Talk:Saint Catherine's Monastery

message: At this point, the article seems long enough that it need not be labeled as a stub. But typically, how long is an article that is not a stub?
--138.129.200.145 00:14, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still a stub? 

message: Wikipedia article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_bush refers to "St Katherine's Monastery" having a claimed living * descendant * of Moses' original bush.  It appears that some cleaning up should be done.
If a lot of these bushes grow around there then it doesn't seem that Moses' discovery was so special, although I suppose that God talking through it makes it an event.  If you set the bush on fire, does it become a telephone?
You wouldn't want to keep it at home, would you?
rja.carnegie@excite.com
62.188.154.175 13:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not the original bush? 

message: The oddly circumstantial account of the finding of the manuscript of Egeria, not directly relevant here, suggests to me that the actual connection here has been that Egeria visited and described St. Catherine's: it is missing. Vandalism? The two dates noted, 1884 and c. 500 are neither of them relevant to Egeria's visit. Part of the interest of St. Catherine's for the average reader lies in the discoveries made in the library, of which the article seems unaware. Anyone interested in raising the level of this article? --Wetman 03:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No response. Removed it from "History", as Egeria predates the founding --Wetman 18:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Egeria

message: The following has been in the article for some time:"The monastery along with several dependencies in the area constitute the entire Orthodox Church of Mount Sinai, an autonomous (as distinct from autocephalous) Orthodox Christian church headed by an archbishop, who is also the abbot of the monastery" 
Kurt Weitzman (in Galey, John; Sinai and the Monastery of St. Catherine, p.14, Doubleday, New York, 1980, ) describes the church as autocephalous.  I have added a cite tag.  Johnbod 22:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tell me John why you and wetman are now the self appointed editors of wiki orthodox articles I am not nor do I claim to be, also you did a 3rr violation on the Orthodox icon article. Why did you remove I noting the monastery is Orthodox without correcting the article to reflect the fact?  How many people in America even know what Orhodoxy is let alone about this monastery. So policy should now proclude the article being informative?
LoveMonkey 16:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Like many of your edits it did the right thing in the wrong way. Noting the monastery is Othodox is of course fine, jamming the fact into its name is not; we don't have Florence Roman Catholic Cathedral, [[Canterbury Anglican Cathedral, do we? The formal full name, plus the fact it was Othodox was noted lower down. The current text is now clear.  No one needs any appointment to edit any article here. Johnbod 17:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pleeenty actually, but I don't dwell.  Re the autonomous or autocephalous question here, do I understand correctly that your refs confirm the mount Sinai Church IS autocephalous?  The first ref doesn't seem to work & the second is a whole book, & really needs a page number. If this is what they say, the text needs changing. Btw, you changed UK catalogue to US catalog. I think the articler is using British English so far, so am likely to chanfge it back. Johnbod 18:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that Mt Sinai is autonomous rather than autocephalous. By definition, an "autonomous" church elects its own head, but he must be consecrated by the primate of the mother church. An autocephalous church not only elects its own head, but does not have to go anywhere else to have him consecrated. The Church of Sinai elects its own Archbishop, who must then be consecrated by the Patriarch of Jerusalem. MishaPan 00:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

text: See also Eastern Orthodox Church organization and St. Catherine's Monastery (Sinai) (Orthodoxwiki) MishaPan 00:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly this is a matter of some ambiguity - dispute would seem to be the wrong word. Weitzman, who spent five months in the monastery, wrote (see above) they were autocephalous, and also that the Abbot/Archbishop had "more often than not" been consecrated by the Patriarch of Jserusalem "in recent centuries".  Presumably this is the line in the monastery itself; clearly a church that has managed to stay in commmunion with Rome and the Orthodox churches believes in not bringing things to a head un-neccessarily - a very commendable and Christian attitude imho.    Johnbod 01:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Weitzman is an unquestioned authority in his field of expertise, but I doubt he would consider himself an expert on Orthodox polity. I think you need to find out what the monks themselves say, not what one of their guests says.  And you are quite mistaken to think that the Church of Mt. Sinai is "in communion with Rome." They are not. I visited Mount Sinai a little before the turn of the millennium. As an Orthodox clergyman myself I was able to speak with the brethren there. They have a wonderful Christian spirit of love and acceptance, but they are also firm in their Orthodoxy.  MishaPan 05:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That they are (apparently only because the Abbot did not attend the relevant Council) is well documented - it was crucial for them during the Crusader period.  Obviously that does not detract from their Othodoxy. Sadly your reminiscences - did you actually ask them this specific point? - do not meet WP:V.  Johnbod 15:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

text: What documentation can you offer to show that they are in communion with the Roman Catholic Church? Whatever happended during the Crusader period has no bearing on their status now, which is what this discussion is really about. MishaPan 13:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  autonomous or autocephalous ? 

message: Well Johnbod who knows plenty! Weitzman is not the church nor is he an authority that trumps everybody else. MishaPan, Johnbod is trying this same hijacking of peoples culture and history here (with obviously no respect for it, other then to distort it and misrepresent it) that he is also doing on the article Icon. As for my sources I think that Weitzman's opinion is completely meaningless compared to church authority, as is mine. Again it is about sources not opinion and Weitzman is a art historian not an Orthodox church authority. Also MishaPan one of my sources states that as the Roman Catholic the monastery is autonomous. But Johnbod who knows more about Orthodoxy then the Orthodox would see that if he read the source rather then just asked. NOTE: to make the statement that the monastery is in communion with Roman is one of the examples I am speaking of when I state that you are misinforming people. I understand I am not perfect and I make mistake but the ignorance and or arrogance that you stating in the statement "Presumably this is the line in the monastery itself; clearly a church that has managed to stay in commmunion with Rome and the Orthodox churches believes in not bringing things to a head un-neccessarily - a very commendable and Christian attitude imho." Shows you should not be on this article. Next you'll be stating that history is POV.
LoveMonkey 00:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Love Monkey, you were the one who produced two references which you said showed the church was autocephalous!  It is fairly clear there is ambiguity, as the reference you quote above says. Looking on the net another Ukrainian Othodoc church site says they are, and of two editions of the Catholic Encyclopedia, one says they are and the other not. The current text states the ambiguity and references both positions. I note the only two books, as opposed to web-sites, which are Ware and Weizman, both say it is autocephalous.  As Misha pan says, it would be useful to know what the monastery itself says. If there is a statement on their website (link at end of article) please copy it here - my Greek will stretch to that; I assume you both read it.  I will have to investigate the situation with Rome.  Love Monkey, it is not productive to try to turn everything into a bar-brawl. Johnbod 18:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is what I said "The RCC site says autonomous so by consensus I guess autonomous has it. LoveMonkey 00:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I think we need to stop bickering amongst ourselves, and put our energies into doing some research. Let each side continue to gather what reliable information they can. For my part, I would like to submit this page, The Orthodox Church: An Introduction. This is from www.orthodoxinfo.com, and lists Sinai as autonomous. MishaPan 23:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm all for that.  There is no question that the position of the main sources of information, & so probably the Patriarchates, appears to be that the Church is autonymous, but there are a number of references to ambiguities, and a number of sources, especially those obtaining their information from the monastery/Church itself, regard it as autocephalous. This presumably also has a bearing on the Rome issue also. It may take me a while to find my references, as I have other stuff at the moment.  Johnbod 23:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Translation anyone? (from the monastery website):" Μονή Σινά ακολουθεί τους Ιερούς Κανόνες των Οικουμενικών Συνόδων και πνευματικά είναι ενταγμένη στην Ορθόδοξη Εκκλησία και σύμφωνα με τις αποφάσεις, κατά διαφόρους καιρούς, Τοπικών Συνόδων και Ορθοδόξων Πατριαρχών που την αφορούν, κατέχει το μοναδικό προνόμιο στη Χριστιανοσύνη να είναι διοικητικά "αδούλωτος, ασύδοτος, ακαταπάτητος, πάντη και παντός ελευθέρα, αυτοκέφαλος" καθώς δεν εξουσιάζεται από κανέναν Πατριάρχη, ούτε από Σύνοδο. Η εν γένει λειτουργία της Σιναϊτικής Αδελφότητας είναι διατυπωμένη σε "Θεμελιώδεις Κανονισμούς". και διοικείται με θεσμούς άμεσης δημοκρατίας υπό του Ηγουμένου της και Αρχιεπισκόπου Σινά Φαράν και Ραϊθώ και της Ιεράς των Πατέρων Συνάξεως." 
- I see an αυτοκέφαλος in there but won't attempt it myself. Johnbod 23:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I have asked a Greek editor -Kostisl (whom has helped with the V Lossky article) to properly translation the passage above. LoveMonkey 01:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: autonomous

message: H Μονή Σινά ακολουθεί τους Ιερούς Κανόνες των Οικουμενικών Συνόδων και πνευματικά είναι ενταγμένη στην Ορθόδοξη Εκκλησία και σύμφωνα με τις αποφάσεις, κατά διαφόρους καιρούς, Τοπικών Συνόδων και Ορθοδόξων Πατριαρχών που την αφορούν, κατέχει το μοναδικό προνόμιο στη Χριστιανοσύνη να είναι διοικητικά "αδούλωτος, ασύδοτος, ακαταπάτητος, πάντη και παντός ελευθέρα, αυτοκέφαλος" καθώς δεν εξουσιάζεται από κανέναν Πατριάρχη, ούτε από Σύνοδο. Η εν γένει λειτουργία της Σιναϊτικής Αδελφότητας είναι διατυπωμένη σε "Θεμελιώδεις Κανονισμούς". και διοικείται με θεσμούς άμεσης δημοκρατίας υπό του Ηγουμένου της και Αρχιεπισκόπου Σινά Φαράν και Ραϊθώ και της Ιεράς των Πατέρων Συνάξεως.
=
Mount Sinai Monastery follows the Holy Rules of the Ecumenical Synods and is spiritually part of the Orthodox Church. According to Decisions of Regional Synods and of Orthodox Patriarchs of several times that concern it, it has the only privilege in Christianity to be administratively "free, loose, untresspassable, free from anyone at any time, autocephalous", as it does not refer directly to any Patriarch or Synod. The function of the Sinai Brotherhood is set forth in "Fundamental Regulations". It is administrated by institutions of direct democracy by its Abbot and Archbishop of Sinai, Pharan, Raitho and the Holy Synod of Fathers.
--Kostisl 12:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, and to Kostisl!  I think the different views should be mentioned, as now, but the Sinai church's own position given & referenced to the above.  Johnbod 23:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added the mention of the churches own view, with shortened Greek & English quotes, here.  I think it should be noted in the Orthodox Church organisation article, but won't do this myself. Kostisl's translation is most helpful & prompt, but I wonder if "only" is the best equivalent for "μοναδικό" here? - "unique" or "special" perhaps. The meaning is clear anyhow. Johnbod 00:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the quote above is from the Monastery's own Website that would seem to pretty much settle the question: they are autocephalous. The only reason they would have to go elsewhere for their Archbishop to be consecrated is because their entire church has only one bishop. Thanks for getting this information. MishaPan 06:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Translation

message: Excuse me if I call on admins for your reverting and blatantly disregarding the comments of an Orthodox Priest and founder of Orthodoxwiki. Father John behaved respectfully (which I can not say of every Orthodox) you have no justification for your behaviour. I think it would be completety within reason to ask the WP:OFFICE to ban Johnbod from editing Orthodox articles. He has a negative opinion and POV of the Orthodox church, culture and community and is using a logical fallacy such as an argument from silence to try and justify his own WP:OR. He continues to revert out people who are either Orthodox christians or are actual authorities from within the Orthodox church claiming his opinion higher then the 
actual people themselves and their culture that he is not part of but is writing about. You owe Father John an apology JohnBod for disregarding what he posted here and then reverting out his edits from the actual article. And before you starting trying to change the subject or projecting or dodging the point by asking anything us, I would ask you to reflect upon what you are doing. It is your actions that are the point of contention here, stop dodging. At best Johnbod has that some people who LIVE at the monastery are in communion with Rome. Which would not mean the monastery nor the community as a whole. Any in communion with Rome would not be also in communion with the Eastern Orthodox.
LoveMonkey 00:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As for Johnbod's complete disregard for what Father John told him. If a priest from the Orthodox church stated that Weizman and Johnbod are wrong that's all I need, end of discussion.
LoveMonkey 03:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ignorant with no respect for the culture they are writing about

message: Dear friends, it is a great pleasure to see people care to provide accurate and respectful information about this special Monastery. I may be completely in error in my understanding of you all, please forgive me if I am. Thanks to other Wiki projects, I have excellent reasons to have the highest personal opinion of both User:LoveMonkey and User:Johnbod. I have a special admiration for LoveMonkey, because he strives to defend accuracy with regard to Orthodox articles, according to Wiki policy. His English is excellent, but not native, which can cause frustration. We need his knowledge of Orthodoxy, and his considerable multi-lingual skills. Similarly, Johnbod is a prolific contributer, for whom interaction with scholarship is clearly a long-standing personal quality.
I'm trying to understand the sense of the Greek in the quotes John has provided. There are subtleties that I can miss, especially given the subject and the author. It would appear that Ecumenism has a long tradition at St Catherines, however, this is a matter of hospitality and Christian charity, rather than a formal or doctrinal matter. The words ecumenical and Greek Orthodox stand side-by-side in the quote above. I suspect the intention of those words is to suggest a commitment to hospitality, without any compromise of Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is well known for its sophisticated thinking and diplomacy. I'll work some more on understanding the quote, but I am not native.
At this point, may I clarify that the fact in dispute is whether there is an official communion between St Catherine's and the Vatican? There would certainly appear to be a de facto relationship, in that St Catherine's welcomes non-Orthodox guests; however, it would also appear that the officals of the monastery are always Orthodox. This would justify both a visting scholar regarding St Catherines as being generally "in communion with" Rome, while also justifying the claim that the monastery is unequivocally and uncompromisingly Greek Orthodox -- it is not "partly" Coptic, Catholic or any thing else, but quite specifically governed by Greek Orthodox brothers.
My apologies if I am only adding my personal ignorance to what has become a touchy discussion. I will keep working on understanding the Greek, it is not the dialect I'm used to, and has terms, inflections and syntax I'm unfamiliar with. I can say it starts, "From Greco-Roman times until today, ..." Peace friends, we all treasure truth. Alastair Haines 02:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Weitzman specifically describes the monastery as being in communion with Rome (in the 1960-70s), though effectively by default (the Archbishop having missed the Council) which is what is disputed. The reference can be found in the article history, though it has been reverted. The only other references I have are to the Crusader period.  But if you find the Greek difficult don't worry. I'm sure there are others who can read it readily, though apparently none of the Othodox experts recently appearing on this page.  Thanks Johnbod 03:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow! Rome invited the Archbishop of St Catherine's to their Council? Well, that's a great honour indeed, and it suggests a friendly relationship. Other parameters of the relationship need clarification I suspect, but it does sound like something important to note, without overstating the implications. I'm not implying I think that's been done in the past, just indicating I'm fascinated by this. I'm sure St Catherines' relationship with Rome would not be conducted in a manner that would reflect any disloyalty to their Greek Orthodox traditions. I do hope some kind of appropriate text about this does end up in the article. Help us please LoveMonkey, have I got it all wrong? Alastair Haines 03:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Johnbod, you said above, "The reference can be found in the article history, though it has been reverted." I was wondering if you would be kind enough to post the reference here on the Talk page. I'd like to take a look at it. I'm curious about which "Council" you are referring to. Thank you very much. MishaPan 00:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference I was referring to there was the Weitzman one I think you are familiar with, as you have already said you disregard it above.  I am now really waiting on a translation of the passage from the web-site quoted above (the last one), which appears to concern relations with "τη Ρουμανική, τη Ρωμαιοκαθολική, τη Ρωσική ή και με την Κοπτική παράδοση".  I must say I am finding it surprising that this is not yet forthcoming with all these Othodox experts around.   Johnbod 00:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you. I'm sorry I'm so dull sometimes. I wish I could help with the Greek translation, but I'm not really qualified. By the way, I wasn't really discounting Weitzman's quote so much as his standing as an authority on Orthodox polity. I have only seen your reference to the quote and not read it directly. That's why I was wondering if you could either post the direct quote here or provide a link to it. Do you know what council Weitzman was referring to? Thanks. MishaPan 20:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, from Weitzmann in the Galley book: p 14 "...the autocephalous Church of Sinai had not taken part in the schism of 1054, which separated the Orthodox and the Roman churches, and it had remained in communion with Rome."  There is more about the links with Latins, especially during the Crusader period (on which I have other sources), and also later, but that is the key bit.  The bit about the failure to schism being essentially accidental comes from somewhere else - I'm not sure where. Essentially the Abbot/Archbishop did not attend or sign off on a formal declaration of schism with the other Orthodox leaders at some point after 1054.  I think LM has asked for another translation, which may resolve matters.  Johnbod 01:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the article, following the monastery website, does not say that! Johnbod 19:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article says: "The monastery is Greek Orthodox". If it is Greek Orthodox--whether under Jerusalem or autocephalous--it is, ipso facto not in communion with Rome. Furthermore, none of the translated quotations from the monastery's Website state that the monastery is in communion with Rome. MishaPan 20:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: As you should know, as I have said it above, no one is disputing the Orthodoxy of the monastery. No one has yet translated what appears to be the relevant quote from the monastery, as given above. Johnbod 20:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Peace, brothers!

message: I removed 'Coptic' from the second sentence of the 'About the Monastery' section. While being in the Monastery in July 2008, searching for Coptic codices, I was told by the librarian that they possessed only four volumes. St. Palamon (talk) 03:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Another misinformation

message: I seen a show on the Discovery Civilization Channel profiling this monastery and they displayed the supposed burning bush. And right beside it stood a fire extinguisher! I don't recall the name of the show, but you can clearly see it, they actually keep a fire extinguisher beside the burning bush! I thought this was rather funny. However it does make sense... -- œ™ 10:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please don't burn the Burning Bush! 

message: I think there's something missing in the paragraph below from the article:
"The most important manuscripts have since been filmed or digitized, and so are accessible to scholars. This is certainly not the case for the discoveries of 1975, which previously could be viewed and evaluated exclusively by Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland from the Institute for New Testament Textual Research in Münster, Germany in 1982. A team of imaging scientists and scholars from the USA and Europe is currently using spectral imaging techniques developed for imaging the Archimedes Palimpsest to study more than one hundred palimpsests in the monastery library."
What are the discoveries of 1975? Why were they exclusively accessible to the Alands? Are they still exclusively accessible to Mrs. Aland?
The paragraph has a "machine-translated" feel to it.
--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discoveries of 1975 

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Katharinenkloster Sinai BW 2.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on August 31, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-08-31. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Katharinenkloster Sinai BW 2.jpg]] to appear as POTD soon 

message: This sentence is not really correct: "The exact administrative status of the church within Eastern Orthodoxy is ambiguous." It is not that the there is disagreement on the Monastery's relationship with other Orthodox Churches and the Jerusalem Patriarchate, but rather it is the definition of autocephalous and autonomous that is ambiguous--the issue is how to classify it as the relationship is somewhat unique.PeterPonder (talk) 05:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: When various editors looked at this some years ago it became fairly clear that there was indeed disagreement and ambiguity. It will be above somewhere (reading Greek required). Johnbod (talk) 06:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error about administrative status 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Saint Catherine's Monastery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100530032612/http://www.cnewacanada.ca:80/ecc-bodypg-ca.aspx?IndexView=toc&eccpageID=29 to http://www.cnewacanada.ca/ecc-bodypg-ca.aspx?IndexView=toc&eccpageID=29
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The Mar Mattai monastery has been continuously operating since 363 AD.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.24.235.177 (talk) 01:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not even close to the oldest 

message: I would suggest updating the caption below the image of Saint Peter on this page. It currently reads "6th-century hot wax icon"—which is probably also correct—but not the full story. Having been to the monastery a few times, I did recall that is was one of the disciples, and luckily, the WikiMedia page confirmed it be Saint Peter.
For clarity, I suggest updating the caption to "6th-century hot wax icon depicting Saint Peter" or something similar. Thanks for your consideration. Airwhale (talk) 14:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Right... after logging in, I realized I could just edit that myself. Updated now. Airwhale (talk) 14:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please complete the caption on image of Saint Peter