Talk:Branch theory

Novel teachings and practices
I have added a neutrality tag to the "Novel teachings and practices" section. I do not believe this is a neutral portayal of the position of those who advocate the ordination of gay, lesbian and bisexual people within the Episcopal Church. Not being Anglican myself, however, I'm not totally comfortable making these changes. aliceinlampyland 19:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC).


 * This is important to discuss, but not with unverifiable statements in the style of an essay. I deleted it so someone knowledgeable can start again.  In theory it could say something like ''x, a Roman Catholic bishop, said  in 2005 that the Church cannot progress towards unity with Anglicanism until innovative  ECUSA doctrines y and z are reversed.  Commentator a says this is a widely held view in the Vatican.  Meanwhile, Anglo-Catholic theologians b and c and bishops d and e  said  that they no longer hold to branch theory

Neutrality and factual accuracy
A problem exists with this section of the article in that there is no evidence that amongst those churches in full communion with the Episcopal Church USA, that they do not claim apostolic succession (ELCA) and also the fact that as a member of the Anglican Communion through the Porvoo Communion (which was signed by the CofE) the ECUSA is in communion with Lutheran bodies in Europe that hold to apostolic succession and they are in communion with Lutheran bodies that hold to apostolic succession in the Lutheran World Federation (in the US: the ELCA). simonmatt1100 18:25 1 Apr 2007

Since when is the ROCOR indicative of Eastern Orthodox consensus?
As far as I know, it wasn't even in communion with the Russian Orthodox Patriarchate until 2007. Their opinions (and 'anathemas') hardly qualify as common Christian Orthodox ground. How about adding something more substantial to the Orthodox stance towards branch theory? 84.254.11.140 (talk) 18:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yet another street-preachers sermon!!
D-class or E-class! I don't believe it! I think it is 90% bogus, a frank and sneaky hoax. The article is mostly lacking references supporting the central discourse, which is that there is a "Branch theory" with adherents in various churches. The "article" uses seemingly relevant references to prove its point, not to support the central discourse. The current article seems like a grave WP:SYNTH. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 22:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The section Protestant claims that the general nonadherence to the doctrine of "apostolic succession" should disqualify it as a branch of "the church". That is either flawed logics - a non-sequitur - or due to that the article over this alleged theory lacks a proper definition. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 22:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Conflation of tradition and location by Andrew Phillips
This sentence seems dubious:

Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia Archpriest Andrew Phillips wrote:"For this reason [...] John Paul II has spoken [...] of the 'two-lung theory', [...] the idea of uniting [...] Orthodoxy and Catholicism, [...] this theory is unacceptable to the vast majority of Orthodox and also to more than a few Roman Catholics." He presents no evidence to support this claim, i.e. a questionable assumption that the metaphor "is unacceptable to Orthodox and  Roman Catholics". Phillips juxtaposes that with his claim:"[...] it is unacceptable because it presents the Church as having two parts, a Western part, Catholicism, and an Eastern part, Orthodoxy." then Phillips builds a straw man argument that the metaphor of one body breathing with two lungs:"[...] presents [...] a territorialist concept, that Orthodoxy is only for Easterners, and that Catholicism is only for Westerners. Church unity is all a mere matter of geography and culture." that he dispatches his straw man equivocation – of tradition and location – with ease:"This is obviously not the case, since there are Easterners who at present find a spiritual home in Catholicism, and Westerners who find a spiritual home in Orthodoxy." I could not find a WP:RELIABLE source that discusses or supports that segregation opinion. Phillips then returns to his claim by writing:"[...] the metaphor is untrue because the Church is not composed of parts of a body, [...] but of a single body, [...] the Church is the Body of Christ, [...] If the Church were two lungs, what would the heart or the stomach or the legs or the brain or any other organs or members represent? Either the Church is Roman Catholicism or else it is Orthodoxy. [...]" Phillips presents a bifurcation fallacy, a type of logical fallacy: "Either the Church is Roman Catholicism or else it is Orthodoxy" – the bifurcation excludes the option that it is both. He then proceeds to explain that:"From an Orthodox viewpoint, there is only one Church, that is the Orthodox Church. [...] It is [...] untrue to say that there is nothing outside the Orthodox Church. There are Roman Catholics closer to Orthodoxy than some Orthodox, [...] In fact, Catholicism, [...] is the heir to [...] first millennium [...] Orthodoxy." Phillips does not present a time frame for"When Catholicism was formed by Western people falling away from the Orthodox Church, they took with them [...] the Orthodox Christian Tradition of Western Europe." I do not think that Phillips is adequate to support the sentence at the top of this section. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Branch theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120426072046/http://orthodoxanglican.net/downloads/faith.pdf to http://orthodoxanglican.net/downloads/faith.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130411015820/http://www.vatican.va:80/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070608063950/http://www.westernorthodox.com:80/branch to http://www.westernorthodox.com/branch

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Branch theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.fordham.edu/images/theology/orthodoxy/orthodoxy%20in%20america%20taft.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150401153744/http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150204020124/http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031987_redemptoris-mater.html to http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031987_redemptoris-mater.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.westernorthodox.com/branch

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Evdokimov quote
I have adjusted the Evdokimov quote in the lede to clarify the use of "branch theory" in his book. Maximilian Aigner (talk) 15:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)