Talk:Eastern Orthodox Church/Archive 4

message: : Orthodox doctrine regarding the Holy Trinity is summarized in the Symbol of Faith (Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed).
Is the term "Symbol of Faith" used in the eastern orthodox tradition?  I was under the impression that this was an RC term.  If that is the case I would suggest changing to simply "summarized in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed".
TomViza 01:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is indeed.  In my copy of the Greek Archdiocese of America's Divine Liturgy book, on the English side it simply reads "The Creed," but the Greek side clearly says Symbolon tis Pisteos ("Symbol of Faith").  —Preost talk contribs 01:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Coming from a traditional Greek Orthodox background I have always heard it called, "The Symbol of Faith".--Phiddipus 05:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If anything, it's "creed" that's a RC term; it's from the Latin "credo", which is its first word in that language. "Symbol" is of Greek origin. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name for the creed 

message: Just out of curiosity, if Orthodox believes that Mary remained a virgin, how do they reconcile the fact that Jesus had siblings, like James. Any help would be appreciated. 129.252.69.19 23:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has always been understood by the Orthodox that the Theotokos, Mary was dedicated as a temple virgin around the age of 3. She lived and served in the temple until 12 at which time she was required to marry. However, she wished to remain forever a virgin in service to the temple. So in order to accommodate her she was married to a relative, most likely an older, widowed uncle also of the line of David. This uncle was St. Joseph. He was required by law to take care of her, but he could never have sex with her because they were related. He was a widower and had children from his previous marriage. James, the first Bishop of Jerusalem, was Christ’s “brother” (i.e. one of Joseph’s children). Also, it is normal in the Greek language to refer to any kinsman as ones brothers (adelphoi) not necessarily an actual brother. Much of this is drawn from church traditions. One supporting text is the apocryphal: “The Nativity of Mary” which despite not being accepted as part of scripture, is still considered to be accurate in its description of events.--Phiddipus 05:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theotokos 

message: There is no separation from God. The idea is ridiculous and limits God. If anything, hell is eternal existence within the burning love of the infinite and all-loving God by those that despise the originator of that love. There is no place where God is not all-present, including hell.--Phiddipus 07:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I generally agree with you, but separation from God is not ridiculous because it limits God; human free will also limits God in a certain way, because it means that not all things are directly effected (note the "e") by God. Tix 04:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is no separation from God 

message: I read that the Eastern Orthodox Church has approx. 300 million followers an increase from the 250 million believed in 2000.  There is no hard stone exact number since many former communist countries are having people return to the church.  Just something I would like to point out :) --Happyman22 23:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Followers 

message: Hi. I am Georgian and I would like to suggest something about the title of the article. I am not an expert in theology or linguistic studies, but I would like to discuss the word "eastern" in the article. Normally, if I wrote an article I would write Christian Orthodox Church than using the word "eastern". I don't believe that Geography has to be involved in the article. For example, when people talk about the Catholic Church, they don't say Western Catholic Church or something like that since most of the Catholic Churches are located in Western Europe and the Americas. However, I have noticed in the United States and in English speaking world in general there is a tendency of addressing Christian Orthodox Church as Eastern Orthodox Church. My suggestion is to make the title Christian Orthodox Church. However, I am not an expert in Religious Studies.Sosomk 19:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia standards require editors to use the name most commonly used in English-language scholarship, whether they think it is ideal or not. To use a different term would be Original Research, which Wikipedia does not permit. See WP:NOR. Because "Eastern Orthodox" is the traditional term in English-language scholarship, we must use it. CRCulver 19:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The more common word order in English would also be "Orthodox Christian". Your point is valid. But "Eastern Orthodox" is, as CRCulver says, the most recognizable. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For example, when people talk about the Catholic Church, they don't say Western Catholic Church or something like that. No, but many of them say "Roman Catholic Church", which strikes many Catholics as inaccurate or strange. Slac speak up! 09:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Google gives 1,430,000 on Orthodox Christian and 1,360,000 on  Eastern Orthodox --Sena 15:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Yanadanna, "We" are Wikipedia editors, not Orthodox Christians!  Orthodox believers are entitled to call themselves whatever they feel appropriate in acts of belief, but this is an encyclopedia that has set policies about adhering to common norms of scholarship.  For example, we are not at liberty to take a certain usage and promote it in the hope that it will catch on and spread: this advocacy would constitute a violation of Wikipedia's chief founding principle, the Neutral Point of View policy.  Again, rightly or wrongly, "Eastern Orthodox" is the most commonly used and accepted English language term to describe this church, and therefore it must be the usage that Wikipedia adopts. Slac speak up! 08:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides, if we're going to be departing from common norms, the correct name of the church is "Orthodox Catholic". TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi, Yanadanana! I'm certainly not cut - sorry if I came across that way.  I'm not sure how I seem to have contradicted myself, but that's okay so long as we're agreed that what is important is the adherence of this article to Wikipedia policies.  Cheers, Slac speak up! 04:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eastern Orthodox or Christian Orthodox 

message: The section on North America is only about the US, and barely mentions Canada.  It think some content from the article of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada (among others) should be merged in.Kevlar67 07:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Kevlar, we should mention Orthodox Church in Canada. There is a huge Ukrainian community which maintains its Orthodox heritage. Ldingley 14:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: St Alexis Toth is certainly the Father of the OCA, but he was driven to that action by Ireland. Hence the article states "ironically remembered" - emphasis on ironically. As for references, go ask any OCA priest of sufficient age to remember the Glorification of St Alexis Toth. InfernoXV 18:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Ask anybody" doesn't cut it as a Wikipedia citation. Has none of those anybodys found it to be worth his time to write this fact down somewhere reliable? If not, then there is no reason Wikipedia should be the first place to write it down.  WP:NOR Mrhsj 03:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not the first place where it's been written down - check the proceedings of the Orientale Lumen Conference in Birmingham in December 2002, specifically the talk given by Fr Serge Keleher of Dublin. That Bishop Ireland was the true 'Father of the OCA' is the sort of snide (but true) observation that, for oecumenical reasons, rarely gets put into print, but goes around verbally. InfernoXV 12:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  North America? 

message: I made Template talk:Eastern Christianity/rework in order to replace the clunky Template:Eastern Christianity (which should probably be placed on talk if used at all). I was wondering if my proposed template is something that could be helpful for this and similar article, and if so, are there any changes that should be made? Feel free to edit the rework.--Andrew c 20:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its great, good job! Ldingley 20:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  templates 

message: A WikiProject has been formed for articles pertaining to the Eastern Orthodox Church.  You've probably noticed links to it put up in various places.  As of now, its organization is very much up for consensus, and a basic skeleton has been put in place.  Please come help form the WikiProject so that articles on the Church may be of higher quality.  You can see existing well-organized projects on similar subjects here:  WikiProject Anglicanism, WikiProject Catholicism.
Take a look at WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy, and if you choose to join the project, please add your name to the list of members and consider placing  on your userpage.
Thanks for your consideration!  —Preost talk contribs 16:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject begun 

message: On the map, why does it exclude Ethiopia, which is anywhere from 35-60% Orthodox Christian, from the list?  Is it because Ethiopia is considered Oriental Orthodox, rather than Eastern Orthodox?  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jonas Salk (talk • contribs) 03:58, July 29, 2006 (UTC).
: Yes, that's correct.  The Ethiopian Orthodox Church is one of the Oriental Orthodox churches.  I am surprised, though, that Syria isn't highlighted on this map, since Eastern Orthodox there make up at least 10% of the population.  —Preost talk contribs 13:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it should not include Ethiopia and Eritrea. The correct article for those countries is Oriental Orthodoxy, not this one. Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox are not in communion with each other. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orthodox Map 

message: The Catholic Church is the Orthodox Church. The use of Eastern Orthodox is quite offensive since it is not used by us. I suppose if we are Eastern Orthodox then the only fair thing would be to call the Roman Catholic Church the Western Catholic Church. At least explain the reason for the use of EASTern in the Article otherwise this is very POV.--210.84.20.27 15:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For article titles, Wikipedia must use the name considered standard in English-language scholarship. And whether some Orthodox Christians think it fair or not, "Eastern Orthodox" is the standard term. CRCulver 19:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eastern Orthodox or Orthodox Christian 

message: Is anyone interested in a total rewrite of this article, perhaps to be organized under WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy?  It seems to me that most sections are far too large and could be apportioned off into separate articles, such as:
*History of the Eastern Orthodox Church
*Eastern Orthodox theology
*Eastern Orthodox worship
*Eastern Orthodox architecture
*Eastern Orthodox monasticism
Summaries for each section could replace the current versions and include links at the beginning of each section to the main articles.  Since this would involve the creation of multiple new articles, it would perhaps be easiest to organize over at the WikiProject.
The article as it stands now is, IMO, very piecemeal and often badly written.  It also is almost completely lacking in references.  If no one else is interested in this, I will probably begin to do it myself unless there is a large outcry.  —Preost talk contribs 12:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've done one part and exported the original to Eastern Orthodox theology.  Have at it.  —Preost talk contribs 13:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gigantic, bloated, etc. 

message: For some reason I typed the edit summary to say it sideways, but the edit was correct. We can say, "The Eastern Orthdox Church (singular) comprises a number of autocephalous (that is, self-governing) organizations..." or, as it now stands, "The Eastern Orthdox Church (singular) is composed of a number of autocephalous (that is, self-governing) organizations...." "...[I]s comprised of" is incorrect usage. See . It may be correct someday, but right now it's still simply a common error. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was a simple error on my behalf and I apologise. Slac speak up! 06:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't mean to pick on you, but I screwed up the edit summary and had to make sense of it somewhere. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comprise/compose 

message: Regarding the request for citation that the name of the church is the "Orthodox Catholic Church", I appeal to common knowledge, but if you want something a bit more official looking, we could look to the Encyclopaedia Britanica:
http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9363331/Eastern-Orthodoxy
"Eastern Orthodoxy: officially Orthodox Catholic Church"
In fact, I think this article should be moved there, because does Orthodoxy really want to remain relagated to the "East"? You can always redirect Eastern Orthodoxy there. Okay, that's my opinion, but I'm not going to be the one to move it. 203.32.87.174 15:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe I'm the one who placed the tag. It's not that I disagree with the statement, at least theologically; far from it. The problem is that I've never seen an official statement anywhere from a reputable official source that this is the Church's official name. The Britannica is a very poor reference. It's bad practice in general to cite another encyclopedia since it will have been through an even more severe summarization process than Wikipedia. At best, it's a tertiary source. It is also itself not as well-referenced as Wikipedia's featured articles. I think we need something from an Orthodox source here. We may not appeal to common knowledge in an area thay may become contentious. I am therefore replacing the tag. I hope it's clear that the tag does not mean the statement is wrong, just that there ought to be something to support it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: By all means do, and provide cites using these websites. It's high time we started footnoting this article using <ref> tags as is usual in the better Wikipedia articles anyway. You can be the one to start. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The Church has historically been known as the Catholic Church, period. It was always the faith that was described as "Orthodox". "Orthodox" as a description of the Church is a relative neologism. (It might be centuries old, but then so is the New Calendar.) That does not change her proper name. "Eastern Orthodox Church" is the most commonly known general name in English, and that's why the article is located where it is, but that's no reason to conceal her proper name in the text. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

text: You're right about this. Non-canonical groups very carefully choose their names so as to appear legitimate. One would hardly expect otherwise even absent the experience, and there appear to be many that have incorporated "Orthodox Catholic Church" into their names. Many of them also use "Eastern Orthodox," "Greek Orthodox", etc. But are we therefore not to call the Church "Eastern Orthodox" either? Why should the Church give up any of her proper names just because someone else has co-opted them? TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Official name

message: 10/6/06 this page could use some information on the governing of the Orthodox church.
:It practically isn't. Certainly not on a worldwide level, by any earthly authority. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Government

message: I found in a Romanian history book a facsimile of an 18th century indulgence, with the text Indulgence granted by the patriarch Abraham of Jerusalem, sold by Greek monks for the "forgiving of the sins". I wonder if anyone here can read the text and tell us what it says. (at least the heading, if the small text is too small) :-) bogdan 20:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orthodox indulgence 

message: An unregistered user added material to the Holy Orders section about the past history of ordination of deaconesses. The material was poorly written, poorly spelled, and inappropriately joined into the main paragraph about Orders. It provides a source, but the source is (I believe) regarded as controversial. I think if material on this subject is to be added it should be in a separate subsection and written from a more NPOV. Mrhsj 15:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Women's ordination 

message: i think that at least 20% of christian orthodox are in fact atheists and only christians by name or in ID's , when i been in moscow in 2003 i remember a big advertisment poster in public street againt the "cross" , i didnt understand it very well but i feel that alot of youth russians dont believe in god at all , does anyone agree ? Ammar 13:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At least in here, in Romania, the religion is often assimilated with the ethnicity. 99% of the people belong to a religion, but only 52% believe in afterlife and only 26% attend church weekly. I was registered as a Christian Orthodox in the last census, but I'm an atheist. :-) bogdan 13:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To some extent this applies to Greece as well, to my knowledge also in Bulgaria and Serbia, and, i guess in Russia and Romania as stated above. Being Orthodox does not mean going to the Church every Sunday, not only believing in afterlife and not only making the distinction between 'good and evil'... Maybe there are varying degrees of "believing". Also, we should not forget that the people of these countries are raised up as Orthodox, have Orthodox names and, more or less, Orthodox values. In the pretext mentioned above, we should say that a same ammount of Catholics are not Catholics either, not to mention a same or larger ammount of Muslims who are not Muslims at all (communists, atheists, etc). IMO, the only way to come up with a number, is to count those who register as belonging to one religion (as it happens in most European countries, where people decide whether they belong to a religion or not), and not numbers coming from state officials, without censuses conducted and for obvious reasons. Hectorian 13:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: you could be write but what i think that youth russians (specially) are some kind of.. proud to be atheists but they keep the orthodox ID's for some reason , but its really hard to find a catholic or a muslim who is a non-believer . Ammar 14:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that the Muslims from the Balkans (Albanians and Bosniaks) are not very pious, either. :-) bogdan 14:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also disagree, Ammar, the atheists in the Orthodox countries are not much different than the atheists in other countries. the young russians can change their IDs if they want to (have in mind that in Russia there are people who are officially atheists). so, maybe those who do not change their IDs, are indeed Orthodox, no matter some atheistic ideas that they may have. and as bogdan said, the Albanians and the Bosniaks are not very pious... i doubt if they follow any of the muslim customs, concerning their clothes, laws and traditional customs... What i can say for sure is that all the Greeks (i am not exagerrating on that) no matter if they are atheists or Orthodox, go to the church every year at 12 o'clock in the night of Holy Saturday, all of them baptise their children and follow the Orthodox customs. I bet that somehow similar is the position of the other Orthodox people. as for the Russian youth, have in mind that Orthodoxy has experienced a rennaisance in Russia after the fall of communism... Hectorian 08:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Alright Gentelmen :) thanx for sharing ideas :) i didnt know that they can be offically atheists , fear from general opinion or their families maybe :) thanx again friends Ammar 19:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome;-) and thank you too. Hectorian 19:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  does anyone support my view? 

message: The statement made (which was removed) was:
The rejection of statues by the Orthodox Church is also the result of the schism between the Eastern and Western churches: Byzantium wanted to separate itself as much as possible from the Christianity of the West.
This is nonsence. Statuary was never the norm in the east nor are icons exclusive to the east. To imply that statues were rejected to make the distinction clearer between the west and east has no basis in fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phiddipus (talk • contribs) 
: It's not nonsense; I understand exactly what it means, and I have encountered this opinion before. But it is just opinion, and I agree you were right to delete it. It could go in with suitable qualifications, along the lines of "some scholars think..." with suitable citations. (Above comment is unsigned but appears to come from User:Phiddipus.) Mrhsj 01:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Nonsense" meaning egregiously false. I don't think any scholars believe this. As far as I know it's a polemical belief held by certain radically anti-Western factions or individuals. As Phiddipus says, it has no historical foundation whatsoever. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statues and the Orthodox Church 

message: "The Eastern Orthodox Church is a religious organization which claims to be the continuation of the original Christian body, founded by Jesus and his Twelve Apostles."  This phrasing implies that this claim is the key defining feature of Eastern Orthodoxy.  Aren't there many other religions--major and minor--that make this same claim?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 18:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't say "many," no. The Roman Catholic Church certainly makes the exact same claim, and I believe the Oriental Orthodox Churches do too. But I can't think of any others that would describe themselves that way. Mrhsj 23:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I might add that the reason these other churches can also claim this is because they were once part of the same church. However, what the Orthodox are claiming is to have remained in perfect agreement with the original teachings of the church, and to have held fast to early tradition (that if you went back and observed the beliefs and practices of the church from the time of Christ onward, there would be no conflict with what the church teaches and practices today, there would simply be more development and clarity. The very reason the Roman Catholics are no longer part of the church is because of their departure from the traditional structure of the church, and their adoption of certain beliefs that are in conflict with earlier pronouncements by the church. Likewise the Oriental Orthodox have beliefs that strongly conflict with the churches beliefs on the nature of Jesus Christ as expressed in the council of Chalcedon and earlier councils.--Phiddipus 01:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To respond to Mrhsj, I would say that, for starters, most or all restorationist groups believe their organization is a "continuation of the original Christian body, founded by Jesus and his Twelve Apostles."  Phiddipus's response provides some clarity to the matter--but none of that nuance is captured in this article's opening sentence.  Basically, I'm not sure the lead sentence as it stands is strong enough to set Eastern Orthodoxy apart from other churches.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 03:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it doesn't necessarily set it apart, but this is something that has to be mentioned because it's one of the main claims of the followers (it's part of the name of the Church too) -- at least this gives an idea to readers what are the claims and "feeling" of the Church. Roman Catholic Church has this text in the introduction "It traces its origins to the original Christian community founded by Jesus, with its traditions first established by the Twelve Apostles and maintained through unbroken Apostolic Succession." maybe the introduction can be changed to something like that. -- AdrianTM 04:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem with opening sentence

message: Beards: who said beards are considered a sign of piety for laymen? Actually it is only for the priests who follow some of the Levitical rules, and for monks who are supposed to be mystics and ascetics. 
:New threads on the bottom, please.
:Historically this may have been the case. Certainly in the east, beards were fashionable in a way they were not in the west. This was mainly cultural, but as with any ingrained cultural tradition it became tied to other things. In the east, beards were therefore seen as an aspect of masculinity that God intended by design, and to shave was contrary to that design. I don't know that this ever ascended to the level of formal theological thought.
:The history of clerical hair styles is rather more complex than simply following the Levitical rules. Association with the unshorn hair and beards occurred after the fact. While it is now unquestionably the tradition for priests and monks, this was not always the case. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Beards

message: This article was recently tagged as needing citations. The tag was entirely correct IMO. Most of the article is entirely uncontroversial but needs sourcing anyway. So I added Ware's The Orthodox Church as a source and have begun adding citations to it on parts that can easily be substantiated from that text. I know this isn't the only source in the world but one has to start somewhere. Mrhsj 05:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding Citations 

message: There's a dispute on the Purgatory page about whether the Eastern Orthodox Christians believe essentially the same thing as Roman Catholics do about the afterlife. I can't find anything much about the afterlife in the "Beliefs" section here. Is there an article on Wikipedia we can consult? Or could an expert pay a welcome visit to the Purgatory page and straightn us out? Thanks. Jonathan Tweet 02:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm by no means an expert, I think though that Purgatory is pretty much a Catholic invention. -- AdrianTM 02:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Adrian, as you might imagine, it's hard to get a Catholic to accept that interpretation. But if someone can speak authoritatively about EO beliefs regarding the state of the soul between death and resurrection, that would be a blessing. In fact, a good reference showing that EO theologians regard Purgatory as a Catholic invention, or accept it as essentially identical to their own beliefs, that would be useable, too. Jonathan Tweet
Simply put, the Eastern Orthodox Church does not accept the concept of Purgatory. The idea cannot really be called a Roman Catholic invention but rather a different interpretation of some of the words used by St Augustine (Who is also an Orthodox Saint). Saints in the Orthodox Church are considered to be Holy, but not necessarily perfect while they lived. While St Augustine’s writings are highly regarded by Roman Catholics, many of the ideas expressed in them, like purgatory, are disregarded by the Orthodox as not part of the “Consensus of the Fathers”. The Orthodox impression of St Augustine is that he went a little too far in trying to dissect things better left as mysteries.--Phiddipus 03:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purgatory 

message: On 26 Nov 2006 I tagged the following statement with : "Because it is believed this is a new person and all previous commitments are void; if the person was formerly married, they must now be married again." Ten days later no cite has been provided but we have had a revert conflict over attempted removal of the tag, with the person attempting the removal saying "no citation is needed". Per WP:V there is no such thing as article material that does not need citations:
:The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.
In accordance with Wikipedia policy I have deleted the unsourced disputed statement. Reasonable time has been provided for a source to be found. If the statement in question is true it should not be hard to find a reliable source that supports it. Mrhsj 06:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  disputed statement in baptism section 

message: I like most of the recent cleanup to headings but I think "Theotokos" must be prefixed with "The"; when used as a noun the word is always used with the definite article. I muffed my comment on the change itself; please disregard. Mrhsj 18:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Theotokos" 

message: What we are trying to do with our opening section is to differenciate between Orthodox and other Christian Churches. In some cases such differences are obvious, but the farther back in history you go, the more subtle the differences. This is why words must be used carefully and with reasoning behind them. 
The Eastern Orthodox Church claims to be the direct continuation of the original Christian Church. This claim is historically verifiable and is not disputed by anyone. It does, however, also apply to the Roman Catholics, and the Oriental Orthodox because all three groups were once the same church. 
The EOC claims that it has never fallen into error and that it has never changed the doctrines defined by the 7 ecumenical councils. Roman Catholics might believe themselves to be the True church, but they do not claim never to have changed their doctrines or added to them (the changes are part of history itself). The Oriental Orthodox do not accept the pronouncements of all 7 ecumenical councils. 
The EOC do not believe the church could ever fall into error as it is guided directly by the Holy Spirit. All other Christian churches believe that the church, at some point in its history became corrupt, and their church managed to recapture the true church. In all these cases a church with such a notion that the church became corrupt and needed fixing cannot claim to be the unbroken historical continuation of the original.
None of this is POV even if it seems to be. The terminology is carefully chosen. You may find that people will dispute the Orthodox claims offhand, but when pressed to explain themselves they have misunderstood what is being claimed. It is reasonable to assume that all Christian denominations think of themselves as being the "true" church, or the "real" Christians. Such claims are not what is being discussed here. --Phiddipus 09:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The viewpoint that it is historical fact that the Orthodox have never changed doctrine while the Catholic have is rejected by, among others, the Catholic Church itself.  The Magisterium of the Catholic Church claims to fully preserve original authentic doctrine as much as the Orthodox community does. Petrine supremacy springs to mind as one area where the See of Rome would maintain its original continuation of the apostolic faith as being ahead of that of the Eastern Orthodox.  The double procession of the Holy Spirit is another since, in the Catholic view, it has always been part of the original faith, but simply not manifested in the Nicene Creed as such.  So in short, I believe that the previous form of words chosen in the opening did not adhere to NPOV. Slac speak up! 04:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More to the point, I changed back to the old intro because the intro should be relatively short, clearly written, and easy enough for a layperson not necessarily knowledgeable in the subject to read.  Subtle details can and should be explained in greater length later in the article or in its sub-articles, but the intro shouldn't be a theological treatise, or else someone who just wants to know what the Eastern Orthodox Church is in a general overview sense will come away lost. --Delirium 05:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening Statements - words are chosen carefully 

message: Why isn't Ethiopia on the map? It's an Orthodox country (or at list by great part). --PaxEquilibrium 13:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because Ethiopia is Oriental Orthodox, not Eastern Orthodox. They're in communion with the Coptic Church and like them do not accept any Ecumenical Councils from Chalcedon on. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethiopia 

message: Substituted at 20:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment