes typically sponsor a joint Vacation Church School each summer for the children of both parishes, with assistance from adults at both parishes. I'm sure that someone could find warmer or cooler Greek-OCA parish relationships in different areas. Wesley 16:34, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  (''scattered notes to be fleshed out later, help welcome'') 

message: Who decides, and how, which of the autocephalous churches are headed by bishops bearing the title of Patriarch and which are headed by Metropolitans or other bishops with less exalted titles than Patriarch? (E.g., the head of the autocephalous Church of Cyprus is a mere Archbishop.)  Is it in fact held that the decisions of an ecumenical council require the assent of all Patriarchs?  Does that mean the assent of a bishop holding the title of Metropolitan who heads an autocephalous church, is not needed for validity of a council's decisions, but the assent of some other heads of autocephalous churches, bearing the title of Patriarch, is needed?  Michael Hardy 00:02, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Originally, it was a matter of an Ecumenical Council to determine, such as Constantinople's promotion to Patriarchical status.  However, as we have seen for the Slavs, it seems to be a matter of how the parent jurisdiction sees fit to name things, with an assumed but never stated provision that only a Patriarch could theoretically "recognize" a new Patriarchate.  Russia has a Patriarch, with no Ecumenical Council behind this rank.  Therefore, no Ecumenical Council is absolutely necessary for a Church to have a Patriarch.  Also, there is nothing at all "mere" about the Archbishop of Cyprus vs. the Metropolican of the OCA, for example.  The Archbishop of Cyprus still "outranks" the Metropolitan of the OCA because Cyprus's autocephaly is of far older vintage thant the OCA.  Only an Ecumenical Council has ever changed this order of precedence. Dogface 18:12, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  (I see on the web site of the Church of Greece -- autocephalous since some time in the first half of the 19th century, if I recall correctly -- that the head of that church is also called the Archbishop; I'd have guessed he'd be a Metropolitan). Michael Hardy 21:44, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Slavs prefer to use Metropolitan, Greeks prefer Archbishop.  In the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese (USA) the various Metropolitans have an Archbishop as their immediate chief, although all report to the Patriarch of Constantinople. In Orthodoxy, the "ranking" is something on the order of Priest, Bishop, Higher than Bishop. Dogface 03:36, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Really, they're all Bishops. The only meaningful distinction among Bishops is between Ruling and Auxiliary Bishops.  Auxiliary, or Vicar Bishops function much like the old chorespiscopi, and much of what they do can only be done with the blessing of the Ruling Bishop of the diocese.  As for the rest -- Archbishop, Metropolitan, Patriarch, Pope in whatever order the local Church places them -- they're really nothing but differences in honor or precedence. --Csernica 02:54, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Status of Patriarchs

message: The article titled clerical celibacy has a lot about Roman Catholic views and only a little bit about Eastern Orthodox views.  Maybe someone among those who have worked on this page can add something?  Michael Hardy 21:00, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Celibacy of bishops and of widowed priests and deacons

message: Come and join a new WikiProject: Saints. --Kpalion 10:59, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:WikiProject Saints 

message: Shouldn't the Syrian Orthodox Church/Antiochian Orthodox Church issue be mentioned? The Syrian church isn't mentioned at all in this article.. Rhymeless 16:25, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't that just one instance of the split between Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy, which is mentioned? You see something similar with the two churches in Egypt, each with a pope in Alexandria. Wesley 04:36, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Syrian Orthodox Church 

message: The words aren't the title of a work - they aren't always italicised in common usage, so shouldn't be in the header.
Furthermore, italicising them here does constitute overemphasis compared to conventional use on the rest of Wikipedia - David Gerard 22:20, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Why they shouldn't

message: The style manual clearly says this should be in italics when used in the way in which the term is used here.  Here is what the Style Manual says:
:Italicize words when they are being referenced in a sentence, rather than used normally. Similarly for letters.
** The term panning is derived from panorama, a word originally coined in 1787
***The term panning is derived from panorama, a word originally coined in 1787
** The letter E is the most common letter in English.
So if the article begins with
:Eastern Orthodoxy comprises the religious traditions of Eastern Europe and ....
then it should not be italicized, because it's not writing about the term Eastern Orthodoxy but rather about the religious tradition that the term refers to.  On the other hand, if it says
:Eastern Orthodoxy is the name of ...
then it should be italicized, because it's about the term rather than about the thing that the term refers to. Michael Hardy 22:55, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Hit 'Random page' a pile of times and see what is and isn't conventional usage on Wikpedia. When it's a term, I've seen it preceded 'the term'. Your usage is completely idiosyncratic - David Gerard 23:12, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: You are wrong about the Style Manual and wrong about the rest of Wikipedia

message: Dogface, knock it off. These churches are long-established groups who have a well-defined philosophy of walling themselves off until the perceived errors of modernism and ecumenism within Orthodoxy as a whole have been resolved. They may be considered schismatics by some, but this is not an objective opinion; they consider themselves to be "walled off" from heresy in the mainstream churches, while still maintaining the legitimacy of those churches for the time being. Listing them as churches in resistance to modernism is not propaganda, it's how they describe themselves. They have maintained the faith, have legitimate episcopal succession, and historical continuity with multigenerational groups of believers: they are Orthodox, even if you don't like it. YBeayf 05:04, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Churches in Resistance / Old Calendarists 

message: The text refers to 4 main actions where-by the believer seeks Theosis: Confession, Communion, Fasting and Almsgiving. Added to this should be Prayer, Obedience, Selflessness, and the acquisition of Virtues Phiddipus 23:46, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seeking Theosis 

message: I think the re-editor missed the point in the original text. His or Her re-edit caused this point to be lost. So I have restated the original point, which is this: Communion is the most profound of mysteries and it is not taken lightly (Or it certainly should not be taken lightly). Orthodox prepare by recapturing paradise in their lives; in other words, they eat what Adam and Eve would have eaten before the fall (No Animal Products), they completely fast from the night before, They refrain from sexual relations, They have their confession heard. This is so that they can present themselves for this mystery in the best possible spiritual state, to do otherwise would cause them spiritual harm. BUT, because all of this preparation is impractical for the average layperson to do every week, he refrains from communing but once a month or so, when he can properly prepare. Monks, on the other hand commune every day because they are always prepared by their lifestyle. Phiddipus 17:03, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Gareth Hughes 01:59, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerning a recent re-edit of the preparation for communion 

message: In the section entitled Bishops Priests and Deacons there is an incorrect Statement: 
‘‘Deacons must serve behind the "iconostasis" or icon stand (a wall of icons). In most modern Orthodox churches, women are not allowed behind the iconostasis''
This is an unfortunate Roman Catholic idea that has crept into the Orthodox Church. The Correct concept that needs to be understood is that “No One” is allowed to enter the Altar area without a blessing from the Bishop. In this sense Altar Boys, and Sub Deacons need to be Blessed to serve as well. Women also and often receive this blessing; not to serve during Liturgy, but to clean and maintain the area. Traditionally all Presbyteras and Diakonissas are given this blessing. Nuns are often given this blessing. The Western subjugation of women is inappropriate in the Orthodox Church. The greatest Saint who ever lived was a woman, The Virgin Theotokos, and when she was presented in the temple She was taken into the Holy of Holies. Phiddipus 04:59, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Women in the Altar area - 

message: As it read: "celebrates a tradition of Christian faith that stretches back over two thousand years."
Obviously Christianity did not exsist "over" 2000 years ago, having not been established until Pentecost which would have happened in Christ's 33rd or 34th year.
Also, "Celebrates" and "a Tradition of Christian Faith" are somewhat affected sounding nice, but not really conveying any meaning.
Christianity was created by Christ and the Apostles, its structure was established and most importantly preserved by Orthodoxy. This is what distinguishes it from the Roman Catholic Church, who technically can claim the same origins. Phiddipus 22:14, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the "over two thousand years" bit, I don't think it was meant to suggest "over two thousand years ago," but rather to mean "stretches across 2000 years."  In any event, given your response, the wording was potentially confusing, but I didn't take it to mean what you took it to mean.  It's moot now, though, given the current state of the intro. --Preost 18:57, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification of the Opening Statement 

message: Hi, folks.  Work continues apace over at OrthodoxWiki.  We'd love it if you would like to come over and give us a hand.  --Preost 18:52, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  OrthodoxWiki 

message: In all fairness, it has already been stated than the majority of the church considers the Moderate Old Calendarists to be Schismatic; its repeated usage constitutes a strong POV if not an outright attack. Nothing happens automatically; just because a part of the church disagrees with another part does not constitute a schism. If that were true then there would never have been a need for an ecumenical council. As to terminology, I think it can be assumed that since the term modernist only appears in the section concerning the Old Calendarists that it is terminology they use. And in questions concerning the Calendar issue, whether written by Old or New Calendarists the terminology is used. Phiddipus 16:00, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moderate Old Calendarists - Churches in resistance 

message: Hello everybody. A virtual essay was present at Christian views of homosexuality, in a space where there should have merely been a bite-sized synopsis. A great deal was background information on what sin is in the Eastern Orthodox church, as well as sexuality.
In order to keep that page on topic, I moved the vast majority of the essay to Eastern Orthodox view of sin. However, that article was concerned almost exclusively with sexuality and homosexuality, so I'm hoping that you all can contribute to the new topic. I myself, a poor sinner, am completely ignorant about Eastern Orthodox beliefs, so I do not personally feel authorized to add more to this article than Phiddipus has.
I was hoping that you all could help out?
--Drostie 07:34, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Views on Sin

message: I made the change in 'Internal Divisions' from individual to laity. I thought it was more precise and clarified - bishop/laity seems a more appropriate contrast than bishop/individual.
:I'll leave it as it stands, but I think the comparison was between those with Authority (Bishops, who govern the church, and everyone else including other members of the clergy, not just the laity. But also to show that we Orthodox do not have to be "Sheep" but rather we must be clear-headed and watchful, not just blindly accepting.Phiddipus 16:11, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Individual to laity 

message: I added a couple paragraphs on Eastern Rite Catholic Churches.  I think it is importatant to have a few words said about Eastern Catholics in the Eastern Orthodox article in order to help readers understand what Eastern Catholicism is, and the big difference between Eastern Orthodox Churches and Eastern Rite Churches. (They're loyal to Rome and the Pope.) I also identified Eastern Rite Churches in this section.
JesseG 23:17, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
*I am swapping the two paragraphs you mention above for the sake of clarity. I think it is useful to state that there are Oriental Othodox Churches first, then to explain that the Eastern Rite Churches usually originate in either the Eastern Orthodox or the Oriental Orthodox Churches. Philippe Magnabosco 13:26, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Eastern Catholic Churches

message: Should this page be broken down into relevant sub-pages by category/section? ~ Dpr 06:35, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sub-division?