Talk:Eastern Orthodox Church/Archive 6

Oecumenical Councils
Within the article the following statement is made:

Some Orthodox consider two additional councils to be ecumenical, although this is not universally agreed upon (especially the ninth, which occurred after the East-West Schism)

My question is this: Who among the Orthodox does not accept the 8th and 9th ecumenical councils? As far as I know everyone in the Church accepts these. This passage also seems to imply that without Rome the council would not be ecumenical. This is, of course, nonsense since Rome was no longer a member of the Church. The Church does not require inviting former heretical members to participate in a council.--Phiddipus (talk) 21:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. This statement should go.--Michael X the White (talk) 10:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Wandered by and took a look at the list of Ecumenical councils. I, for one, was unaware that the Orthodox recognized more than seven, so I took a look at the main articles for the 8th and 9th.  Lo and behold, both mention that they are not recognized as ecumenical by all Orthodox Christians.  I'm going to restore some similar language to that objected in above.  Gabrielthursday (talk) 05:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Once again, Who among Orthodox do not accept these councils? Its not a true statement. All Orthodox accept these councils as valid.--Phiddipus (talk) 15:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Find a reference that they are universally or near-universally accepted. Take a look at the articles on the 8th and 9th councils- they say they are disputed.  Orthowiki likewise says they are disputed.  Other pages on Wikipedia reflect the view that they are disputed.  Given this, I'm reverting.  Gabrielthursday (talk) 04:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know what the correct answer is, but I'd suggest that editors support their positions by referencing reliable sources. For example, the Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern Christianity (2001 edition; ISBN: 0-631-18966-1) says that only the first seven are acknowledged as ecumentical (see pages 169 and 171-172.) Perhaps it's incorrect, but it's generally known as reliable. I'd like to know what other sources say on the matter.Majoreditor (talk) 02:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This page: http://www.holytrinityorthodox.com/calendar/los/Epiphany/e10121-SeventhEcumenicalCouncil.htm from a Moscow Patriarchate parish quotes the Synaxarion as stating, "The second Council of Nicaea is the seventh and last Ecumenical Council recognized by the Orthodox Church." I don't have a copy of the Synaxarion but perhaps someone who does could look up the quote and verify it. Googling the phrase "seventh and last ecumenical council" also produces legions of hits, many from Orthodox sources, though I couldn't find one that was unambiguously authoritative. It's perhaps worth noting that there are feast days for the Fathers of each of the (first) seven ecumenical councils, but none for the other two afaik. Mrhsj (talk) 20:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs of 1848 lists the Synod of Constantinople of 879/880 as the Eighth Ecumenical Synod and the Synods of Constantinople of the years 1341, 1347, and 1351 as the 9th. The pronouncements of these councils are dogmatic and absolutely accepted by the entire Orthodox Church. This alone makes them ecumenical. If your argument is that the Roman Catholics were not a part of the deliberation then I would remind you that their presence was not required since they were no longer a part of the church. They were also not the first to break from the Church, you might as well argue that no council was ecumenical after Chalcedon since the monophysites were not invited to any council after that. I really don't see why this is an issue? There are some things that just don't need backing up with the opinion of someone who happened to write it down. Are these councils universally accepted by the EASTERN ORTHODOX CHURCH, yes!. Are they Dogmatic? Yes!, then they are ecumenical by definition. If you want to know why so many Orthodox sources list only seven councils, well, I would say that whatever text they were referencing was probably written in the spirit of comparing our Church to others, specifically the Roman church; to point out similarities. In other words, it was dumbed down for the masses. You can find a lot of pseudo-scholarly work like this. Either that or it was written by a scholar outside the Orthodox Church who chose, for academic reasons to adopt an impartial point of view and look to western history books for his information; which gave him only one perspective (writing about the Eastern Orthodox Church from a Roman Catholic POV). Well, lets try getting our information from the horses mouth instead.


 * I see where the Encyclical speaks of the "eighth ecumenical council," in two places, thank you. I am afraid I am unable to locate where it speaks of the ninth; could you please provide direct quotes and section numbers? As to the rest of your comment I don't know what to make of it; who is the "you" you are addressing? Four editors besides you have contributed to this section, but none has said anything about Roman anything except you. Mrhsj (talk) 04:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The reality of the situation, to me, seems to be clearly between the two opposing sides of this conversation. Yes, it is entirely true that the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs labels the constantinopolitan council of 879 as the "Eighth Ecumenical Council". This is a document of great authority in the EOC, and as such I think that council should be identified as the Eighth Ecumenical Council. However, while the Fifth Council of Constantinople (1341) is accepted doctrinally by the whole Church, its status as the Ninth Ecumenical Council is much less established and is only championed by a few outspoken clergymen in the modern Church. I may personally agree with them, but I don't think it's anywhere near as evident that it is the mind of the ecumenical Church that the Fifth Council of Constantinople is the Ninth Ecumenical Council. Deusveritasest (talk) 04:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The point here is academic. There have been numerous councils held by the Church. At any given point in history, when these councils were held, the Church was invited to participate. Who belongs to the Church has a direct bearing on who was invited. If, after the Great Schism, it was the opinion of the Orthodox Church that Rome was no longer part of the Church then it was not necessary to invite them. If the council was convened and included bishops from around the world, if their pronouncements were dogmatic and affected our understanding of God and His Church, and if the entire Church has accepted these pronouncements then it cannot be denied that the Holy Spirit is at work here. It does not matter really how you number them. Numbering them is an abstract for historical records. All of these councils are accepted without question by the Orthodox Church. Should history scholars choose to label them ecumenical is irrelevant.--Phiddipus (talk) 02:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think the point is merely academic. The fact is that in contemporary Orthodox literature, the number of ecumenical councils is commonly given as seven, and while every parish in the world commemorates the Seven Ecumenical Councils liturgically, no eighth or ninth is so commemorated. This article should explain, neutrally, what the Orthodox Church actually says about the councils. It is not whether "history scholars" call them ecumenical, but whether the Church does. If we simply say there are eight or nine, without further explanation, readers will be left confused. I believe the fact is: the seven are universally accepted as ecumenical and universally called by the name "Ecumenical". The other two are accepted as having a similar level of authority, but the use of the word "Ecumenical" as a way of referring to those councils has not come into universal use. (Whether they *ought* to be called Ecumenical is a matter of opinion that I don't think needs to be discussed in the article.) Mrhsj (talk) 05:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually guys, this is something I've never really understood, and I'd appreciate some input here. I always thought an ecumenical council basically requires each and every bishop to be present. The original one was actually No. 0, given it was the day of Pentecost itself, that had all the apostles together. If the Copt bishops were at Chalcedon, how did they decide on it without them; I thought they operate on unanimity. So my understanding is the monophysites are non-chalcedonian because at Chalcedon they didn't accept all the findings. So how come anything was decided then ?? Please someone try and explain, I'm sure I've missed something again ! :S Eugene-elgato (talk) 10:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You may ask every bishop and every priest in Russian Orthodox Church: all of them will tell you, that there are 7 ecumenical councils. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.147.138.239 (talk) 00:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Russian Orthodox Episcopal Ordination.jpg
The image Image:Russian Orthodox Episcopal Ordination.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --21:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

"Eastern Orthodox Church"
This church does not call itself the Eastern Orthodox Church either in verbal or in written use, e.g. documents or liturgy. That name is somewhat archaic and is a name applied to it from others. It dates from a time when the Orthodox Church was primarily eastern, but that is no longer the case, since it exists all over the world. Even if one thinks (incorrectly) that Orthodox Christianity continues to exist only in places like Greece, Russia, etc. these areas are considered part of the Western world, not the Eastern world. The name also conflicts with Orthodox theology. According to Orthodox theology, the church is not eastern, but catholic. The usual name for the church today is the Orthodox Church. This is an acceptable name. In older usage, and still today in liturgical usage, it calls itself the Catholic Church (whose faith is the Orthodox faith), but to avoid confusion with the Roman Catholic Church (which also uses the name "Catholic Church" and considers its doctrine to be "Orthodox") most Orthodox sources by convention use the name "Orthodox Church." Since the name "Orthodox Church" is pretty well known in the West, there is really no reason for this article to be titled "Eastern Orthodox Church." Limepeel (talk) 14:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Have a look at a Google News search for Eastern Orthodox Chuch. The issue here is very similar to "Catholic Church" vs "Roman Catholic Church". The church those names refer to always uses the first, never the second, to refer to itself. But neutral sources prefer the second. Like it or not, "Eastern Orthodox Church" is in fact how neutral English language sources most commonly refer to the church we are talking about here. Mrhsj (talk) 04:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Not so. Of course, if you google "Eastern Orthodox Church" you're going to find only articles with that phrase. Try googling news articles with Orthodox Church -- without a date range -- and you'll find that articles without "Eastern" easily predominate. Furthermore, news sources are far from the most authoritative source. Books and religion articles are more likely to be authoritative, and if you look at books by Roman Catholics or Protestants (as well as by the Orthodox themselves), here too they are more likely to refer to "the Orthodox Church" rather than "the Eastern Orthodox Church." And this has been so for decades. And they are more likely to refer to "the Orthodox" rather than "the Eastern Orthodox." Limepeel (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC) (UTC)

Please, note that the church is called in most of the countries where this religion is dominant not under the name "Eastern Orthodox Church" but for example in Russia - Православие, in Poland - Prawoslawie etc. which means "The Law preacher". We should include it in the article as a "Pravoslavie" or something similar(name in the latin alphabet). No one calls it in Eastern Europe "Eastern Orthodox Church"...

--Krzyzowiec (talk) 23:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Pravoslavni is a direct Slavonic translation of the Greek word orthodoxe, meaning 'right belief' or 'right glory.' JALatimer (talk) 11:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, the official name of the Church is the "Orthodox Catholic Church", however this does not seem to be made clear enough in the article. Also, shouldn't the article Orthodox Catholic Church become a redirect here? (http://books.google.com/books?lr=&q=%22Orthodox+Catholic+Church%22+%22eastern+orthodox%22&sa=N&start=10) Cody7777777 (talk) 21:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The name "Orthodox Catholic Church" as a synonym for "Orthodox Church" is occasionally used, but I don't believe the usage is common or official. One popular book on world religions does call it "official" as you say but I don't think that is borne out by other sources. Since the Orthodox Church has no central administration it has no one official name. One of the most recent documents that could be considered an official one on behalf of the church, the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, initially calls the church simply, "the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church". Later it calls it simply the Catholic church. I think this mention should be removed from the lead per WP:UNDUE but feel free to add some discussion under the Nomenclature section. Mrhsj (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe, "officially" should not be used, but I still think this name is important (also "Eastern" is not used too much in most orthodox countries). Cody7777777 (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "Eastern Orthodox Church" is how the church is commonly referred to in English, and it is the right name to use in the title and Lead. I believe this was discussed extensively on this Talk page before it got archived. Yes, there are many other names, it is fine to discuss any important ones under Nomenclature. Mrhsj (talk) 22:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mrhsj. Majoreditor (talk) 02:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

(I wasn't suggesting a change of the title.) I believe there are enough sources here http://books.google.com/books?lr=&q=%22Orthodox+Catholic+Church%22+%22eastern+orthodox%22&sa=N&start=0 (most of the mentions in the sources here refer to the (Eastern) Orthodox Church) to justify the mention of this name ("Orthodox Catholic Church") in the lead. I cannot understand why someone would want to hide this alternate name, and the Orthodox wiki also mentions this name http://orthodoxwiki.org/Orthodox_Church. (Also, there are enough articles with multiple names in the lead on wikipedia.) Cody7777777 (talk) 17:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That search actually proves my point, I think. If you look closely through those search results, you will see that those texts that use "Orthodox Catholic Church" as a synonym for Eastern Orthodox Church are all quite old. Most are from the 1960s. The sources from the past decade or so clearly use the name in an historical context or in describing splinter sects. So this search bears out that "Orthodox Catholic Church" is an archaic name, not in current widespread use. Take a look at any current publications from Orthodox sources: the official websites of the OCA and GOA, recent books by Ware, McGuckin and the like. You will not find OCC used as a common name in any of them. Contemporary Orthodox call the church either "The Orthodox Church" or "The Eastern Orthodox Church". I still maintain that mention of this name belongs under Nomenclature and not in the lead. Mrhsj (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, not all of them are very old. The following are from the period 1999-2008: http://books.google.com/books?id=j7PtB2ehqKgC&pg=PA1&dq=%22Orthodox+Catholic+Church%22+%22eastern+orthodox%22&lr=, http://books.google.com/books?id=ARbQ8I7ZOjkC&pg=PA79&dq=%22Orthodox+Catholic+Church%22+%22eastern+orthodox%22&lr= , http://books.google.com/books?id=OT33-JOkEr4C&pg=PA161&dq=%22Orthodox+Catholic+Church%22+%22eastern+orthodox%22&lr=#PPA161,M1 , http://books.google.com/books?id=YW0RRBX1TAgC&pg=PA71&dq=%22Orthodox+Catholic+Church%22+%22eastern+orthodox%22&lr=#PPA71,M1 , http://books.google.com/books?id=ExySMgw4J58C&pg=PA176&dq=%22Orthodox+Catholic+Church%22+%22eastern+orthodox%22&lr= , http://books.google.com/books?id=i4pjCJJGzk8C&pg=PA51&dq=%22Orthodox+Catholic+Church%22+%22eastern+orthodox%22&lr=#PPA51,M1 , http://books.google.com/books?id=ZP_f9icf2roC&pg=PA309&dq=%22Orthodox+Catholic+Church%22+%22eastern+orthodox%22&lr=. Also, has the Orthodox Church ever renounced its claim to be the True Catholic Church? Cody7777777 (talk) 19:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It calls it Eastern at the start of the Greek Constitution Eugene-elgato (talk) 10:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * At Google Books I searched for the exact phrase "Orthodox Church." Most results were recent. Some were for Orthodox Church and some were for Eastern Orthodox Church (I didn't count how many of each). I then searched for "Orthodox Catholic Church" and a high percentage of the results were from the 1800s or early 1900s. Palmleaf (talk) 23:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the Orthodox Church has one official title. It can have to many titles: Pauline Christianity, Nicean Christianity, Catholic Christianity, Orthodox Christianity, Orthodox Catholic Christianity, Chalcedonian Christianity, Eastern Orthodox Christianity, Pravoslavne, etc.

Orthodox Church of Canada
I know that there is an Orthodox Chuch of Canada because I attended a wedding at one of their church buildings. There is no mention of it in this article, nor does it have its own article that I can find. They have a web site at http://www.orthodoxchurchofcanada.org. Ronstew (talk) 08:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as I know the various Orthodox congregations within Canada belong to jurisdictions based outside of Canada. Any group professing to be the "Orthodox Church of Canada" or the "Canadian Orthodox Church" is probably not legitamate.--Phiddipus (talk) 01:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The Orthodox Church Was NOT Founded By Christ and His Apostles Nearly 2000 Years Ago!
There is a major error right in the first paragraph of the article. It states that the Orthodox Church was founded by Christ and His apostles nearly 2000 years ago. This is blatantly wrong. The Orthodox Church was founded in the 11th century after the Great Schism. --PaladinWriter (talk) 10:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Both the claim with which you disagree and your own claim are equally POV. JALatimer (talk) 11:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. It states that the Orthodox Church considers itself to be the Church founded by Christ and the Apostles. Phrased that way, it is clearly not POV, unless for some reason you disagree that this is the teaching of the Orthodox Church. Further, where do you get the idea that it is a proven fact that the Eastern Orthodox Church is not the original Church of Christ? This appears to me to be an unsubstantiated POV. Deusveritasest (talk) 01:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that even Roman Catholic scholars would disagree to the opening statement. The Orthodox and the Roman Catholics were the same Church for the first thousand years of Christianity though there were fairly clear distinctions between the East and West. Both sides (after the Great Schism) consider themselves to be the continuation of that original church and consequently the other side to be in error. This is that churches POV. This article is about the Orthodox Church and so, their POV is expressed here. It is from that perspective that while the Orthodox Church has continued to preserve the traditions and teaching of the apostles and the patristic fathers, the Roman Catholics have radically changed from that original path. I realize that your perspective is probably the opposite. To debate this issue is pointless.--Phiddipus (talk) 01:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

"The Orthodox Church was founded in the 11th century"

Founded by who? In order to say that, you have to agree that Cardinal Humbert founded the Orthodox Church by "excommunicating" 1 patriarch. The whole issue is too complex and to keep this article neutral, we must say the churches split from each other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.172.76 (talk) 03:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Both the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church were part of a (roughly) unified church for the first several centuries of Christianity. The vast majority of Roman Catholic scholars would consider that the Orthodox church wasn't "founded" in the 11th century, but was established in Apostolic times. Majoreditor (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This all based in the idea that there were actually two distinct dogmatic traditions present within the Pre-Schism Church? Deusveritasest (talk) 05:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Er, no. There was more or less unity on dogma during and for some period following the Patristic era. For example, both East and West embraced Gregory the Theologian's views on Trinity. Majoreditor (talk) 05:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * There are a number of dogmatic traditions upon which the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church have disagreed upon, even going back before 1054. And if we believe that the Church can only be one in its dogmatic tradition, then this means that the first millenium Church was either one with the Roman Catholic Tradition or the Eastern Orthodox Tradition. And depending on the answer to that problem, the first millenium Church is either identified as Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. To suggest that the pre-Schism Church was somehow a combination of both what we understand today to be Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy seems a little naive. Deusveritasest (talk) 21:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The Church of the first millenium was a combination of various traditions, united by not only by general agreement in dogma but also through mutual respect. Note that both the East and the West participated in seven euchumenical councils, up through Nicea II in 787. Sure, there were differneces in dogma and politics which grew more pronounced over time, particularly from thre eighth century onward. Majoreditor (talk) 01:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * If then, you admit that the early Church was united in dogma, and if you recognize that Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy represent two distinct dogmatic traditions, then it logically cannot be proclaimed that the early Church consisted both of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Deusveritasest (talk) 06:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're right (and I think you are), the question becomes: which group, Eastern Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism, has faithfully carried on the dogmatic tradition of united Church? However, this article, which intends to be a neutral, factual entry describing the Orthodox Church, is not the place to answer that question. JALatimer (talk) 09:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the question of which one is "correct" isn't going to be answered in Wikipedia. Majoreditor (talk) 14:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You have simply restated what was already stated, that both sides claim to remain the original church. We have had this discussion many times here over the years; the best course of action seems to be to avoid making comparisons between the two churches. As far a dogmatic unity you have to bear in mind the historical context: you have an empire that stretches thousands of miles with hundreds of cities and no mass communication. As Eastern and Western Christianity developed differences arose. Most of these were dealt with and resolved in ecumenical councils, but it took hundreds of years to resolve them. Plus you had wars and invasions that cut off the scholars east from West for centuries. And finally you must understand that it is in the last thousand years that the Eastern and Western Churches have grown so far apart, my guess that in the 11th and 12th century the differences were almost invisible to the average Christian.--Phiddipus (talk) 22:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, I don't think Wikipedia is here to answer which of the two bodies is the dogmatic continuation of the 1st millenium Church. The point that I was trying to make was simply counter the statement that the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church were two equal parts of the 1st millenium Church and that the Schism simply involved the sundering of those two parts. On the level of dogmatic theology, such a statement doesn't really make sense. Deusveritasest (talk) 23:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That’s just it; the addition to the creed of the filioque clause by the Roman Catholics is considered by Orthodox theologians to be a major difference. It is also directly related to the papal issue. It changes the relationship of the Trinity creating a hierarchy of being which lends itself to the concept of papal authority; the other major problem. These two major problems lead to the breach.--Phiddipus (talk) 02:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We're agreeing, right? Deusveritasest (talk) 05:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think so. Prior to the split, because of wars and lack of communication, because the level of scholarship sank very low in the West, a few new-fangled ideas crept into Western thinking. As communication resumed between the two sides the differences became more pronounced and ultimately lead to a split; but it was hardly a 50/50 split. It was a handful of bishops from the West who split from the vast majority of bishops associated with the East. And it is only in the last hundred years that the RC has become larger than the Orthodox (mainly because of communism). --Phiddipus (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I would say largely also because much of the colonial imperialism that has been going on in the past 500 years has been on the part of Roman Catholic societies and barely at all by Orthodox societies. Deusveritasest (talk) 00:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It was definetly founded by Jesus and his Apostles. at least the religion. and when its the religion, its the founder. who they started it off with. and I do not entirely think that its the Catholic church. its different. the sign of the cross is different. the date of easter is different and almost every year on the same day. once in march and the next in may. I believe this article should be totally relooked at. ~Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.248.140.247 (talk) 17:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Leadership of the Ecumenical Patriarch
There was a recent edit done on the leadership of the Ecumenical Patriarch. The current revision reads: "Later, in the 11th century, because of the split with Rome (the great East-West Schism), the honour of presiding over general councils was transferred to the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, and he was given the title primus inter pares (first among equals), reflecting his administrative leadership and his spiritual equality." The phrase in bold to me sounds a little bit like papal supremacy, and I'm wondering what others here think of it? Deusveritasest (talk) 06:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, the Ecumenical Patriarch has no administrative authority over the other patriarchates. JALatimer (talk) 09:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The phrase is misleading, I think it should've rather been "...reflecting his spiritual leadership and his administrative equality." Cody7777777 (talk) 20:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Correctly stated, the Patriarch, when performing his administrative duty acts as the leader of an ecumenical council composed of all bishops; while spiritually he has no more authority than any other bishop, even the lowliest bishop. No bishop can override another bishop on spiritual matters. So correctly stated the Patriarch has administrative authority and spiritual equality. There is a famous story from the desert fathers that a man, for committing some minor sin was told by his bishop that he could eat only bread and water until the bishop said otherwise. But before the bishop could release the man from his penance the bishop died. The man, in distress, asked another bishop for release, but was told that he could not override the previous bishop’s punishment. So the man went all the way to the patriarch and asked him for release. The patriarch held council with a number of other bishops but in the end told the poor man that unfortunately he would be eating bread and water for the rest of his life because they simply did not have the authority to override the bishop’s instructions. The Pope of Rome however is considered to be spiritually superior haveing authority of all Roman Catholics even other bishops and cardinals. --Phiddipus (talk) 22:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the clarifications about his spiritual role, but I still think that the part about his administrative role should be changed a bit (it can cause misunderstanding), maybe this way "...reflecting his administrative duty as president of a council and his spiritual equality."? Cody7777777 (talk) 12:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand your objection. The only way to clarify something is to state it correctly. You are correct that the Orthodox Church does not have a Pope who leads the Church in spiritual matters. As far as spiritual leadership every bishop leads his designated see. But if the question is who ranks first in the administration of the Orthodox Church then the answer is the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. When it comes down to it admnistratively the other patriarchs would defer to the See of Constantinople. This arrangement is prescribed by cannons 2 and 3 of the 2nd ecumenical council.--Phiddipus (talk) 00:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * When it comes to administration of their particular dioceses, the Patriarchs need not defer to anyone else. Even at the level of their Patriarchate, the Patriarch still has hierarchical authority, but usually he will defer to the Synod of the Patriarchate to make decisions on the level of the autocephalous Church. On the level of the Church ecumenical, no particular bishop is looked to to make decisions, but rather they are make collectively by a synod of the Church. So I don't understand where you are coming from in saying "when it comes down to it administratively the other patriarchs would defer to the See of Constantinople". Furthermore, the Patriarch of Constantinople is frequently referred to as the "spiritual father" of the Eastern Orthodox Church. In being the first among equals and the Ecumenical bishop, Orthodox writers seem to infer that the Bishop of Constantinople plays a symbolic spiritual role for all the Church. Deusveritasest (talk) 08:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing administration with spiritual direction. There are two sides to the structure of the Church; one that deals with the preservation and spiritual direction of the Body of Christ, and one that deals with records, meetings, paperwork, finances, and overall administration of the Church. One is spiritual while the other is mundane. The mundane structure of the church is basically laymen, monastics, and the priesthood. Within the priesthood there are deacons, presbyters, and bishops. Amongst bishops there are retired bishops, acting bishops, archbishops, metropolitans, and Patriarchs. There is also a hierarchy among patriarchs with Constantinople on top (originally Rome, but they are out). When it comes to mundane things there is an overall etiquette that less important bishops defer to more prominent ones. In any particular synod most will defer to their president – of course they may decide mundane things by vote but we are talking about when they don’t. The same goes for the ultimate situation of an ecumenical council, the same etiquette applies for mundane things - all would defer to Constantinople. When it comes to dealing with spiritual matters all bishops are equal. Spiritually the Patriarch and a lowly bishop are on the same level. In council each has one vote and the opinion of the one has the same weight as the other. They do not defer to anyone in spiritual matters. If the Patriarch wanted to condemn a particular heresy he could not do it alone nor would his opinion carry any more weight than any other bishops. Yes, Constantinople is often referred to as the “spiritual father” of the Church but this, once again is etiquette. I doubt anyone would consider the heretic Nestorios to have been a “Spiritual Father” of the Church.--Phiddipus (talk) 22:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

On Marriage
Now that the homosexuality thing seems to have resolved itself, did anyone else think that the long parenthetical in regards to the ring placement was in no way neutral?

[quote](It has always been the tradition of the Church to place the wedding ring on the right hand of the couple based on biblical references. This is seen very clearly in one of the prayers in the Betrothal Service. A portion of the prayer refers to the biblical references: “For You, O Lord, have declared that a pledge is to be given and held inviolate in all things. By a ring Joseph was given might in Egypt; by a ring Daniel was exalted in Babylon; by a ring our heavenly Father showed compassion upon His prodigal son, for He said, ‘Put a ring upon his right hand, kill the fatted calf, and let us eat and rejoice.’ Your own right hand, O Lord, armed Moses in the Red Sea. By word of Your truth were the Heavens established and the earth set upon her sure foundations; and the right hands of Your servants shall be blessed by Your mighty word, and by Your uplifted arm.” As we see, it was scripturally the practice to wear rings on the right hand, the hand of authority and power completing the pledge of commitment. The power and authority comes from the right hand of God. The practice of wearing rings on the left hand is rooted in superstition that says that there is a vein that goes from the left hand directly to the heart. This medieval superstition, like many others, was brought to America from Western Europe no doubt. Unfortunately, too many people today just follow what the majority in society do without truly understanding its meaning. Hopefully, with education and faith we will maintain the richness and meaningfulness of the Orthodox faith.)[/quote]

Just because it's parenthetical, does not mean that an author's bias should be allowed through.

128.211.241.105 (talk) 15:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The central confusion on the Orthodox position is between the condition of a person (currently thought of in terms of "gay" and "straight") and the commission of the sexual act. The Orthodox position on marriage and homosexuality is frequently misunderstood as a condemnation of the person, rather than the act. Furthermore, it IS POV to attempt to hide this fact in a partisan effort to make the Church look bigoted. There is nothing "POV" about making a clarification of the position and citing references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rusmeister (talk • contribs) 04:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have read your source (http://www.oca.org/DOCmarriage.asp?SID=12&ID=26), but I don't see where it writes that "only the act (not the desire) is condemned". In Orthodoxy, sin is considered usually to be more a spiritual disease (which appeared when man separated himself from God), rather than a judiciary/legalistic act. So, it can be said, that the desire for doing things against God's will, is a result of sin (not sin a result of the act alone). So, as long as they don't stop the sinful desire, they won't be able to heal themselves (and they'll continue in sin and do sinful acts). Cody7777777 (talk) 12:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

This is close, but not a correct understanding of Orthodoxy. We CAN'T "stop our desires". We can only choose to act on them or not. You can get confirmation by e-mailing Fr John Matusiak at oca.org (the e-mail link is on the website)- he'll cheerfully answer your questions better than I can - but it is critical to understand that Orthodoxy sees EVERYONE as "broken" - just in different ways. We are all condemned by sin - and saved by Christ. This includes alcoholics, homosexuals, and me. We have to repent and fight the temptation to sin. The cross of same-sex attraction is considered a particularly difficult one to bear, imo, but the sin is in giving into the temptation, not in experiencing it. This distinction is critical for understanding that the Orthodox Church welcomes ALL and treats no one different, no matter what they are suffering from - but neither does it try to pretend that they are "all right" and not suffering from anything, and in Orthodoxy, same-sex attraction is an initially good desire bent the wrong way.

The article is specific that it is only the act condemned and that people suffering from the desire are to be treated with mercy and compassion.

[quote]Men and women with homosexual feelings and emotions are to be treated with the understanding, acceptance, love, justice and mercy due to all human beings.

People with homosexual tendencies are to be helped to admit these feelings to themselves and to others who will not reject or harm them. They are to seek assistance in discovering the specific causes of their homosexual orientation, and to work toward overcoming its harmful effects in their lives.

Persons struggling with homosexuality who accept the Orthodox faith and strive to fulfill the Orthodox way of life may be communicants of the Church with everyone else who believes and struggles. Those instructed and counselled in Orthodox Christian doctrine and ascetical life who still want to justify their behavior may not participate in the Church’s sacramental mysteries, since to do so would not help, but harm them.[/quote] I'll ask that, as I have provided the references and that they do specify this important point, that you leave it be. There is enough here to establish NPOV; and to erase it indicates a partisan POV. Rusmeister (talk) 18:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * There are other users more experienced than me to answer this question, but as far as I see the question here is, if the sinful desire is condemned or not. People with sinful desires are, of course, to be treated with understanding, acceptance, love, justice and mercy, but that doesn't mean that their sinful desires are also accepted (if those desires would be accepted, then there won't be any reason to fight against them). There is a difference between tolerance and acceptance. Also, to stop (or to weaken) our sinful desires, we must replace our sinful desires, with the desire to love and obey God. Cody7777777 (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The OCA =/= the Eastern Orthodox Church, and therefore citing the teaching of the OCA does not qualify as a satisfactory proof of the teaching of the EOC ecumenical. Secondly, to bring up the subject of homosexuality all of a sudden right in the midst of a section about marriage certainly does appear to be straying from the topic. Perhaps if the subject were generally about sexuality it would work, but this is not the case. Deusveritasest (talk) 20:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

This subject is inappropriate here. It is thoroughly delt with in an article entitles the Orthodox view of sin.--Phiddipus (talk) 00:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It is obvious that one of the chief topics in the news these days IS the establishment of homosexual marriage. As such, it is entirely relevant to marriage. Why you should have such a strong interest in hiding that connection is beyond me. It is related to both sin and marriage, and as such is relevant to both topics. Deusveritas - you need to identify what precisely you mean by "EOC Ecumenical". Evidently you misinterpret the idea of the unity of Orthodox dogma as the idea that there is a central body, similar to the Vatican that posts internet references binding on all. This is not the case for Orthodoxy. We share common dogma, and the OCA conveniently posts it in English. if this is insufficient, I can post Russian, Greek and other references, but you probably won't be able to read them. As a courtesy to English readers on the English wikipedia I post from the most authoritative sources available in English. There IS no English speaking body more authoritative than the OCA. It is the final court of authority for the Orthodox position and is identical to the position held by Orthodox Churches worldwide.

Since on this issue I evidently have to satisfy you personally, and expect that there is nothing within the framework of what is that will ever satisfy you, we are at an impasse. Rusmeister (talk) 05:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Phippidus, claiming that the Orthodox view (which I have referenced - SCOBA is a highly authoritative body, and the statement is a pan-Orthodox statement) as "reactionary" is very POV, and your claim of "inappropriate" is unsubstantiated. Since it IS the understanding of that definition that is being challenged, it is appropriate to inform the public exactly what the Orthodox understanding is. Rusmeister (talk) 03:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I moved the mention of Same-Sex Marriage to the end of the marriage section, and added another relevant citation. The Orthodox Church does take stands on political and social issues, and on this one the position is pretty clear and unequivocal. In light of recent political events there is intense public interest in where religious bodies stand on this issue, so it is notable enough to be mentioned somewhere in the article. But the main focus of the Marriage section should be what the Orthodox Church teaches about Orthodox marriage. If the article weren't already too long I might suggest a section specifically devoted to where the church stands on contemporary social issues, but for now a mention of this in the Marriage section seems like the best solution. Mrhsj (talk) 15:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Explaining the role of the Great Schism in "founding" the Eastern Orthodox Church
OK... before everybody jumps on me, I am not going to argue that the Eastern Orthodox Church was founded in the 11th century by the Great Schism. However, after reading the "EOC was NOT founded by JC and the apostles" section above, I realized that this article does a poor job of presenting this important point about the EOC. We fail here by only presenting the POV of the EOC and not that of the Western Church as well.

I'm not sure what the EOC believes about the Western church but I will tell you that most of the Western church sees the Eastern church as being schismatic rather than heretical. That is, the Western church (Roman, Anglican and mainstream Protestants) do not see insupreable difficulties in dogma and see the differences as being primarily about church leadership. Thus, the West would NOT argue that it is the only true church and that the East is dogmatically "wrong". The Romans would argue that the East is part of the true church but that its leadership are unwilling to accept the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. (yes, this is a gross oversimplification but I believe it is the essence of the Western position). Yes, there are doctrinal differences such as the "Filioque" but at least some Romans see these as resolvable.

I believe that we should not limit ourselves to expressing the EOC's POV in this article but also those of the Christian community as a whole. Clearly, the focus of the article must be the EOC. However, failing to describe the historical context of the Great schism and the EOC's relationship with the Western church today gives the reader an unbalanced understanding.

There is a tendency to assert "this article is about the EOC and therefore should be written from the EOC's POV". This is not in keeping with Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. NPOV suggests that we should write about the EOC from an neutral POV, not from the EOC's POV. Of course, a neutral POV would include a description of the EOC's POV but it should also include the POV's of others including the Western church.

Most people consider that there was one church founded by JC and the apostles. (Well, some people assert that the early church consisted of a plurality of competing traditions but we can leave that alone for now.) Most of today's churches claim to have inherited the mantle from that original church. Are all those churches dogmatically "correct"? Hard to see how that could be so but, as said by others, it is not Wikipedia's role to determine which church has the correct dogma.

I think that the article East-West Schism gives a passable explanation of the origins of the Great Schism (that is, that the one church started to grow apart with the fall of the Western Empire at the end of the 5th century). Does a marriage end when the divorce is final? No. The marriage starts to fall apart much earlier but those seeds of divorce can only be recognized as such when the divorce becomes inevitable.

I think these points need to be made in the lead so as to make it clearer that, while the EOC claims to be the continuation of the original church, it is not the only church to make that claim. And, while the EOC may be the continuation of the original church founded by JC and the apostles, it was certainly not called the "Eastern Orthodox Church" in the apostolic era so it might be useful to explain when that name came to be used.

--Richard (talk) 01:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Richard, This topic has been discussed numerous times in the past. If you were to review the article from, let us say, two years ago it would seem like the Orthodox Church defines itself by what the Roman Catholic church is not. Every line was a comparison of the two Churches. The relative truth is that the two Churches are now 1000 years apart. In the end the article became laborious to read (more laborious than it is with just the Orthodox viewpoint). What was ultimately decided was that this is an encyclopedia. The article on Eastern Orthodoxy should be about that subject and the article about the Roman Catholics should be about that subject. Let the reader make his own comparisons and contrasts.


 * Now, as concerns a more detailed explanation of the Great Schism the problem is that both sides see it completely differently and both sides can site numerous texts to back up their POV, but when it comes down to it it becomes a far greater subject than could be discussed here in this encyclopedia, so, once again we stick to the viewpoint at hand and ignore comparisons. Let the reader, if he is really interested, do his own research and comparison.--Phiddipus (talk) 02:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a difference between presenting a neutral point of view and presenting all points of view. The former, not the latter is what Wikipedia requires. The article needs to state how the EOC understands itself, without appearing to take sides on whether that understanding is correct, and that is what it does. It is not necessary to state how the Coptic Church views the EOC, how the Armenian Church views the EOC, how the Old Believers view the EOC, how the Jews view the EOC, how atheists view the EOC, how Muslims view the EOC, how the Catholic Church view the EOC, how the Baptists view the EOC, and so ad infinitum. You appear to be suggesting that of all the opinions in the world about the EOC, the Catholic one is so important that it requires mentioning in the lead. I don't see why that particular POV should have that privilege. (Does the lead for the article on the Catholic Church say anything about what the EOC thinks of the CC?) I think the lead is sufficiently NPOV as it stands. Mrhsj (talk) 04:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I do agree with bot Mrhsj and Phiddipus on this matter. I don't think the opinion of the RCC on the status of the EOC is really a subject matter that coincides with the discussion of the EOC itself. It might be OK for it to be present here. But I don't think there has been sufficient reason provided for us to push for it to be here. Deusveritasest (talk) 09:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I also agree with Mrhsj, Phiddipus and Deusveritasest. The articles about other religions don't mention the (Eastern) Orthodox opinion about their religions. Cody7777777 (talk) 18:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Length
I really do think that this article is a little long winded at this point and that we should start discussing what content should be moved to another related article or simply dropped. Deusveritasest (talk) 09:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep. I've considered killing two birds with one stone: just going through and removing every paragraph that has no citations. But I'm not quite that bold. Mrhsj (talk) 14:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The main problem is how to explain what Orthodoxy is without making comparisons yet giving enough information to distinguish it from other Christian Churches. On almost every point Orthodoxy differes in some way from the rest of Christianity. I think we have tried to limit what we say here, but we have a lot to say. Removing paragraphs that have no citations would not be fair. Orthodoxy grew organically from its foundations, it was not constructed by scholars. It was rarely reactionary, rather others reacted to it. Also, scholarship in English is very limited and of a fairly low quality, at the same time the writers here are not schooled in Greek, Syriac, and Slavonic. Most of what is written here is by mutual agreement of the Orthodox readers.--Phiddipus (talk) 22:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd phrase it another way. It's harder to acquire scholarly books and articles on Orthodoxy than it is on Western Christianity, at least in the English-speaking world. But that doesn't mean that there isn't a fair amount of high-quality works written in English. Take, for example, the excellent books published by St. Vladimir's Seminar Press. Unfortunately, you're not likely to be exposed to them or other fine works on Orthodoxy unless you happen to visit a one of the better academic libraries. For those who are fortunate enough to be able to do so, there are real treasures on the shelves.
 * Back to the question of what to do with the article length. I don't recommend wholesale deletion of uncited paragraphs. Wikipedia policy doesn't require a citation for each paragraph; rather, citations are required for quotations, statistics, controversial statements, etc. And of course, adding citations is a great way to improve the article. I did just that with Gregory the Theologian and got it from Start-class to FA-class.
 * Perhaps the best way to skinny down this article is to spin off hefty sections into daughter articles. That way we preserve content, create more articles on Orthodoxy (linked back to the parent article, of course), and reduce this article's length. Does someone want to give it a go? Majoreditor (talk) 02:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that sounds like a great strategy. I don't know if I could personally put a lot of work into it though, no. Deusveritasest (talk) 03:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

We have done this before, in fact I spearheaded the effort a couple years ago. You have to ask yourself which essential points about Orthodoxy define who we are, what we believe, and what we practice. You end up with our basic beliefs about The Trinity, Christ, the Theotokos, Saints, The next life, human nature, sin, heaven, and hell. Our practices, Services, hierarchical structure, Mysteries, Icons, Church Architecture, Chanting, incense, and the calendar. Then there is our history, you have the early Church, the Golden Byzantine age, the ecumenical councils, The fall of empires, the rise of others, communism, and finally the church today. Then ask yourself what can I cut without leaving a gaping hole. The article used to be crazy disorganized and much longer. If you feel you can consolidate without opening the path to gross misinterpretations of what the Orthodox believe and practice, by all means do so.--Phiddipus (talk) 05:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Orthodox Catholic
Occasionally someone tries to insert the term Orthodox Catholic into this article as a valid and common name for the Eastern Orthodox Church. While technically The EOC is Catholic (in the sense that it is universal) and, in fact uses this term formally as the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, it has publically never used the term to avoid confusion with the Roman Catholic Church. There are a number of illegitimate churches calling themselves Orthodox Catholic, but they are not in any way affiliated with the EOC. See: Orthodox_Catholic_Church. Also, there are alternate names for the EOC that are common, namely the Greek Orthodox or Russian Orthodox Church. These names are highly familiar even to non Orthodox. We originally had a number of these names in the opening description but just as the section entitled (number of adherents" has grown to ridiculous proportions so did every group of Orthodox want their name listed in the first sentence. It was decided to drop the reference and add an explanation later in the article.--Phiddipus (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I had already posted in an above section called "Eastern Orthodox Church" the following sources http://books.google.com/books?lr=&q=%22Orthodox+Catholic+Church%22+%22eastern+orthodox%22&sa=N&start=0 (most of the mentions in the sources here refer to the (Eastern) Orthodox Church), the following are from the period 1999-2008: http://books.google.com/books?id=j7PtB2ehqKgC&pg=PA1&dq=%22Orthodox+Catholic+Church%22+%22eastern+orthodox%22&lr=, http://books.google.com/books?id=ARbQ8I7ZOjkC&pg=PA79&dq=%22Orthodox+Catholic+Church%22+%22eastern+orthodox%22&lr= , http://books.google.com/books?id=OT33-JOkEr4C&pg=PA161&dq=%22Orthodox+Catholic+Church%22+%22eastern+orthodox%22&lr=#PPA161,M1 , http://books.google.com/books?id=YW0RRBX1TAgC&pg=PA71&dq=%22Orthodox+Catholic+Church%22+%22eastern+orthodox%22&lr=#PPA71,M1 , http://books.google.com/books?id=ExySMgw4J58C&pg=PA176&dq=%22Orthodox+Catholic+Church%22+%22eastern+orthodox%22&lr= , http://books.google.com/books?id=i4pjCJJGzk8C&pg=PA51&dq=%22Orthodox+Catholic+Church%22+%22eastern+orthodox%22&lr=#PPA51,M1 , http://books.google.com/books?id=ZP_f9icf2roC&pg=PA309&dq=%22Orthodox+Catholic+Church%22+%22eastern+orthodox%22&lr= (and there are also others). The Orthodox wiki also mentions this name somewhere in the lead http://orthodoxwiki.org/Orthodox_Church. To me it seems clear that this term is used most of the time to refer to the Eastern Orthodox Church, so I can't see what is wrong to mention this name as an alternate in the lead. Also, the article Orthodox Catholic Church should become a redirect here. Cody7777777 (talk) 21:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Your first source is a modern reprint of a book first published in 1866, so it is of no value as a modern source. The second is a broad survey book of major world religions and is not a high quality source about Orthodoxy; it simply asserts without evidence that OCC is the "official" name -- an assertion that may well have simply been lifted from Britannica or some such older work. The third simply states "The Orthodox Church also sometimes calls itself 'The Orthodox Catholic Chuch'" -- that statement supports mentioning this as a detail in the Nomenclature section. The fourth does not use directly OCC as a name for the church but simply quotes an old liturgical text that does. The fifth does not use "Orthodox Catholic Church" as a name for the church at all but rather uses "Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church" as the name (shall we add that one to the lead too?). The sixth likewise does not use the name OCC as a synonym for EOC but only contains the name "Russian Orthodox Catholic Church in America". Then finally we have an "Encyclopedia of World Religions" -- not very good as a primary source about Orthodoxy. Mrhsj (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding the first source, since it is a reprint, it means it is still read today. The sources shown prove that in english the name "Orthodox Catholic Church" usually refers to the Eastern Orthodox Church, english readers should be informed about this in the article. Cody7777777 (talk) 22:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Shakespeare is still read today; that doesn't mean that his works are a good guide to contemporary English usage. I agree that the name "Orthodox Catholic Church" usually refers to the EOC and that this should be mentioned in the article. I just observe that it isn't used all that often and doesn't need mentioning in the opening of the article. We appear to have consensus on this so can we close this discussion now? Mrhsj (talk) 00:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There were other sources more newer than Overbeck in the link above, but I agree that it isn't used often. Cody7777777 (talk) 00:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I have a few questions and comments on this topic:

1. Why is it important in the first place for this statement to be present in the lead or even the article in general?

2. If you read some of the catechisms of the Church and also some of the synods and encyclicals of the past 500 years, there are quite a number of references to the Eastern Orthodox Church as the "(One), Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church", the "Catholic Church", the "Holy Catholic Church", and even the "Orthodox Catholic Church". I don't think you can really make an argument against proclaiming such as illegitimate. And yes, some of the highest authorities have used these names publicly, for example in the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs.

3. Perhaps some of more recent leaders within the Church have avoided referring to the EOC as Catholic because of ecumenist sensitivities, but such a trend does not override the Tradition of the Church. If someone proclaims the EOC as the Catholic Church, we most certainly cannot cast out their statement as if it were incorrect.

4. So, if calling the EOC the Orthodox Catholic Church is not lacking in truth or authoritative validation, then what is the motivation behind denying it as a part of the article? Deusveritasest (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding question 1, if the article Orthodox Catholic Church is turned into a redirect here, then it would be preferable for this name to be mentioned in the lead as an alternate. Cody7777777 (talk) 22:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll leave question 1 to advocates for the current text. Questions 2-4 are strawmen. No one has disputed that OCC is one of the legitimate names for the church or objected to mentioning it in the article. I just believe it is not important enough to deserve the prominent placement it has now. Mrhsj (talk) 22:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The short answer is that it's not important enough to appear in the lead, but can be mentioned in the Nomeclature section. Take a look at the Wikipedia site traffice reports and you'll find that "Orthodox Catholic Church" gets few hits. I'd also suggest using a more up to date, scholarly reference than Overbeck. Majoreditor (talk) 20:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The source used was a reprint from the year 2008, proving that Overbeck is still read today (but, of course, other sources could be found). I don't think the name "Eastern Orthodox Church" should be left alone in the lead (while it may be in common usage, it cannot describe the Orthodox (Catholic) Church in the best way), maybe it should be mentioned in the lead that the Church considers itself as the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church". Also, since the article Orthodox Catholic Church is now a redirect here, there should be some mentions of the name (I believe it would've make more sense to show this in the lead). (Also, (although it probably isn't important) the article Assyrian Church of the East has in the lead the name "Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East", and I doubt that it is a very common name, so why shouldn't this article also have in the lead a less common name?) Cody7777777 (talk) 21:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

In any way, all christian churches claim catholicity and all apply to themselves the terms "One, Holy, Catholic". The Orthodox church is catholic in the sense that it is accepted as being of the major christian dogmas on the planet. s much as I know, both Western Roman and Eastern Orthodox churches have in their official documents references to their catholicity, but only the Western Roman Church uses it as a title. The Eastern Orthodox church has never used it as an official title, at least not as "Orthodox Catholic".--Michael X the White (talk) 21:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, as far as I know, the Orthodox Church doesn't use "eastern" too much as an official title either. So, this name should not be left alone in the lead, I believe it should be mentioned in the lead the the Orthodox Church, considers itself to be the true "Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" (I preferred "Orthodox Catholic Church" since in contained the word "Orthodox" too). It was already mentioned by other users above, that this name ("Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church") appears in the "Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848" (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1848orthodoxencyclical.html), more than this, it is the name mentioned in the Creed (and I can't find a more official document) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_versions_of_the_Nicene_Creed_in_current_use#In_the_Eastern_Orthodox_Churches), so this should be mentioned in the lead. Cody7777777 (talk) 00:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I am fine with Cody's recent edit . Nice work, Cody. Majoreditor (talk) 14:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. However, I don't think my edit was special in any way. Cody7777777 (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, do you speak Greek?? If you do, read this:| verdict of the 9th Panorthodox Synod (site of the Church of Greece). The first paragraph (verdict 1) says: "The teaching of the Orthodox Church is the teaching of Christ. The Christ has given it and the Church has received it. The teaching of Christ is ONE. The faith of the Church is ONE. And the Church is ONE. The Church is "the pillar and the base of truth" (A' Tim. 3,15). This is the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, so the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Church's truth is self-guarded within the unbreakable apostolic succession of the clergy and the faith.".--Michael X the White (talk) 18:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't speak Greek, but I'll trust your translation. Thank you, for informing me. But, as far as I know, Orthodox Christians usually call it as the "Orthodox Church" or the "Orthodox Christian Church", "Eastern Orthodox" is more used in the west. Cody7777777 (talk) 18:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Virginity
I have issues with this statement: "Virginity, however, is seen as a higher state since one participates in the immediate relationship with God and is not distracted by having to serve a wife or husband (1 Corith:7 esp.32-33)". For one, it doesn't really appear that the cited passage exactly vindicates the opinion that virginity/celibacy is a "higher state" than marriage. Especially if you read a few more passages in, Paul says that he is addressing this to in no way hinder those in the married life. Secondly, I've seen this issue addressed a few times by Orthodox authorities, and from what I can remember it was mostly condemned as a form of anti-Sacramentalist pseudo-Gnosticism. I would prefer to simply drop the phrase, but would like to get others' opinions first. Deusveritasest (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Orthodoxy has always maintained that ones relationship with God is by far more important that one’s relationship with other people. That is not to say that our relationships with one another are unimportant but rather that ultimately God will have us all to himself. St Paul makes it quite clear that although it is not a sin to get married and thus have relations with one’s spouse, it would be better if one kept his virginity and devoted his life to God. The very fact that we Orthodox have such a strong and vibrant monastic branch indicates its high regard for virginity. And since the monastic calling and virginity are by far more difficult to maintain and because their rewards are more sublime I think it is quite valid to call it a "higher" state.--Phiddipus (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Albania
Hello, an editor recently added this sentence to the section on adherents:


 * In Albania the adherents number around 15% out of a 25% Christian population, the other beign Christian Catholic.

I am not entirely sure what the sentence is supposed to convey, but it seems to contradict the Religion in Albania article's description of most Albanians as being atheist or agnostic. Does anybody know what the actual facts are? Thank you, Loves  Macs  (talk) 17:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Traditionally Albania had been, before the athiest rule of Enver Hoxha, 70% Moslem Bektashi, 20% (Greek) Orthodox. and 10% Roman Catholic. The Roman Catholics were in the north and the Orthodox in the south. People in Greece often presume that all the Albanian Orthodox are Greek in blood and origin but this is not necessarily the case, even where they speak the language, though I won't speculate on details. It is true that Albania is the only country to have ever been officially athiest, though of course this does not mean people were all truly non-believers. The reason why we could perhaps go back to the traditionally reckoned figures is partly to do with people identifying with a religion as part of their clan background, which is strong in that country. Since freedom was restored many have openly gone back to the faiths of their forefathers. Eugene-elgato (talk) 00:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, John Belushi comes to mind. LoveMonkey (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

relations to other Christians
I added this section. Folks steeped in Western Christianity or just Western culture in general are largely ignorant of Eastern Orthodoxy. For those readers who are more familiar with Western Christianity than Eastern, a modest section of this sort is a big help. Platia removed my reference to RCC elements coming specifically from Rome: legalism, political orientation, and veneration of statues. I think it's important to let the reader know that it's now just a coincidence that Roman Catholicism has these elements, as they derived them from Roman culture. Leadwind (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

If you folks are sick of defending EO against POV attackers, as seems to be the case given the defensive editing we've seen, you should know that I'm a mostly sympathetic bystander in the big schism between East and West. I'd like people to know more about EO, so I'm trying to make this article more informative. Leadwind (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There's some good material here, but the entire section is unsourced. Most significant are the mentions of "legalism" which seem rather POV -- do western writers agree that Orthodoxy is "less legalistic" than Western Christianity? If you'd cite your sources we'd know. Mrhsj (talk) 06:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Legalism in the EO is kinda somewhat covered as a topic in Orthodox theology. Why does such a thing need to have a Western writer? Just curious. Heres a brief outine of legalism from Aleksey Khomyakov.
 * The legal formalism and logical rationalism of the Roman Catholic Church have their roots in the Roman State. These features developed in it more strongly than ever when the Western Church without consent of the Eastern introduced into the Nicean Creed the filioque clause. Such arbitrary change of the creed is an expression of pride and lack of love for one's brethren in the faith. "In order not to be regarded as a schism by the Church, Romanism was forced to ascribe to the bishop of Rome absolute infallibility." In this way Catholicism broke away from the Church as a whole and became an organization based upon external authority. Its unity is similar to the unity of the state: it is not superrational but rationalistic and legally formal. Rationalism has led to the doctrine of the works of superarogation, established a balance of duties and merits between God and man, weighing in the scales sins and prayers, trespasses and deeds of expiation; it adopted the idea of transferring one person's debts or credits to another and legalized the exchange of assumed merits; in short, it introduced into the sanctuary of faith the mechanism of a banking house. Roman Catholicism rationalizes even the sacrament of the Eucharist: it interprets spiritual action as purely material and debases the sacrament to such an extent that it becomes in its view a kind of atomistic miracle. The Orthodox Church has no metaphysical theory of Transsubstantiation, and there is no need of such a theory. Christ is the Lord of the elements and it is in His power to do so that "every thing, without in the least changing its physical substance" could become His Body. "Christ's Body in the Eucharist is not physical flesh." The rationalism of Catholicism which established unity without freedom gave rise, as a reaction against it, to another form of rationalism -Protestantism which realizes freedom without unity. The Bible, in itself a lifeless book, subjectively interpreted by every individual believer, is the basis of the Protestants' religious life. This is the reason why "Protestants have not that serenity, that perfect certainty of posessing the word of God which is given by faith alone." It attaches too much importance to the historical study of the Scriptures. It is a matter of vital importance to them whether the Epistle to the Romans was written by Paul or not. This means that Protestantism regards the Scriptures as an infallible authority, and at the same time as an authority external to man. The attitude of the Orthodox Church to the Scriptures is different. "It regards the Scriptures as its own testimony and looks upon them as an inward fact in its own life." "Suppose it were proved today that the Epistle to the Romans was not written by Paul; the Church would say 'it is from me' and the very next day the epistle would be read aloud in all the churches as before, and the Christians would listen to it with the joyful attention of faith; for we know whose testimony alone is incontrovertible."


 * I was referring to two specific statements currently in the article: (1) "Compared to Western Christianity, Eastern Orthodoxy is more mystical and less legalistic." and (2) "Unlike Roman Catholicism, however, Eastern Orthodoxy has less legalism." These statements assert that Western Christianity in general, and and Roman Catholicism in particular, are "legalistic". I do not think western Christians, including Catholics, would generally agree with that assertion. Therefore these statements represent a specifically Eastern Orthodox point of view rather than a neutral one. If I am wrong, neutral sources must be cited in support of these claims. Orthodox sources alone could support a statement such as "the Eastern Orthodox Church regards Western Christianity (or Roman Catholicism) as legalistic," but not "WC / RC is legalistic." Mrhsj (talk) 20:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Please clarify if this is what you mean by the term legalism or if you mean in relation to Antinomianism. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I put in the stuff about legalism. I thought that was common knowledge and might not need a citation. It's certainly not the EO opinion, however. It comes from a neutral history of civilization by Will Durant. The split started early, with Western Christianity adopting the rule-oriented discipline for which Romans were known. Does anyone really dispute this assessment? EO doesn't have seven clearly defined sacraments, a qualitative distinction between venial and mortal sins, celibacy for priests, indulgences tapping into a storehouse of merit whose keys are held by the pope, purgatory as a distinct afterlife dimension, or anyone who can speak infallibly. Does the EO have the interdict? Does it have special stamps indicating the degree to which a written work conforms with church teaching, with the power to silence clergy who say the wrong thing? RCC is way more legalistic than EO. I can hunt for some references, but the point isn't in dispute, is it? Leadwind (talk) 03:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Mrhsj, the material in the section needs to be cited. Majoreditor (talk) 04:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm looking for the citation. Durant repeatedly treats the theme that Western Christianity was influenced by the Roman character, born and bred to rule. Purgatory, statues of the divine dead, and pontifex maximus, all predate Christianity in Rome, and they are features of Western Christianity, not Eastern. More generally, Romans saw themselves as ideally suited to rule. Unfortunately, Durant doesn't have "legalism" in the index, so it might take a while. In the mean time, can someone say with a straight face that RCC is no more legalistic than EO? Anyone? Doesn't RCC have a weekly obligation to attend Mass and a yearly obligation to take the Eucharist? Does EO have anything that specific? Leadwind (talk) 15:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Durant: 2nd century. "Greek Christianity was theological, metaphysical, mystical. Tertullian made Latin Christianity ethical, juristic, practical." I think there's more, but it's hard to find. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church isn't much help. It says that much of EO belief is never explicitly defined but is implicit in the liturgy, whereas RCC has an elaborate sacramental theology. We could always go for a softer statement, such as, "Compared to Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox see themselves as less legalistic." Meanwhile, still waiting for someone to state that RCC is no more legalistic than EO. Leadwind (talk) 15:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Here Leadwind. This is standard par for the EO even though it is ROCOR. I still dont see why Aleksey Khomyakov's comments are not a validation. But I agree with Mrhsj if he is shooting for something else.

LoveMonkey (talk) 17:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Lede needs to be bigger
This article's lede, like many articles on WP, is too spare. A lede should be able to stand alone as a concise summary of the topic, but this lede is more like a definition of the topic. For a major topic such as this, we should have a four-paragraph lede summarizing history, theology, geography, etc. I might work on the lede, but I'd welcome help. Folks who want to understand what makes a good lede are welcome to review WP:LEDE. Leadwind (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thirty-nine Article version of the Nicene Creed
What is the "Thirty-nine Article version of the Nicene Creed", reference to which has just been inserted into the article? Surely it is not a reference to Queen Elizabeth's Thirty Nine Articles for the Anglican Church. The Creed used by the Orthodox Church long predates that. Platia (talk) 09:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My bad. I was taking material from Oxford Dictionary of Christian Church and read too fast. Leadwind (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Repentance
I would like to stress that the Mystery of repentance and confession is not found in seeing the priest. There is no obligation to confess one's sins to the priest. There is no obligation to confess one's sins to anybody but God. The priest does not have the power to forgive, and neither is forgiveness facilitated through the priest. Forgiveness happens at the moment at which someone has resolved in themselves and to God that they will not committ the sin again. It does not matter that they are almost inevitably doomed to failure just because we are falliable human beings; they must sincerely believe at a momement in time that they will not committ the sin again, and resolve to not do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.217.136 (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK then you are now going against established dogma-...So post here where Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky got it wrong. I am wondering where this above is coming from within the Orthodox community, just asking.

LoveMonkey (talk) 18:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

oh really? I thought Orthodoxy was not dogmatic, only doctrinal? It's something called logic. it doesn't make sense to say that someone is forgiven because they have been to see their priest, though I know that most Orthodox have a peasant's understanding of their faith, specially in Greece. The culture has become one where people will go to confession frequently as a licence to sin as much as they like, rather like with Roman catholics. We are not Roman Catholics, we are Orthodox, so our faith is logic based. You cannot go on sinning, making the same excuses that it's OK because you've gone to confession. Repentance can only be where someone is truly sorry for something, which necessitates the sincere resolution they will not do it again; e.g. from the saints, Mary of Egypt repenting at the doors of the church of the Holy Sepulchre, up until which point she was a prostitute. People who think that they have a valid excuse because they are "weak" and "only human" and not saint material, to sin again, are charlatans. It is true that we all acknowldge we must be the first of all sinners, but precisely because, not in spite, of the fact that we have no excuse to not vow to not commit the sin again.
 * I thought that the churches printed books with appropriate titles and we had faith in what the church did (but then I really don't have to think about that at all do I). Rather then post as if we know everything about Orthodoxy and then not actually quote the church but what appears as opinion. God is mercy, if people could not sin then they wouldn't and then they really won't need the church or God or Christ then would they? What perfection is in the pagan idea of man-God(bad idea that we can do things by ourselves, and definitely not Orthodox which is God-man based). Saint Mary by the grace of God was saved, and by the grace of God over came her passions. Firm resolve will only cause bitterness (which is obvious from your postings) the only way to obtain theosis is "with God" not by ourselves. There are just too many desert saints telling us that they need humility and God to over come the passions, not opinion. Our God is love, where is the love in your words, (maybe for yourself, for your opinion?), but what about for your brothers? Speaking so bitter and ridiculing the ones you are supposed to love. But I'll take Father Michael Pomazansky over an anonymous poster any day. Also what you say is completely outside Church dogma (note the title of the book I used as source) again, not my opinion. But if you have phronema well then you won't "think". You'll post dogma, doctrine whatever you understand it as, not opinion. Thanks for defaming Father Michael Pomazansky, that works real well for unity, so much for sobornost, for the mind of the church.

LoveMonkey (talk) 13:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

"if people could not sin then they wouldn't " actually "LoveMonkey" whoever that is, I think your quote here says it all. it demonstrates how confused you are. Each and every person actually could choose not to sin, and if it were otherwise then it would not be sin because we'd have an excuse. Once again, it's something called LOGIC and not being an animal. For your information, my name is Evgenios, and if you would like to enquire further, each thing that I have to say has the backing of HG KALLISTOS of Diokleia. Why don't you email the guy and ask on this subject, he will probably be happy to confirm we have no obligations to see a priest when confessing our sins. 147.188.244.32 (talk) 09:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

http://victorycross.wordpress.com/2008/06/02/a-conversation-with-metropolitan-kallistos-ware-on-the-sacramental-life-part-i/

Kallistos basically says that it may well be a great thing to go to confession, but this is incidental to God's forgiveness. I have to agree with Evgenios here, that we have indication from arguably the most knowledgable EO theologian of our day, (and I may add I have never heard of Pomazansky until now) who says that going to confession is a good idea because it brings home to the penitent more forcefully what the nature of that sin is, precisely so as to be able to resolve to be sorry and to not reoffend. Additionally the priest may represent the community, although I find this rather weak; not in substance but in form that actually, it would be better altogether if we have to say our sins to people to say them in front of all. Notwithstanding personal details, e.g. fornication would not necessitate with whom you did it, but just say that you did. The humiliation may be needed by some people to be truly sorry for what they did; others have sufficient scruples to be sorry before God whether they've told anyone, whether it's a priest or your mom, or noone. 147.188.228.121 (talk) 13:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC) (Dave)

http://catholicsensibility.blogspot.com/2006/02/even-more-on-reconciliation-confession.html

Once again, Kallistos says that you don't have to have gone to confession. IT IS HIGHLY RECCOMMENDED to DO SO BUT NO COMPULSION which i believe is what Evgenios originally said. 147.188.228.121 (talk) 13:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC) (Dave)
 * Sad, posters coming here attacking theosis..Stating they are Orthodox and attacking the community. Confession and all of the sacraments are Orthodoxy. Confession is a sacrament. Theosis is intrinsic to Orthodoxy. Thats what the Hesychasm controversy was all about. The first stage of theosis is catharsis. One can not cleanse their sins if one does not confess them. Kallistos is human and makes mistakes. He is still loved by us Orthodox even if and after he makes mistakes. This is just one more attempt to attack Orthodoxy. This tactic is called divide and conquer use us against us. As can be seen further down the talkpage where you have already attacked theosis. These attacks are very similar to ones used by Uniate and Roman Catholics. They are nothing new. Next you'll be posting how you don't trust the Priest and how he should face the Congregation while performing mass, so that we can see what he is doing. The history and words of Orthodoxy stands you are introducing innovation. It is the devil that spreads deceit and slanders.

LoveMonkey (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I fail to understand just what point you are trying to make here, firstly about Kallistos being mistaken even though you are unequivocal about Pomazansky's position; and secondly what exactly you mean by me not trusting the priest? I urge you once more, and then I shall give up, to actually listen to what is being said here: 1) Only God can forgive man's sins; 2) We are all capable of NOT sinning, otherwise there's be nothing wrong with sin. A person with a retarded IQ cannot be said to be blameworthy for his lack of cognition, and anyone that is capable of recognizing sin is capable of avaoiding it. If one were compelled to commit fornication and not know what is wrong about it, wouldn't be sinning; 3) The priest is a man who does not forgive; 4) Forgiveness therefore must be a direct communication to God from man's heart asking for it. Furthermore logically this must necessitate being truly sorry, which means that you have resolved at that instance of redemption that you will not reoffend; 5) Kallistos is as much a guardian of the faith as anyone else, and his knowledge and understanding if nothing else are superior to that of LoveMonkey and Pomazansky. Finally could you not accuse me of this divide thing please. It is precisely what the devil wants in you saying stuff like that; it is a self-fulfilling prophecy where it is precisely the kind of thing you are trying to do, accusing me of devilry, which actually introduced devilry into it. I hope I have made myself clear. Again, if you have any issues with this, why don't you try and level them at Kallistos and see where you stand. 147.188.248.182 (talk) 16:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That's right Evgenios. http://www.antiochian.org/node/17369 There isn't a point in making the words to the priest if one doesn't mean them. Yet precisely meaning it is sufficient for forgiveness. On the other hand, it seems more and more likely Theosis truly is an element of the Orthodox theology. 147.188.228.141 (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC) (Dave)

Mystery
I would like to stress the centrality of the Mystery of Mysteries in Orthodoxy. The Body and Blood of Christ is the sole reason for the existance of the church, whether by this we mean the temple itself, or the worldwide communion, or the hierarchy and priesthood; these are all there for one thing alone and the facility of the Mystery. There is no other reason to go to church, or to accept the ordination of priests and bishops. This Mystery is what makes us Christians, because we believe that the way the fallen cosmos and man are, the only thing that will internalize this twistedness of flesh and mortality is the very blood of He Who Is. All other Mysteries are peripheral to this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.217.136 (talk) 21:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Find us a scholarly citation and we'll show you how to add it, or maybe add it myself. Leadwind (talk) 02:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I know; I'm new to this and have generally been providing what is a normative analysis, so that's why I've put it in the discussion, so that if people want to do a bit more reading on Wikipedia before they do go to the scholarly sources themselves, they can see how Orthodox themselves have made sense of their faith.82.36.217.136 (talk) 19:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

http://incommunion.org/articles/older-issues/communion-and-otherness

A quite a good article from an outstanding theologian and professor at KCL. Confirms the centrality of eucharist; clearly that's obvious but just wanted to show just how it is stressed that without it being done correctly all other aspects to the church will be invalidated. See specially faith in the Church. Eugene-elgato (talk) 23:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

http://www.exarchate-uk.org/Exarchate/Local_church.html

An even better article that says about the purpose of the church in producing the eucharist. Eugene-elgato (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

is this a scholarly source?
An editor has used this church's web site (link) as a scholarly source. I don't think it counts, but I'm willing to hear arguments in its favor. Leadwind (talk) 14:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Um... who used it a source, for what, where? Generally Wikipedia sources have to be "reliable" which isn't the same as "scholarly". So it depends what the source is being used for. I can't find any reference to it in this article. Mrhsj (talk) 18:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I deleted the referenced material. The web site in question is not reliable for any information on this topic, is it? The best you can use a self-produced web site for is to describe the topic of the web site (e.g., this church). Leadwind (talk) 06:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Request feedback on East-West Schism
Please look at my comment on Talk:East-West Schism titled "Theological Issues". I propose a new article Theological differences between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church to factor out the lengthy theological discussion which is now dominating the article. I recognize that the proposed article title is excessively long and that comparison articles in general are tricky to manage. That's why I'm looking for feedback to see if there are other solutions. --Richard (talk) 18:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Theosis
"They teach the doctrine of theosis (deification), by which Christ makes it possible to partake of the divine, a teaching less prominent in the Western Church"

I do not believe this to be correct; this is something of an obscurity emanating from the asectic lives of the holy mountain, and cannot be regarded as doctrine. 82.36.217.136 (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Just find a reliable source that says EOs don't talk about deification much, either. Leadwind (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The statement is adequately sourced. I could find a dozen more without much effort; I've read numerous overviews of Orthodox doctrine and never seen one that didn't discuss theosis. Mrhsj (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) Agreed, there are many sources which show that theosis is Orthodox doctrine. Here's one of several sources - The Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern Christianity (Parry et. al, 2001). It says "Together with apophaticism, deification [theosis] became a central pillar of Byzantine theology ... in Eastern tradition deification is understood as eucharistic and ecclesial as well as a matter of personal, moral and spiritual life." (p. 159) See also G.I. Mantzaridis' The Deification of Man: St. Gregory Palamas and the Orthodox Tradition (1984, St. Vladimir's Seminary Press). Majoreditor (talk) 02:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * About theoria and its completion called theosis and what it means to the Orthodox church Father John Romanides states.
 * "The criteria used for the reunion of divided Christians cannot be different from those used for the union of associations of scientists. Astronomers would be shocked at the idea that they would unite with astrologers. Members of a modern medial association would be shocked at the suggestion that they should become one with an association of quack doctors and tribal medicine men. In the same way, the Fathers would be shocked at the idea of a union between Orthodoxy and religious superstitions which has not the slightest idea about the production of authentic holy relics. Avoiding this issue by claiming that such a theology is for monks only, is like claiming that the cure of cancer is for doctors only." LoveMonkey (talk) 01:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Undoubtedly however there must be some caution exercised here for the Orthodox. There is always a danger that lay persons get caught up in something that they do not understand, and end up causing harm and spreading strange notions amongst those who haven't a clue. Examples are where monks have mystical experiences and then tell a few people, or they write about them in their codices, and the stories start circulating leading to somewhat bizarre beliefs. Firstly I can point to the Apocalypse here. This book is not read publicly in the Orthodox Church, and we don't even know for certain who wrote it. I doubt many people on the planet truly understand the meaning in this book, and if they do, it is likely they live on the Holy Mountain. Elder Paisios of blessed memory also apparently was the source of strange stories about eschatology, which mean very little to ordinary Christians living Christian lives, and become the source of dangerous hype and speculation. Theosis may be a part of Tradition, but it is in fact a highly sophisticated area of theology, and means very little in practice to secular (that word means married) Christians. 82.36.217.136 (talk) 22:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and LoveMonkey......you know Pomazansky died before ROCOR was reconciled with Moscow, don't you? So basically, that makes him NON canonical or apostolic. Interesting. 82.36.217.136 (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh 82.36.217.136 Father John Maximovich is a saint, your comments on ROCOR are meaningless. ROCOR are our brothers and we love them.

LoveMonkey (talk) 04:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I know that doctrine means little to the daily lives of Christians. I mean, Jesus having two wills, one human and the other divine, both always willing the same thing? That's orthodox doctrine East and West, but it makes practically no daily difference to regular old Christians. Sounds like theosis is like that. Still, we stick to reliable sources and cite them. See if you can find a reliable source that says that theosis is basically a mystic idea for monks to ponder. Leadwind (talk) 23:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm no theosis is every moment seeking through constant prayer to make yourself more humble more beautiful like the saints and kind like the mother of God. Closer to God. Glory to Glory. Gnosiology shows the limits of human reason on trying to contain or possess "now". We must seek gnosis about the Good, the beautiful the beloved. Theosis is driven by theophilos. Paganism is driven by a love of man and man as God. This will to power is hatred of God. This sophistry is like sucking your own blood for sustenance. We are created and finite, God is uncreated and infinite. If we have union with God we too become good (hence "like God"). "Our God is fire" or rather here's Milk"? Instead of meat. Theosis is the process of preparation of being in the presents of God, as we all shall be. Orthodoxy is the way one prepares themselves for being with God. My God is light, fire and spirit, these reflect God as noetically one thing- kindness (and that word does not come even close to him). LoveMonkey (talk) 04:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, me and Evgenios are going to stop here all discussion with LoveMonkey, because these latest revelations that she (?) believes in Gnosticism and supports schismatics who are not in communion with Constantinople, seem to explain a lot, but are worrying. We are not in dialogue with schismatics. Leadwind, if I can I'll still try and find some scholarly sources regarding Theosis applying mainly to the mystics. Thanks guys. 147.188.244.36 (talk) 08:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC) (Dave)

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/general/lossky_intro.aspx

"The theological doctrines which have been elaborated in the course of these struggles can be treated in the most direct relation to the vital end—that of union with God to the attainment of which they are subservient. Thus they appear as the foundations of Christian spirituality. It is this that we shall understand in speaking of 'mystical theology'; not mysticism properly so-called, the personal experiences of different masters of the spiritual life. Such experiences, for that matter, more often than not remain inaccessible to us..."

So basically theosis properly construed by spiritual masters can be very refreshing for us, but be careful of some of the experiences of Elders, because they may not hold meaning for us, if we try to find meaning we will be dissapointed or suffer something worse, and we must always discern the two. 147.188.228.122 (talk) 10:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC) (Dave)
 * Gnosticism. LOL. I am no pagan. Please. Henosis is nothing to nothing (Tabula rasa ). Theosis is ex nihilo to finite to infinity. We as Orthodox do not vilify the nous, we do not vilify existence material or spiritual. I am Orthodox not pagan. Most certainly you are not calling St John Maximovich a schismatic and therefore not a saint ? Are you saying that Patriarch Alexi II (In God Rest his beautiful soul) was mistaken? Meaningless. You have accused me of a vary grievious thing, in accusing me of being a follower of gnosticism. Since gnosticism teaches that our God (Yahweh) is a evil and false. It teaches that the material world and existence as such is evil and a prison. It teaches that the human body is evil. It teaches that the Orthodox church is the church of satan. I think you are very poorly informed and greatly mistaken.
 * The worse of it is I was quoting Vladimir Lossky i.e. and his book the Mysticial Theology of the East Church.pg 202 pg 207 when I posted "We must seek gnosis about the Good, the beautiful the beloved". And now you are posting Vladimir Lossky to validate calling me a gnostic sectarian. Gnostic as the Ancient Fathers used it meant what we call today, Mystic.

If you read the fathers ancient and some modern they still use the word "gnostic" to even describe themselves. Mystic used to mean someone who was pagan and initated into the Mystery Cults and who was amorally attacking the Jews and then the Christians by slandering, lying fabricating religious text etc. etc. I mean a modern (perfect example) of what gnosticism is would be the outragious lies of The Burning Times. V Lossky very clearly states what the gnostics are in his works. Look at how he translates Irenaeus work against them in his book the Vision of God. He states Irenaeus called them "teachers of false knowledge so called". The pagans used slander and propaganda (false knowledge so called) to mislead and guide people away from Yahweh and his son and instead to their pagan philosophical-religious systems. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Evgenios, 'Dave', and hostility towards LoveMonkey
Dear all, this is a public confession that I am Evgenios, but not 'Dave', who is a character that doesn't exist. Dave was my alterego, a device I employed for the purposes of running a strangely construed debate with LoveMonkey. I am new to Wikipedia and was more agressive than was necessary, for which I unreservedly apologize. LoveMonkey is indeed a very worthy editor for the Eastern Orthodox articles, and has much valuable input. To be sure, I maintain that according to reliable sources, e.g. HG Kallistos of Diokleia, and Father John Nankivell, a priest also under the Patriarchate of Constantinople, in Walsall, West Midlands, the rite of confession is not an absolute requirement for the remission of sins, and one's repentance. However, to all intents and purposes, it is clear that it almost may be treated as such, given the practicalities and the weaknesses of most men. To be frank, most people's scruples just aren't up to the task of going straight to God, so we do make use of the priests for the purpose of declaring our sins to a representative of the church, and another human being. Furthermore I shall abide by the recommendations that more experienced Wikipedians can give me, and the general etiquette. This doesn't just mean not being rude to LoveMonkey and all the others, but like Leadwind consistently points out, there must be referencing to reliable and academic/scholarly/other authoritative resources for all edits and discussions. Thank you all, I hope you can welcome me into this community and look forward to some decent progression with the entire Eastern Orthodox project yours in Christ Eugene-elgato (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey no harm no fowl.

LoveMonkey (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC) Excellent :D Eugene-elgato (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I am also (for the sake of Dave)-male.

LoveMonkey (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC) LOL. OK, Dave gets the picture now, fully :$ Eugene-elgato (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Meaning of "orthodox"
The final part of the word is related to "doxa" in the sense of "opinion".(Pamour (talk) 12:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)). Does it? I thought Or8odo3ia comes from or8os, which means correct, and do3ia, which means worship? E.g. "do3a ton Kurion" means "Glory the Master" Eugene-elgato (talk) 13:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion requested for an RFC on East-West Schism
There is a newly-opened request for comment over on Talk:East-West Schism.

The specific locus of the current dispute is the section titled "The Heart as Noetic or Intuitive faculty".

However, on a grander scale, this long-running dispute is over the amount of detailed theological treatment that is appropriate for the topic. The proposal is that East-West Schism be limited primarily to a high level historical narrative aimed at a general audience (high school / college level education without theological training) and that the detailed theological treatment be reserved for the article on Catholic - Orthodox theological differences. Your feedback is solicited.

--Richard (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Oriental Orthodoxy and the nature of Christ
I don't know that the statement: "They differ from Oriental Orthodoxy in holding that the Son has two distinct and complete natures: one divine and one human." is entirely accurate. The Oriental Orthodox have always confessed that Jesus Christ is "of/from two natures after the union". They have objected to "in two natures after the union" only because it seemed to be suggesting that there are two realities in which Jesus subsists after the "union", such an idea not amounting to a real hypostatic union. Given this, I don't know it is accurate to say that the Oriental Orthodox do not believe "that the Son has two distinct and complete natures: one divine and one human". Deusveritasest (talk) 09:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Woof that's kinda a tough one. The reason is that our ecumenism has finally sorta got that ironed out. I think that the issue is not really framed that way properly. It really boils down to two things. One is language in that one Group is Egyptian and the other being primarly Greek. The issue resolves itself in English and French better then the older languages. The second is that the Oriental use the phrase "and Christ's human nature was lost in the divine and infinite nature of his being" or something to that effect. This has traditionally been taken by the Greek faction to mean that Christ has no valid human and or free will. That Christ as not having a true and complete separated from human will therefore did not have a free will.


 * It kinda means that if Christ were God and his human will was lost in the giant sea of his divinity then he did not truly suffer he did not truly know the pain, doubt, emptiness and angush of what a real human being faces. It means that God as Christ kinda put on a show for us and by being strictly divine already knew the truth and therefore was not really challenged, did not do his works and live his life by faith. Now that this has kinda been clarified (my use of kinda, sorta, etc is that it is still a nebulious political mess)- the Oriental Church most clearer does not teach that Christ was anything of the sort but that he did suffer and lived and thought and existented just like the rest of us. Something to consider also is that Christ dying for our sins not as a payment to the devil. Christ dying for our sins is payment to us (our lives as objective things) as mankind to fix the murder and destruction that mankind by sinning as cast out into the material world. God forgives and does not seek restitution per se. We have to let go of our sicknesses which are called the world and embrace the God. God which is kindness and love. Here is an apology which tries to kinda explain the issue after most of the ecumenism between the EO and the OO . Here is the complete article that is being discussed . We the EO believe that Christ was both Uncreated (ousia) and Created (ousia) in his hypostasis (one was not swallowed up by the other they remained and remained separate and unconfused/mixed). Which is to say two physite in one existence. Nestorian believed that there where two physite in two existences. The Non-Chaldean believe in one physite in one existence. And this is drastically falling short of what the issue was. Also God is not a tyrant. Until the Western christianity stops teaching this the EO will not complete ecumenism. Sorry, but Deusveritasest your Orthodox you already know all of this. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "The second is that the Oriental use the phrase "and Christ's human nature was lost in the divine and infinite nature of his being" or something to that effect." I have a moderate amount of connection with the Orientals and I read from their theologians a significant amount. I've never heard them say something to this effect. The only figure who I can think of who said anything like that was Eutyches and he was officially condemned as a heretic numerous times by the OOC.


 * "We the "EO" believe that Christ was both Uncreated (ousia) and Created (ousia) in his hypostasis (one was not swallowed up by the other they remained and remained separate and unconfused/mixed). Which is to say two physite in one existence. Nestorian believed that there where two physite in two existences. The Non-Chaldean believe in one physite in one existence." The Oriental Orthodox as well believe that Christ, after the union, is both of an uncreated divine essence and a created human essence. There is no difference in our understanding of the composition of Christ. The only heretical movements that may have confused the composition of Christ in the past are now dead and gone. As to the numbering of physis and hypostasis, you must remember that physis did not have a fixed meaning in the early Church when these controversies developed. The prominent Alexandrian theologians (Alexander, Athanasius, Apollinaris, Cyril, Dioscorus, Timothy, et al) tended to take physis to mean hypostasis, wheras the Antiochene theologians (Gregory Nazienzene, Gregry Nyssene, Basil the Great, Diodore of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Nestorius, Theodoret of Cyrrus, Ibas of Edessa, Babai the Great, et al) tended to understand physis to mean ousia. Thus, when Antiochene theologians speak of Christ being of two natures they are speaking of His composition, whereas when Alexandrian theologians speak of Christ being one composite nature they are referring to his existence/subsistence. Thus, if we are to take the Antiochene understanding of physis, it would actually be true to say that the Non-Chalcedonians believe Christ to be of two physis and in one existence, as you say the Chalcedonians also believe.


 * As such, I still do not see how it is appropriate for this article to say that the Eastern Orthodox believe that Christ has two complete natures, divine and human, unlike the Oriental Orthodox. Deusveritasest (talk) 22:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Where can I get on the Internet the text of the 1990 Chambésy agreement between representatives of the EO and OO Churches? This agreement is much more difficult to trace than the easy-to-find earlier agreements between theologians of the OO and RC Churches:
 * We believe that our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, is God the Son Incarnate; perfect in his divinity and perfect in his humanity. His divinity was not separated from his humanity for a single moment, not for the twinkling of an eye. His humanity is one with his divinity without commixtion, without confusion, without division, without separation. We in our common faith in the one Lord Jesus Christ, regard his mystery inexhaustible and ineffable and for the human mind never fully comprehensible or expressible. (1971 meeting)
 * We recognize the limits of every philosophical and theological attempt to grasp the mystery in concept or express it in words. If the formulas coined by the fathers and doctors of the Churches have enabled us to obtain an authentic glimpse of the divine truth, we recognize that every formula that we can devise needs further interpretation. We saw that what appears to be the right formulation can be wrongly understood, and also how even behind an apparently wrong formulation there can be a right understanding. We understand that when our common father in Christ, St. Cyril of Alexandria speaks of the one Incarnate nature of God's Word, he does not deny but rather expresses the full and perfect humanity of Christ. We believe also, that the definition of the Council of Chalcedon, rightly understood today, affirms the unity of the person and the indissoluble union of Godhead and Manhood in Christ despite the phrase "in two natures". We all agree that our Lord, Jesus Christ, who is consubstantial with the Father unites in Himself perfect Godhead with perfect Manhood without division, without separation, without change, without commixture. The flesh possessing a rational soul did not exist before the union. The flesh remained flesh even after the God-befitting resurrection and ascension. Though the body of God, it has not been changed into the Godhead. We are partaking in the Holy Eucharist the Life-giving Flesh of the Lord which He united with His Divinity. (1973 meeting) —Platia (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Take a look at this page. It appears to have everything from 1989 onward: Orthodox Unity Deusveritasest (talk) 22:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the page from which I took the above quotations, which only concern agreements between OO and RC theologians. It doesn't seem to have the Chambésy document, which is the one that would let us see precisely on what the OO and EO theologians (not yet the Churches) have agreed. Platia (talk) 09:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you're rather confused. Read the article labeled "Second Agreed Statement". There is absolutely no indication that this is between Roman Catholics and Oriental Orthodox, and almost absolute identification of it being between Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox. Further, this statement is derived from the exact same year, 1990, as the Chambesy Agreement. Finally, the website I derived the link from is all about the ecumenical commission between Eastern and Oriental Orthodox. Even beyond this, I don't think the statement you cited is even on the page I cited. Thus, I think it's quite clear that the page I cited is of the EO and OO and includes the Chambesy Agreement. Deusveritasest (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

This cannot turn into an edit war and it seems quite clear to me that the terminology currently used in the article is erroneous. Have you even read the acts of the Council of Chalcedon? Dioscorus himself, the supposed heretic, said that he was willing to submit to the formula "of two natures after the union", yet would not submit to "in two natures" because of its Nestorian implications. While it is clear that there are ambiguities in our Christological agreement (I never suggested otherwise), it is simply erroneous and slanderous to claim that the Oriental Orthodox do not believe that "Christ has two complete natures". It might be accurate to say that they do not believe that "Christ is in two complete natures". But as it is phrased now, the OO have already clearly accepted such a formula. Deusveritasest (talk) 00:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing me to the "Second Agreed Statement". (When I spoke of two OO-RC agreements to which I found links in the page that you quoted, I was referring to the two that I quoted above, not to this document.) I think this must indeed be the Chambésy document that I was looking for, and so I am very grateful to you for enabling me to study this Agreement of the "Joint Commission of the Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches".
 * If the Wikipedia article says that the OO "hold that the Son has two distinct and complete natures", should it perhaps also say that the EO hold that there is "one nature of the incarnate Word"? How do you think we should phrase the long-standing Christological divergence that the Chambésy document, which was not a simple surrender by one side to the other, says can be overcome?  Only when and if the document is ratified by the Churches concerned and communion between them is established can we say that the divergence no longer exists.  Platia (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi again Platia. Sorry if I was getting slightly testy earlier. Anyway, on to terminology.
 * My problem with the current Wikipedia article is that it says that the OO do not hold that the Son has two distinct and complete natures and that only the EO hold this. I think that it has been evidenced that the Non-Chalcedonians do hold that Christ has two complete natures of humanity and divinity. This tradition began with Cyril in the Formula of Reunion with John of Antioch in 433 when Cyril admitted to the formula "ek duo physis", meaning of or from two natures. Dioscorus continued to hold to this formula and at the Council of Chalcedon even went so far as to say "of two natures after the union". Severus of Antioch also held to this tradition when he said that the hypostatic union was composed of an individuated humanity and and individuated divinity. Even today the Non-Chalcedonians will submit to "of two natures" and will clearly teach that Christ is composed of full humanity and full divinity. I don't think it's terribly important that we state this in an article about Eastern Orthodoxy, however I do think it is important that we not slander the Orientals by stating that they do not hold that Christ has two complete natures.
 * As to "one nature of God the Word Incarnate", I do think that it should be stated that the EO Tradition holds to this. Said formula was the primary formula of Cyril of Alexandria and it reached a level of dogma in the vindication of Cyril by the First Council of Ephesus. This formula, if we understand "nature" to mean hypostasis rather than ousia, is clearly orthodox and is simply a particular way of phrasing the hypostatic union. The phrase was even defined in the post-Chalcedonian tradition. If you read the anathemas of the Second Council of Constantinople, one of them mentions the formula and anathematizes those who use it to mean it in a particular way (that being confusion or mixture of humanity and divinity) while not anathematizing the formula in general as if the council understood a particular understanding of it to be orthodox. Finally, the very basis of our agreements in faith with the Orientals has been Cyril's Miaphysite formula. So I definitely think it would be appropriate to say that the EO Tradition has, to a certain extent, owned Cyril's formula as its own.
 * As to our substantial divergence, it's not as if I believe that such a divergence no longer exists. There are a few issues remaining. First of all, I don't think it's been made clear that we have agreement on all fundamental doctrinal developments beyond the Council of Chalcedon. Both icons and the filioque have been treated, but I have not yet seen any treatment of Gregory Palamas, Hesychasm, and the Essence-Energies distinction. I personally view this as a very important part of the EO Tradition that I would like to see the Orientals affirm before they are reunited to us. On the other hand, I do have some criticisms of the EO Tradition itself. While our official tradition seemingly has fully rejected the heresy of Theodore of Mopsuestia and his followers (often called Nestorianism), I can yet see significant strands of his thinking in some of our fathers, Pope Leo I and Maximus the Confessor among them. I would like to see such Nestorian inclinations finally rooted out from our Church before a reunion with a body that is even more anti-Nestorian than we are. However, there are some issues beyond even theology. We have a hagiographical dissonance between the OOC and EOC. The EOC venerates Pope Leo I, yet the OOC condemns him as a Nestorian heretic. The OOC venerates Severus of Antioch, yet the EOC has condemned him as "hated of God". These anathemas need to be worked out before we are reunited, whether that be through lifting of all anathemas or agreement upon some of them. Lastly, there is also a dissonance of ecclesiastical organization. We both claim to have the Patriarchal successor of the See of Alexandria. What are we going to do about that? The same is the case with Antioch. And even the Armenians have a bishop of Constantinople. Such a thing could not remain. So there are still a number of issues left to be dealt with before a perfect rapprochement could be met. Deusveritasest (talk) 22:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking now at the edit you made of the article, I still have issues. It reads: "Efforts are under way to heal the division that since the Council of Chalcedon (451) exists between them and Oriental Orthodoxy on the terminological question, "two natures (one human and one divine) of Christ" or "the one nature of the incarnate Word"." This isn't really the terminological question. The Oriental Orthodox ultimately submit to both of these formulas. They say that there are "two natures of Christ" or "Christ is of two natures" and also that "Christ is one nature of the Incarnate Word". So they really have no point of disagreement on either of those formulas. What the Orientals have had issues with is "Christ is two natures after the union", "Christ subsists in two natures", "Christ is recognized to be in two natures", "there are two wills in Christ", "there are two principles of action in Christ", "the humanity wills what is respective to it and the divinity what is respective to it", and other seemingly divisive formulas. The EO don't really take issue all that much with either of the formulas you listed either. "Of two natures" is viewed as a perfectly acceptable expression of the composition of Christ. "One nature of God the Word Incarnate", when understood to refer to the hypostatic nature of Christ, is also viewed as an agreeable doctrine. What the EO generally have a problem with with the Oriental Orthodox is simply that they will not go further in accepting the other formulas listed above, something that has been traditionally viewed as their dissolving of the distinction of the two natures. I don't really know that the OO really even need to be mentioned in this article at all, but saying that the disagreement is over the EO saying "of two natures" and the OO saying "one Incarnate nature" is simply not true. Deusveritasest (talk) 22:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So what shall we say? There would be no difficulty if the paragraph in question were not speaking of points such as Filioque that distinguish the Eastern Orthodox Church from other Christians. Should we divide the paragraph into two, reserving for the second paragraph points of Eastern Orthodox belief that distinguish them from other Christians, and leaving in the first those points on which there is no really significant difference, such as belief in the humanity and divinity of Christ?  Or, if the paragraph remains undivided, should we mention one or more of the more subtle differences of which you speak that divide EO from OO?  I found it strange that, while there are three mentions of RC, the OO are not explicitly mentioned at all. They are only alluded to (in the preceding paragraph) extremely indirectly with the plural word "schisms", which most likely refers in reality to that one Chalcedon-linked schism: "internal schisms and the advance of Islam reduced Eastern Orthodox territory".  So what should we do?  And apologies for not having succeeded, I think, in stating my difficulty as clearly as I should.  Please have patience with me.  Platia (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Typica - a singular or plural noun?
"typica" are "local customs" and therefore it would appear that "typica" is a plural noun. What is the singular "typikon"?

The reason this is important is that the "Nomenclature" section says "which typica is followed by a local congregation". I think this should read "which typica are followed by a local congregation".

--Richard (talk) 04:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually either of your sentences is correct in English. Your sentences might read:


 * Which (set of local customs) is followed...... or Which (local customs) are followed...

--Phiddipus (talk) 04:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Armenian creed
"They use the Nicene Creed as endorsed at the First Council of Constantinople (381),[2] and reject the Western addition to it of "Filioque",[3] and the many additions used by the Armenian Apostolic Church in the East.[4]" Where did the author get the idea that the EOC "rejects" the many additions of the Armenian church? Sure, they do not adopt them as their own. But that does not necessarily mean that they reject them as they do the filioque clause. And the reference simply links to the Armenian creed without showing any evidence that the EOC rejects them. As a matter of fact, these additions were recently addressed on the monachos.net discussion community and most people found them agreeable to the EO faith. Deusveritasest (talk) 21:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Spelling errors
There are a number of spelling and grammatical errors in the section on incense. The word "incense" itself is misspelled at least once.
 * "From the moment Christ commissioned the generations of apostles the Church (εκκλεσία - ekklesia) began " yeh and people can't spell greek. ekklhsia is spelt: epsilon-kappa-kappa-lamvda-hta-sigma-iota-alfa

hence change the second purported epsilon into and hta82.36.217.136 (talk) 21:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Renaming the article
As you probably know already the article "Roman Catholic Church" has been recently renamed as simply "Catholic Church" (although it is not the only one to claim that title). However, regardless of that, the title "Catholic Church" is also important for the Eastern Orthodox Church, Saint Raphael of Brooklyn (who has been canonized around the year 2000) stated around the year 1914 "The Church of the East has never from the first been known by any other name than Catholic, nor has she set aside this title in any official document.". He also said that the more full official name of the Orthodox Church is "The Holy Orthodox Catholic apostolic Church". "Holy Orthodox Catholic Apostolic Church" appears also in the following books. The following, also claim that the full authentic title of the Church is the one used in Creed, respectively "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church". Aleksey Khomyakov also stated "The Orthodox Eastern Church is the whole of the Catholic Church now living upon earth—The titles "Orthodox" and "Eastern" merely temporary". In a more recent book, John Meyendorff claimed "There is no way in which one can claim to be a Christian except through concrete membership in the Catholic Church" (he was, of course, referring to the (eastern) Orthodox Catholic Church). The Canons of the first Seven Ecumenical Councils use the title "Catholic Church" their text can be checked here (the term "orthodox Church" appears only a few times in the Canons of the Seventh Ecumenical Council), the Canons of these Ecumenical Councils, are very important today for the (eastern) Orthodox Church (which is sometimes called as "The Church of the Seven Ecumenical Councils"). (It should also be added that the WP:NCON naming policy encourages us to use titles found in legal contexts ("Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution)"), the Canons could be considered to represent legal contexts.) Another important document for the (eastern) Orthodox Church, the "Confession of the Orthodox Patriarch Dositheus of Jerusalem" uses the title "Catholic Church" for the (eastern) Orthodox Church many times (in fact, the title "Orthodox Church" does not even appear there), the book shown also describes it in the following way "It is the most important Orthodox confession of recent centuries.", the following more recent articles also underline its importance "It is the most authoritative and complete doctrinal deliverance of the modern Greek Church on the contoverted articles.", the article here also mentions the Patriarch Dositheus as one of the "great teachers of the Church". The "Longer Orthodox Catechism of Saint Philaret of Moscow", also uses the title "Catholic Church" more times than "Orthodox Church" (and it doesn't really matter they are old, they are important today for the (eastern) Orthodox Church, and the wiki policy states that in religious cases "Secondary sources are not necessarily from recent years - or even centuries."). The following also use "Catholic Church" for the Orthodox Church, ,,,,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,,,,,. The following use "Orthodox Catholic Church" for the (eastern) Orthodox Church, ,, , , , , , ,, , , , , , , , , ,. I think this article should be renamed as "Orthodox Catholic Church" to underline the fact that the Orthodox Church has never renounced the title "Catholic Church". However, to avoid possible confusion with "Oriental Orthodox Church", it should be renamed as "Orthodox Catholic Church (Eastern)". I doubt there will be any real problem of confusion about what this article would be, since Eastern Orthodox Church would still be a redirect here, and it will also be mentioned in the lead (the beginning of the lead could be changed as "The Orthodox Catholic Church, also known as the Eastern Orthodox Church,"). Cody7777777 (talk) 07:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Knowing relatively little about this topic, I probably will not be an active participant in this discussion. However, I would like to make two points.  First of all, the documents may be important to the Orthodox Church today but that doesn't mean that the name "Catholic Church" is one that the Orthodox Church uses today.  The Orthodox Church might very well adopt the theological tenets of ancient documents without necessarily using the name "Catholic Church" used therein.  It would be far more relevant to cite a recent document which uses the name "Catholic Church".  Second, I would be interested to know whether "Orthodox Catholic Church" is a name that is used with any significant frequency in any documents, old or recent.  If not, then it is absolutely not the name that this article should reside at.  I suspect that a more suitable title would be "Catholic Church (Eastern Orthodox)" or "Catholic Church (Orthodox)".  However, per my first point, I think you would have difficulty showing that the institutions known today as "Eastern Orthodox" call themselves "Catholic Church' although I don't doubt that they are as catholic as the Pope, if not more so.  It doesn't matter if important theologians think they are wrong to cede the name by default to the Bishop of Rome; the question is whether they have, in effect, done so.  --Richard (talk) 08:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If the change in the article title from "Roman Catholic Church" to "Catholic Church", on the grounds that it is the most common name used by that Church to describe itself, is a precedent for anything concerning this article, it is for a change of title from "Eastern Orthodox Church" to "Orthodox Church", clearly the most common name that this Church uses. It will be objected that the Churches of Oriental Orthodoxy also use "Orthodox Church" to describe themselves, but the parallel objection to using the title "Catholic Church" for the other article was judged to be of no weight.  Platia (talk) 11:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not only that, but Oriental and Eastern are synonyms. As an orthodox Christian, I needed to check other things in this article to figure out if was about my Church, or not. So, we may also want to stress that we never refer to our Church with the prefix Eastern. And, since it makes sense (as you say in the comparison with the Roman Catholic Church), this article should be renamed to "Orthodox Church", in my opinion. For the same reasons, I don't think "Orthodox Catholic Church (Eastern)" is the most appropriate solution. I want to ask one other thing: must the Roman Catholic Church be named "Catholic Church" in this article? Kpant (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies. The name "Orthodox Catholic Church" is not "uncommon", it appears in this Google search (an article there also claims "The official designation of the church in its liturgical and canonical texts is the Orthodox Catholic Church") and also in following books (and although it was not necessary, the search shows only results after the year 1910, so they are less than 100 years old, but anyway the the wiki policy states that in religious cases "Secondary sources are not necessarily from recent years - or even centuries.", but there were also more recent sources shown above using the title "Catholic Church" and "Orthodox Catholic Church" for the (eastern) Orthodox Church). The statement made by Saint Raphael of Brooklyn is not really so old. Also, the (eastern) Orthodox Catholic Church uses today canons, which use the title "Catholic Church" (most of them don't even use "orthodox Church", and the wiki policy states that we should use names used in legal contexts today (the canons are still functioning today) "Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution)"). Even the "Encyclopedia Britannica" claims that "Orthodox Catholic Church" is an official name (but anyway, I believe there were enough sources shown above supporting this name). Also, this article is about a self-identifying institution, we should use titles which the institution officially prefers more for itself (and according to the sources shown above the title "Catholic Church" is considered important by the (eastern) Orthodox Church, the title "Eastern Orthodox Church" is rarely used). Also, naming the article simply "Orthodox Church" on wiki, could lead to possible confusion with the "Oriental Non-Chalcedonian Church", however I'm not sure if they also use the exact title "Orthodox Catholic Church" too much, but I believe "Orthodox Catholic Church (Eastern)" should be used here. Cody7777777 (talk) 15:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Cody. It is shameful that Roman Catholics are here with their opinion. The word Catholic is Greek not Latin. This gives the Roman Catholic church an exclusive to the title catholic. Simply by proclaimation. I can guarantee that the Roman Catholic is not call the Catholic Church in most of the world. Nor due Protestant simply call it the Catholic Church due to sensitivity to what the Nicene Creed proclaims. This is not real world this wiki world and is now no longer reflective of what is used in the world.

LoveMonkey (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * LoveMonkey wrote: "It is shameful that Roman Catholics are here with their opinion." This statement is indicative of an attitude that LoveMonkey has expressed on many occasions: that some pages "belong" to the Orthodox and others "belong" to the Catholics.  It is unfortunately true that some pages such as Catholic Church are dominated by Catholic editors who insist on a Catholic POV.  However, this attitude is seriously broken and such incorrectness should not be propagated to other articles such as this one.  When Cody expressed his opinion during the renaming debate, no one objected to the fact that he was Orthodox rather than Catholic.  I did suggest that he would get more support for the article title "Catholic Church (Roman)" if this article were renamed "Catholic Church (Eastern)" or "Catholic Church (Orthodox)" although I made that suggestion with tongue-in-cheek, expecting that there would be no consensus to make such a change here.  However, at no time, did anyone suggest that it was inappropriate for him to offer an opinion because he was not Catholic.  The fact that we did not agree with him was not because he was Orthodox but because he was making a suggestion that seemed out of the mainstream, both on the Orthodox side as well as the Catholic side.  Shame on you, LoveMonkey.  Such attitudes go strongly against the Wikipedia standards of neutrality and objectivity. --Richard (talk) 17:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

←Wikipedia naming policy recommends the following: Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. I suspect Orthodox Church may best meet this criteria, followed by Eastern Orthodox Church. It may be useful to check Google Scholar or some other database to compare incident rate for various names. Majoreditor (talk) 22:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah yeah as if people who hear Orthodox in the West don't first think Jewish (not that thats a bad thing but wez Christians). So at least in the case of Orthodox Catholic that misconception would be cleared up somewhat and addressed like wise. You just can't win for losing.

LoveMonkey (talk) 23:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you just say "Joe is an Orthodox", many Americans will think that you mean he is an Orthodox Jew if they are even moderately knowledgeable about Judaism. If you say "Joe is Eastern Orthodox", they will know what you mean if they are moderately knowledgeable about Christianity.  However, if you say "Orthodox Church", there are few Americans who will think you are talking about Orthodox Judaism because "Church" is never used in reference to Judaism.  The appropriate words for Jewish places of worship and congregations are "temple" and "synagogue".  Thus, I would think there would be little confusion if this article were titled "Orthodox Church".  Moreover, I doubt that there would be any objections from Catholics.  Even though they would assert that their church is also "orthodox", I have little doubt that they would agree that "Orthodox" does not belong anywhere in the title of the article about their church nor do I think that they would dispute the propriety of it being the title of this article..  I further wonder whether it makes sense to call this article "Eastern Orthodox Church" as there is no organization which calls itself such.  The appellation "Eastern" is, as the article states, one that is applied by Westerners and thus, much like the appellation "Roman" does not necessarily belong in the article title.  The lead could be changed to say "The Orthodox Church, commonly called the Eastern Orthodox Church in the West and also known as the Orthodox Catholic Church, is...."
 * --Richard (talk) 17:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, here's a suggestion. What if the the first sentence of the article were to read: "The Eastern Orthodox Church, also known as the Orthodox Catholic Church .... ? Your thoughts? Majoreditor (talk) 01:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the WP:TITLE states "Convention: Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, title an article using the most common name...". This article is about a self-identifying entity, the WP:NCON explains more clearly what happens in this case:
 * "A number of objective criteria can be used to determine common or self-identifying usage:
 * Is the name in common usage in English? (there is nothing really "uncommon" about "Orthodox Catholic Church",)
 * Is it the official current name of the subject? (the following, (and there were others shown above) claim it is an official name (also Saint Raphael of Brooklyn underlined the importance of the title "Catholic" "The Church of the East has never from the first been known by any other name than Catholic, nor has she set aside this title in any official document.", the Canons of the first Seven Ecumenical Councils (which are used today by the Orthodox Catholic Church) use the title "Catholic Church", as far as I see "orthodox Church" appears only a few times in the canons of the Seventh Ecumenical Council)
 * Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? (I think it was shown above that "Orthodox Catholic Church" is also one of the names used to self-identify by the (eastern) Orthodox Church)"

Also, I believe "Orthodox Catholic Church (Eastern)" is precise enough about what it refers (as far as I see, in english "Orthodox Catholic Church" refers most of the time to the chalcedonian Orthodox Church, actually I have not yet even seen this exact title in english used for the non-chalcedonians), Eastern Orthodox Church would still be a redirect here and the lead will explain anyway about what the article is. (Also, the title "Eastern Orthodox Church" is used less frequently by the orthodox, starting the lead as "The Eastern Orthodox Church, also known as the Orthodox Catholic Church," gives the impression the name "Eastern Orthodox Church" is somehow more important than "Orthodox Catholic Church".) Cody7777777 (talk) 05:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but de facto it is known as "Orthodox Church". Why don't we have the article named at the most simple 100%-recognizable title, and add "Catholoc" and "Eastern" only in the lead, but not in the title? Note, that the term "Church" only refers to Christianity, thus there can be no confusion with Orthodox Jews or with other religions. Dc76\talk 13:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The "Oriental non-Chalcedonian Church" also claims the title "Orthodox Church" and it is also known in english by this name (the wiki policy states "A name used by one entity may well clash with a name used by another entity. Disambiguation and expansion can resolve overlapping names."), in this case we have to offer a disambiguation. I believe "Orthodox Catholic Church (Eastern)" is a better disambiguation, since as far as I see, in english, the non-chalcedonians are very rarely referred as "Orthodox Catholic Church" (while "Eastern Orthodox Church" and "Oriental Orthodox Church" are synonyms). (Also, according to the sources shown above, "Catholic" is an important title of the (eastern) Orthodox Church.) Cody7777777 (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I am appalled that this article was renamed. There is absolutely no consensus in the above discussion. And there has been no evidence produced at all that the new name satisfies Wikipedia guidelines for naming articles. A few data points of my own: the Orthodox Church in America's site has a page titled "What is the proper name of the Orthodox Church"; it reads in part "Sometimes the Orthodox Church is also called the Eastern Orthodox Church, or the Oriental Church, or the Christian Church of the East, or the Orthodox Catholic Church, or the Graeco-Russian Church." . Following are some ghits for some phrases on the oca.org and goarch.org (the websites of the two largest Orthodox jurisdictions in the US). "Eastern Orthodox Church" oca.org 93; goarch.org 311. "the Orthodox Church" oca.org 6,470; goarch.org 2,230. "Orthodox Catholic Church" oca.org 17; goarch.org 343. I submit that "Orthodox Catholic Church" is A name for the Orthodox Church, but it is not the most commonly used, either inside or outside of the church. It should not be the title of the article. Mrhsj (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree with you. And, by the way, the fact that it is a catholic church it is already mentioned in the lead. The title "Orthodox Catholic Church" leads to such churches and not the Orthodox Church. Finally, a simple google book search clearly shows which is by far the established term.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you discussed in the other article, but the move you did was not discussed here, and it was not done properly. It is clearly not un-contested, and you should open a move requested (see WP:REQUESTED MOVES) if you want to do something like that. By the way, conduct a simple google search. If you put Orthodox Catholic Church, the first result you get is this and then this. As far as I know, in most encyclopedias the church is mentioned as "Eastern Orthodox Church" or "Orthodox Church". This does not mean that the "catholic" title is not important for the Orthodox Church, but it is not commonly called like that. As far as I am concerned, I self-identify myself as a Christian Orthodox, and not an Orthodox Catholic Christian. But in any case, before moving the page, achieve. consensus. You don't have it right now.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I fully echo the sentiments expressed by Mrhsj and Yannismarou. The preponderance of modern sources, reflecting current usage, refer to the "[Eastern] Orthodox Church". While "catholic" is indeed an important concept in the church, it is not part of the name as used by Orthodox themselves (of whom I am one) or by contemporary works (eg The Eastern Orthodox Church: Its Thought and Life) or by individual churches (eg the Greek Archdiocese in America). Please achieve meaningful, wide-ranging, well-reasoned consensus before any move. - Biruitorul Talk 17:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggest to leave the article at Eastern Orthodox Church, but to start like this:
 * The Eastern Orthodox Church, or simply the Orthodox Church, is the world's second largest Christian communion, estimated to number between 225-300 million members.[1] It is considered by its adherents to be the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church established by Jesus Christ and his Apostles almost 2,000 years ago. By the East–West Schism in 1054, the Catholic Church has separated from the traditional Orthodoxy. The Orthodox Church is composed of numerous self-governing ecclesial bodies, each geographically and nationally distinct but theologically unified. (...)
 * Dc76\talk 17:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I believe this was already discussed a bit above, and I think it was shown above that wiki rules to support this renaming. (Also, while I realize there wasn't any solid consensus to support this renaming, I thought there was a consensus to allow this (since no one until then, claimed to oppose this, I'm sorry if I misunderstood someone's opinion.) As it was already explained above, the title "Catholic Church" is important for the (eastern) Orthodox Church. Saint Raphael of Brooklyn (who has been canonized around the year 2000) stated around the year 1914 "The Church of the East has never from the first been known by any other name than Catholic, nor has she set aside this title in any official document.". He also said that the more full official name of the Orthodox Church is "The Holy Orthodox Catholic apostolic Church". "Holy Orthodox Catholic Apostolic Church" appears also in the following books. The following, also claim that the full authentic title of the Church is the one used in Creed, respectively "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church". Aleksey Khomyakov also stated "The Orthodox Eastern Church is the whole of the Catholic Church now living upon earth—The titles "Orthodox" and "Eastern" merely temporary". In a more recent book, John Meyendorff claimed "There is no way in which one can claim to be a Christian except through concrete membership in the Catholic Church" (he was referring to the (eastern) Orthodox Catholic Church). In another book, he also claimed that the (eastern) Orthodox Church claims to be "the one and only Catholic Church". An article here also claims "According to Archbishop Basil, “until quite a recent period, the Church was never characterized by the attribute ‘orthodox’, but always as ‘catholic’". The Canons of the first Seven Ecumenical Councils use the title "Catholic Church" their text can be checked here (the term "orthodox Church" appears only a few times in the Canons of the Seventh Ecumenical Council), the Canons of these Ecumenical Councils, are very important today for the (eastern) Orthodox Church (which is sometimes called as "The Church of the Seven Ecumenical Councils"). Another important document for the (eastern) Orthodox Church, the "Confession of the Orthodox Patriarch Dositheus of Jerusalem" uses the title "Catholic Church" for the (eastern) Orthodox Church many times (in fact, the title "Orthodox Church" does not even appear there), the book shown also describes it in the following way "It is the most important Orthodox confession of recent centuries.", the following more recent articles also underline its importance "It is the most authoritative and complete doctrinal deliverance of the modern Greek Church on the contoverted articles.", the article here also mentions the Patriarch Dositheus as one of the "great teachers of the Church". The "Longer Orthodox Catechism of Saint Philaret of Moscow", also uses the title "Catholic Church" more times than "Orthodox Church" (and it doesn't really matter they are old, they are important today for the (eastern) Orthodox Church, and the wiki policy states that in religious cases "Secondary sources are not necessarily from recent years - or even centuries."). The following also use "Catholic Church" for the Orthodox Church, ,,,,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,,,,,. The following use "Orthodox Catholic Church" for the (eastern) Orthodox Church, ,,, , , , , , ,, , , , , , , , , ,. I think these prove that the title "Catholic" is important for the (eastern) Orthodox Catholic Church (and the title "Catholic" was used when referring to the Church, since nearly its beginning, the word "Orthodox" usually referred to the theology, so the title "Catholic" should be added in the article's title to underline the fact that the Orthodox Church has never renounced the title "Catholic Church". Also, the WP:TITLE states "Convention: Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, title an article using the most common name...". This article is about a self-identifying entity, the WP:NCON explains more clearly what happens in this case:
 * "A number of objective criteria can be used to determine common or self-identifying usage:
 * Is the name in common usage in English? (there is nothing really "uncommon" about "Orthodox Catholic Church",)
 * Is it the official current name of the subject? (the following, (and there were others shown above) claim it is an official name (also Saint Raphael of Brooklyn underlined the importance of the title "Catholic" "The Church of the East has never from the first been known by any other name than Catholic, nor has she set aside this title in any official document.", the Canons of the first Seven Ecumenical Councils (which are used today by the Orthodox Catholic Church) use the title "Catholic Church", as far as I see "orthodox Church" appears only a few times in the canons of the Seventh Ecumenical Council)
 * Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? (I think it was shown above that "Orthodox Catholic Church" is also one of the names used to self-identify by the (eastern) Orthodox Church)".

"Orthodox Church" or "Eastern Orthodox Church" as article titles on Wikipedia are ambiguous, because they can also refer to the "Eastern/Oriental non-Chalcedonian Church", which also claims the title "Orthodox Church" and it is also known in english usually by this name (the wiki policy states "A name used by one entity may well clash with a name used by another entity. Disambiguation and expansion can resolve overlapping names."), in this case we have to offer a disambiguation. This website posted above refers to "Orthodox Catholic Church of America", but most google searches (",) about "Orthodox Catholic Church" refer to the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church, and the article was renamed as "Orthodox Catholic Church (Eastern)" not simply "Orthodox Catholic Church". Also, as already said "Eastern/Oriental Orthodox Church" can also refer to the miaphysite non-Chalcedonian Church, but since the miaphysites don't seem to refer themselves in english as "Orthodox Catholic Church", I think it is obvious that "Orthodox Catholic Church (Eastern)" is a better disambiguation, since it disambiguates both from "Oriental Orthodox Church" and also from the "Orthodox Catholic Church of America" (but anyway in enlgish most of the time "Orthodox Catholic Church" refers to the (eastern) Orthodox Church). However, an even less ambiguous title would be "Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church" (as far as I see most, if not all, google searches use this for the chalcedonian eastern Orthodox Catholic Church), however I would still prefer "Orthodox Catholic Church (Eastern)". Cody7777777 (talk) 19:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, wiki rules do not support the renaming (and this is also a response to LoveMonkey's comment in my talk page) for two main reasons:
 * It is not the most common use. As a matter of fact, it is not common at all! A simple googling or bookgoogling bring first links that have nothing to do with the Eastern Orthodox Church.
 * It is confusing. It causes confusion to the ignorant reader between the two churches (and with the Greek Catholics). The established uses are "Catholic Church" and "Orthodox Church".

If you and LoveMonkey want to self-identify yourselves as Orthodox Catholics it is your right, but this does not mean that this is also what Wikipedia should follow. Theologically you may be correct, but this is not the issue here. I repeat: it is another thing the catholic character of the church which is mentioned in the lead, and another thing the established use which is (Eastern) Orthodox Church. And, in any case, I repeat that the launching of an official renaming request is free. Do it and let an uninvolved administrator to judge the issue. As far as I am concerned, I cannot accept the proposed title as an encyclopedically acceptable title.--Yannismarou (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, I agree with Dc76's proposal.--Yannismarou (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a point of clarification about the requested move procedure... the role of an admin in this process is to perform tasks that a non-admin user cannot perform, most notably a non-trivial "move over redirect" where the current redirect has a page history. In other words, what the admin brings to the table is his ability to delete existing articles to make way for the article to be moved there.  If the admin determines that there is no consensus for the move after 7 days of discussion, he may re-list the requested move but I would be extremely surprised to see an admin renaming an article without a consensus supporting the move.  In summary, Cody and LoveMonkey need to form a consensus here BEFORE going to WP:RM.  Otherwise, they would just be moving the debate from here to WP:RM with little chance of greater success.  --Richard (talk) 04:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Some examples:
 * These are the links from the site of the Ecumenical Patriarchate with all the Orthodox Curches. I don't see the term "Orthodox Catholic" anywhere used. Only the mere "Orthodox" everywhere; and in general I see the term "Orthodox Catholic Church" nowhere in the site. When the site appears after the googling, this is again what is written "Official website of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, containing information about the Orthodox Church"; not about the "Orthodox Catholic Church"!
 * OCA is simply the "Orthodox Church of America"; and in this link there is an interesting analysis of the name issue, with the term "Orthodox Church" to be mainly used.
 * This is the side of the Greek-Orthodox Church of America. In the main page, the term "Orthodox Catholic" is nowhere used; only the term "Orthodox". Mistake! The term "Orthodox–Catholic" is indeed once used to indicate a symposium promoting the dialogue between the two churches! Once again, it is clear that an Orthodox is an "Orthodox" and a Catholic is a "Catholic". Whether or not this is the theologically best use, it is more than obvious that this is the one which prevails and it is used by the Orthodox Churches themselves. Once again, I underline that the proposed title not only fails to be the main name used, but it is also confusing: when I came across it I wondered what is going on here?! Is it a reshaped article about some kind of convergence of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches in the East?! Revolutionary developments that I lost!
 * The Russian Church is of course the Russian Orthodox Church, and here where are the main news and activities of the above Church I find nowhere the term Orthodox Catholic (only a plain "Orthodox").--Yannismarou (talk) 20:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Yannismarou and support Dc76's proposal. Majoreditor (talk) 23:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I prefer User:Kpant's suggestion that the article be titled simply "Orthodox Church". I would suggest that the lead say "The Orthodox Church, also known as the Orthodox Catholic Church and usually referred to in the West as the Eastern Orthodox Church...
 * A note could explain that the Orthodox almost never refer to themselves as "Eastern" and that it is mostly the West that uses this term.
 * However, I have no objection Dc76's proposal.
 * --Richard (talk) 04:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The websites shown here belong to the autocephalous Churches, which are part of the whole orthodox Church, respectively the Orthodox Catholic Church (as the following articles state "all of the local Orthodox Churches throughout the world comprise the worldwide Orthodox Catholic Church of Christ", "The various Orthodox Churches are all sister Churches, all part of the One, Holy, Orthodox Catholic Church"), so they don't really need to have the title "Catholic" on their websites (however, the website of the Orthodox Catholic Church of Portugal does use "Orthodox Catholic Church"). This wiki article however is not about just the Russian Orthodox Church, Greek Orthodox Church, Romanian Orthodox Church etc., it is about the whole orthodox Church, respectively about the Orthodox Catholic Church. As far as I see, the sources you posted don't claim that "Orthodox Catholic Church" is not an official name of the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church. The following articles from the website of the Orthodox Church in America, contain "Orthodox Catholic Church". The following articles,,,,,,,, from the website the "Greek Archdiocese of America" use "Catholic Church" for the (eastern) orthodox Church (and there were also others shown above from other places, I assumed it was not necessary to re-post them again). According to the WP:NAME, "Convention: Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, title an article using the most common name...", so I think it is obvious enough that the most "Common" names are used only when other wiki conventions do not state something else (also I don't think there is something really "uncommon" about "Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church"). The WP:NCON encourages us to use official titles ("Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution)"), the Canons of the first Seven Ecumenical Councils could be considered to represent legal contexts, and they use the title "Catholic Church" (the term "orthodox Church" appears only a few times in the canons of the Seventh Ecumenical Council). A compilation of Holy Canons is also called as the "Rudder of the Orthodox Catholic Church". The following ,,,,,, also claim that "Orthodox Catholic Church" is an official name of the Church. As said before the titles "Orthodox Church" and "Eastern/Oriental Orthodox Church" are ambiguous because they are also claimed by the non-Chalcedonians, and they are also "commonly" called in english as "Orthodox Church". The wiki policy requests we use disambiguations in these cases ("A name used by one entity may well clash with a name used by another entity. Disambiguation and expansion can resolve overlapping names."). However, the non-Chalcedonians don't seem to use in english the exact title "Orthodox Catholic Church", while "Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church" is used in most (probably all) cases for the chalcedonian eastern Orthodox Catholic Church according to these searches, (and it also appears in the "The Longer Catechism of The Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church"). So as far as I see, "Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church" is much less ambiguous (than "Orthodox Church" or "Eastern Orthodox Church"), and it also contains the title "Catholic" which is used in most important official contexts (and the wiki naming policy requests we use official names when referring to to articles about self-identifying entities). I doubt there will be any confusion about "Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church", and anyway the lead will explain about what it refers (the lead could start as "The Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church, or simply the Orthodox Church,"). I don't think that the readers of Wikipedia read just the title of an article (and "Eastern Orthodox Church" would still be a redirect here), and anyway people usually read encyclopedias to learn. (Although, it is off-topic and it probably doesn't matter, I have to say, I have difficulty understanding why someone would oppose the title "Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church" (especially if they are members of this Church), the title "Catholic Church" is a traditional title of the (eastern) Orthodox Church, which was used many times by the holy fathers and in the canons of the ecumenical councils (among the most important documents of the eastern Orthodox Catholic Church), Saint Raphael of Brooklyn also stated around the year 1914 ""The Church of the East has never from the first been known by any other name than Catholic, nor has she set aside this title in any official document."" (he obviously knew what he was talking about), other important orthodox documents as such as the "Confession of the Orthodox Patriarch Dositheus of Jerusalem" also use the title "Catholic Church" (the title "Orthodox Church" does not even appear there), and there were enough sources shown claiming that "Catholic" is still an official title today (the eastern Orthodox Catholic Church has no reason to ever renounce this title). I doubt there is something non-encyclopedic about "Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church" or "Orthodox Catholic Church (Eastern)" (I could also say that naming on wiki the article about "Roman Catholic Church" as simply "Catholic Church" is not too encyclopedic, but that doesn't really matter here).) Cody7777777 (talk) 07:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

What is the most commonly recognized name for the EOC in public use? Deusveritasest (talk) 07:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The wiki naming policy requests we use official names, I think it was shown above, that "Catholic" is an important official title for the (E)OC. Cody7777777 (talk) 07:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Cody, wiki naming policies request that we use the most common name in the English language; and it was clearly shown above that the churches themselves self-identify themselves as "Orthodox Churches" (in both their maternal and English-language versions of their sites); so this is official. You can evoke all the Christian Fathers and Synods; this will not change the fact that the use of the term "Orthodox Catholic" is:
 * marginal; (Cody you list some articles using the term "Orthodoc Catholic", but this proves nothing! Yes, it is used but it is not the most commonly used. For instance, it looks like a joke to use this link to support your view, when the book itself is called "The Orthodox Church"!!! And here, another site you evoke, again "Orthodox Church" is firtsly used, and then all the other terms, including the one you propose, are explained. The prevalence is obviously to "Orthodox Church" again and again! Another site you evoke: "The Orthodox Church was founded [...]" Here the same: The site has the title "Frequently asked questions about the Orthodox Church (and then the term "Eastern Orthodox Church" is used in the relevant section of the text)." Hmmmm! I am afraid all your links support a move, but not where you want; they support a move to "Orthodox Church"!)
 * definitely not common;
 * not primarily used by the churches themselves;
 * confusing.
 * On the other hand, a simple search:
 * generally in the web;
 * in the Orthodox-related websites, and especially in the websites of the Orthodox Churches themselves;
 * in Google Book and scholar;
 * clearly shows that the term "(Eastern) Orthodox Church":
 * prevails by far;
 * it is the most common and avoids confusion;
 * it is used as a self-identification, and an official term by the Churches themselves.
 * For all these reasons, I believe that we can mention in a parenthesis in the lead the term "Orthodox Catholic Church" (as well as, of course, the most common plain "Orthodox Church" term: "(also known as the Orthodox Catholic Church, or simply the Orthodox Church), but we can go no further.


 * If what you want is to follow the rationale of the editors of the Catholic Church ( Roman Catholic Church→Catholic Church ), then the best alternative is not the uncommon and confusing "Orthodox Catholic Church", but the plain and mostly used by the Churches themselves "Orthodox Church" ( Eastern Orthodox Church→Orthodox Church ), and this is a move I'd definitely support.


 * Therefore, if we indeed believe that we should discuss the renaming of the article, an official move request should open, and the three alternatives ( (1) keep the article as it is; (2) move to "Orthodox Church"; (3) move to "Orthodox Catholic Church (Eastern)") should be discussed). Personally, and unless some more convincing arguments are presented, I would go: I) first choice: move to "Orthodox Church" as a very common and self-identifying term; II) second choice: keep the article as it is, in case choice I causes confusion; IMO, there is no ground for proposal (3).--Yannismarou (talk) 08:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As said before, the WP:NAME, "Convention: Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, title an article using the most common name...", this means that the most "Common" names are used only when other wiki conventions do not state something else. The WP:NCON (which explains what happens in naming conlficts), requests we use official names ("Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution)"), the Canons of the first Seven Ecumenical Councils could be considered to represent legal contexts, and they use the title "Catholic church" (the term "orthodox Church" appears only a few times in the canons of the Seventh Ecumenical Council). Saint Raphael of Brooklyn also stated "The Church of the East has never from the first been known by any other name than Catholic, nor has she set aside this title in any official document.". A compilation of Holy Canons is also called as the "Rudder of the Orthodox Catholic Church". The following ,,,,,, also claim that "Orthodox Catholic Church" is an official name of the Church. Also, the titles "Orthodox Church" and "Eastern/Oriental Orthodox Church" are ambiguous as wiki article titles because they are also claimed by the non-Chalcedonians, and they are also "commonly" called in english as "Orthodox Church". The wiki policy requests we use disambiguations in these cases ("A name used by one entity may well clash with a name used by another entity. Disambiguation and expansion can resolve overlapping names."). However, the non-Chalcedonians don't seem to use in english the exact title "Orthodox Catholic Church", while "Eastern Orthodox Catholic church" is used in most (probably all) cases for the chalcedonian eastern Orthodox Catholic Church according to these searches ,, there is also nothing really "uncommon" about this name (it is just not used too often), and it also appears in the "The Longer Catechism of The Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church". The readers of Wikipedia don't read just the title of an article (also people usually read encyclopedias to learn), the lead will explain anyway to what is refers (although I doubt there will be any confusion about "Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church" refers to) and "Eastern Orthodox Church" will still be redirect here. As far as I see, the wiki rules don't really support the article titles "Orthodox Church" or "Eastern Orthodox Church", it also requests we use official names (I believe there were enough sources shown in earlier posts which claim that "Catholic" is an important official title for the (E)OC), so as far as I see, "Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church" is accepted by the wiki naming policy. Cody7777777 (talk) 08:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a number of competing issues here and there are valid arguments for different names for the Orthodox communion and for the article itself. "Orthodox Catholic Church" would seem to be the most strictly correct name and has some history - but it is not now, if it ever has been, in common use. In common use the Orthodox churches are usually known as the "Greek Orthodox Church" or "Russian Orthodox Church" (etc) and collectively, or generically, are usually known either as the "Eastern Orthodox Church(es)" or the "Orthodox Church(es)". Even if it should be I think it would be very difficult to establish "Orthodox Catholic Church" as the appropriate name for this article if the name / term is not in common use. Personally I would prefer "Orthodox Church" for the article's name and then in the opening something like "also known as the Eastern Orthodox Church and sometimes as the Orthodox Catholic Church". One of the problems with using "Eastern Orthodox ..." as the article's name is that not all Orthodox churches, perhaps arguably, are now really "eastern" as such. Afterwriting (talk) 09:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am in full agreement with Afterwriting's comments. "Orthodox Church" seems also to me the appropriate title for this article. I disagree with Cody's proposal for the reasons I exposed above. Theologically (=in terms of canonical law), he is correct, but he is not supported by wiki-policies, by the terminology the English-speaking world uses (not even the sites Cody himself evokes supports his/her views, as I demonstrated above), by the way the Churches themselves publicly self-identify themselves, and by the situation on the ground: for instance, if I say in Greece that I belong to the "Orthodox Catholic Church" or that I am an "Orthodox Catholic" everybody will look at me stunned and confused (most probably they will believe that I am a Greek Catholic); the church is called "Orthodox Church" (even the term "Greek Orthodox Church" is not so much in use in Greece), and the follower simply, plainly an "Orthodox".--Yannismarou (talk) 10:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I support the current title, as it helps distinguish between the church the article deals with and, say, the Syriac Orthodox Church, the Assyrian Church of the East, the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, the Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church, the Indian (Malankara) Orthodox Church, and so on. I oppose having the word "Catholic" in the title, not because Cody hasn't raised some valid points, but because it simply does not reflect current usage.


 * Let's check the websites of all SCOBA members, shall we? The Greeks have the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America. The Antiochians, the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America. The Serbs, the Serbian Orthodox Church in North and South America. The Rusyns, the American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese of the USA. The Romanians, the Romanian Orthodox Archdiocese in the Americas. The Bulgarians, the Bulgarian Eastern Orthodox Diocese of the USA, Canada, and Australia. The Russians, the Orthodox Church in America. The Ukrainians, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the United States of America. The Albanians, the Albanian Orthodox Diocese of America.


 * See a pattern? Orthodox churches today, in the English-speaking world (and let us not forget the Russian Orthodox Church in Great Britain and Ireland) simply do not refer to themselves as "Catholic", anywhere. That may be inaccurate, or imprecise, but it's the way things are. And we here at Wikipedia record the outside world's reality; we do not attempt to change it to reflect our opinion of what is correct. - Biruitorul Talk 18:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested move
moved by Richardshusr. Eastern Orthodox Church → ? &mdash; I file an official request for move, since by some editors here it has been advocated that for the x or z reasons the current title is not satisfactory. Yannismarou (talk) 11:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I will express my personal views below (as I have already done), but in order to give a brief overview these are the three alternatives: Those supporting proposal 2 argue that not all Orthodox Churches are now "Eastern", and that the Churches themselves oftener use the plain term "Orthodox Church". Those supporting proposal 3 argue that the Orthodox Church has never renounced the title "Catholic Church", and the inclusion of the term "Catholic" is more correct in terms of canonical law. - Yannismarou (talk) 11:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Keep the current title;
 * 2) Move to Orthodox Church;
 * 3) Move to Orthodox Catholic Church (Eastern).

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Orthodox Church

 * My first choice is support the move to Orthodox Church. And my second choice, keep the article as it is. No support for the third proposal. See my rationale at the top of the discussion section.--Yannismarou (talk) 11:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * First choice: support the move to Orthodox Church. Second choice: keep the article as it is, Eastern Orthodox Church. I have no objection to mention the things that Cody mentions in the text of the article, with proper citation, etc, but not in the title. My reason: those of you who are orthodox, if you hear somebody saying "the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church", would you have no doubt that they mean you? I would have some doubt... If we are suggested to add "Catholic", why not add "Apostolic" as well? (rhetoric). 3 words in the title is already too much. Dc76\talk 17:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I Support the move to Orthodox Church. The current title is a synonym with Oriental Orthodox Church and thus unclear and confusing, and in anyway, the Orthodox Churches don't refer to themselves as "Eastern". Including the word "Catholic" might cause confusion with the Eastern Catholic Church, i.e. the uniats. Kpant (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * First choice: Per my comments above --Richard (talk) 18:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The better of the two possible choices, with the other being number two. I stumbled upon this discussion only last night and I've been amused by the strange and obscure arguments for the "catholic" version. Honestly, it's the first time I hear about this and I'm a practicing orthodox Christian. Lol. --Lav e o l  T 18:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Support as first choice. Inside the church "The Orthodox Church" is the most commonly used name today (as easily confirmed by reading any of the official websites or recent official publications); outside it "Eastern Orthodox Church" is more common. Many other names have been used from time to time, and some are still used in some very formal contexts, but only these two are commonly used without further explanation. I support moving to "Orthodox Church" for reasons exactly parallel to why "Roman Catholic Church" was moved to "Catholic Church". But I don't feel strongly about it. I would oppose a move to any other title than "Orthodox Church". Mrhsj (talk) 21:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Support While "Eastern" is probably not as misleading as "Roman", otherwise the circumstances of this move are exactly parallel to that of "Roman Catholic Church"/"Catholic Church".  In both cases, the both forms are in common use, with "Roman Catholic" and "Eastern Orthodox" being more common outside the respective Churches, and "Catholic" and "Orthodox" being more common within.  Since WP prefers self-understanding in names, we should follow that preference.  As an aside, we will definitely need to create a disambiguation page and a headnote to point towards it, to allow navigation to Oriental Orthodox Church and orthodoxy, among other pages.  Gabrielthursday (talk) 00:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Support as a first choice, although I'm also fine with Eastern Orthodox Church. Wikipedia policy favors using the most common term, and I think this edges out Eastern Orthodox. It is certainly more common and accepted than Orthodox Catholic Church. Majoreditor (talk) 01:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Support as first choice, with Eastern Orthodox Church a close second. These are the names most commonly used to refer to the church as a body. Definitely against Catholic Orthodox Church, which is a very obscure and ambiguous term (it could also mean the Greek Catholic churches). Constantine  ✍  14:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Support as distant second choice. "Orthodox Catholic" is intolerable; most people who type that in will be looking for the Uniates. The move of Roman Catholic Church was a ill-judged and tendentious mistake, and those who did it should be treated with extreme mistrust; certainly it should not be imitated. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support as (weakly) first choice. Seems to be the most common appellation, and I don't see how the longer alternative "Eastern Orthodox Church" helps to solve the one serious ambiguity problem, namely distinguishing this church from the other ("oriental") ones (like the Syriac Orthodox Church) – because they, too, are "eastern", just as they, too, are "orthodox". However, the present title is also okay, unlike anything involving "catholic", which is quite obviously unacceptable. "Catholic" is a theological attribute of the church, but I don't see that it is ever used as part of its name, and most certainly not in predominant English usage. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Support: This is (a) probably the most common and most self-identifying name and (b) "Eastern Orthodox" is not as precise and is also not, at least usually, a self-identifying term.  "Orthodox Catholic Church" should be included in the introduction, with solid references, as the (possibly?) most official name. Afterwriting (talk) 15:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Support I support the move to Orthodox Church. I think it fits well with our title. We are Eastern Orthodox, and that is commonly accepted among many english speaking people. It's mainly to distinguish from Orientals and Roman Catholics. Orthodox Catholic is our canonical name and is more correct legally/canonically. However, these days it clashes too closely with Uniates and other-like groups. I like the idea of including the other titles in the beginning paragraph. When most people think of our church, it's usually in terms of "Russian Orthodox" and "Greek Orthodox". If you read many writings of the Church Fathers, they interchangably use both terms, Orthodox & Catholic when referring to the church. It would be wonderful if we could call ourselves Orthodox Catholics, because that is what we are. Right-Believing & Universal. However, as was pointed out, these days, Catholic means something FAR different than what Orthodoxy actually is. Also, personally I think that we are much closer to union with Orientals than anyone else, even if it is 100 years or so away. Many of our churches only require confession to accept Orientals in. (sometimes it's chrismation at most) This shouldn't influence our decision as a whole, but personally I'm more in favor of calling us the Orthodox Church, as hopefully there will come a day when we won't have to separate "Eastern Orthodox" & "Oriental Orthodox"... --OrthoArchitectDU (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Eastern Orthodox Church

 * Second choice --Yannismarou (talk) 11:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Second choice --Dc76\talk 17:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Second choice --Richard (talk) 18:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * First choice - see above. - Biruitorul Talk 18:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Second choice. Majoreditor (talk) 01:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Second choice. Constantine  ✍  14:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * First choice as above. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Second choice, see reasoning above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Second choice. Afterwriting (talk) 15:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Always describe myself as this to distinguish from Oriental Orthodox, as monophysites/miaphysites, and other things like Greek/Eastern/Byzantine Catholics meaning Uniates.Eugene-elgato (talk) 14:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Orthodox Catholic Church (Eastern)

 * Support "Move to Orthodox Catholic Church (Eastern) or Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church (option 3). Cody7777777 (talk) 12:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support "Move to Orthodox Catholic Church (Eastern) or Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church (option 3). LoveMonkey (talk) 03:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:


 * First of all, let me underline that I am quite fine with the current title. However, as I mentioned above repeatedly, I prefer the title "Orthodox Church", because:
 * this is how they are commonly known the Orthodox Churches (or as (Eastern) Orthodox Churches);
 * this is the term they use themselves in their own sites oftener (therefore there is an element of self-identification);
 * as it was correctly pointed out, "Eastern" may not be absolutely right, since not all Orthodox churches are now really "eastern" as such (this is something to discuss maybe).
 * I am not comfortable with "Orthodox Catholic Church (Eastern)" because, though canonically correct:
 * it is not nowawadays in commonly use;
 * it is not often used by the Orthodox Churches themselves;
 * it is confusing (if I say in Greece that I belong to the "Orthodox Catholic Church" or that I am an "Orthodox Catholic" everybody will look at me stunned and confused (most probably they will believe that I am a Greek Catholic)).
 * Therefore, my first choice is support the move to Orthodox Church.--Yannismarou (talk) 11:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I support the move of this article to "Orthodox Catholic Church (Eastern)" or "Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church" because: In short, I believe the wiki rules support mainly the article title "Orthodox Catholic Church (Eastern)" or "Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church". Cody7777777 (talk) 12:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * According to WP:NAME, "Convention: Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, title an article using the most common name...", this means that the most "common" names are used only when there are no other naming conventions which state something else.
 * The WP:Naming conflict (which is used to solve naming conflicts) requests we use official names ("Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution)"), the Canons of the first Seven Ecumenical Councils (their text can be found here) could be considered to represent legal contexts, they are used today by the Church and they use the title "Catholic Church" (the term "orthodox Church" appears only a few times in the canons of the Seventh Ecumenical Council). (It should also be noted that another important document for the (eastern) Orthodox Church, the "Confession of the Orthodox Patriarch Dositheus of Jerusalem" uses the title "Catholic Church" for the (eastern) Orthodox Church many times (in fact, the title "Orthodox Church" does not even appear there), the book shown also describes it in the following way "It is the most important Orthodox confession of recent centuries.", the following more recent articles also underline its importance "It is the most authoritative and complete doctrinal deliverance of the modern Greek Church on the contoverted articles.", the article here also mentions the Patriarch Dositheus as one of the "great teachers of the Church". Many holy fathers have also used the title "Catholic Church" for the (E)OC.) Saint Raphael of Brooklyn also stated "The Church of the East has never from the first been known by any other name than Catholic, nor has she set aside this title in any official document.". A compilation of Holy Canons is also called as the "Rudder of the Orthodox Catholic Church". The following more recent articles and books,,,,,, also claim that "Orthodox Catholic Church" is an official name of the Church.
 * It is not really "uncommon", I believe there were shown above enough sources which used "Catholic Church" or "Orthodox Catholic Church" for the Church described in this article, I assumed it was not necessary to re-post again all of them here, please check them in earlier posts. (I think it's obviously "common" enough for the "Orthodox Catholic Church of Portugal".)
 * It should be also noted that this article is not just about the Greek Orthodox Church, Russian Orthodox Church, Romanian Orthodox Church, Serbian Orthodox Church, etc., but about the whole orthodox Church, the following articles state "all of the local Orthodox Churches throughout the world comprise the worldwide Orthodox Catholic Church of Christ", "The various Orthodox Churches are all sister Churches, all part of the One, Holy, Orthodox Catholic Church".
 * The titles "Orthodox Church" and "Eastern/Oriental Orthodox Church" can be ambiguous as wiki article titles because in english they also refer to non-Chalcedonians, which are also "commonly" called in english as "Orthodox Church". The wiki policy requests we use disambiguations in these cases ("A name used by one entity may well clash with a name used by another entity. Disambiguation and expansion can resolve overlapping names."). However, the non-Chalcedonians don't seem to use in english the exact title "Orthodox Catholic Church", while "Eastern Orthodox Catholic church" is used in most (probably all) cases for the chalcedonian (eastern) Orthodox Catholic Church. According to these Google searches ,, the "common" usage of "Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church" is for the Church discussed in this article (I believe these searches also prove that it is not "uncommon", so it is a better disambiguation. It is also used in the"The Longer Catechism of The Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church". It also contains the title "Catholic Church" which is an important official title of the (E)OC (the wiki policy requests we use official names). The readers of Wikipedia don't read just the title of an article (also people usually read encyclopedias to learn, and I doubt the title "Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church" will really cause confusion), "Eastern Orthodox Church" would still be a redirect here, and the lead will explain anyway to what is refers (the lead could be changed as "The Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church, or simply the Orthodox Church,...").


 * I can't understand your rationale for this based on WP policies. The most fundamental article naming principle is that the entity's usual name should be used and, in this case. "Orthodox Catholic Church" isn't. Afterwriting (talk) 12:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As said before, according to "Convention: Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, title an article using the most common name...", the most "common" names are used only when there are no other naming conventions which state something else or when there are no naming conflicts. The WP:Naming conflict (which is used to solve naming conflicts) requests we use official names ("Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution)", I think there were enough sources shown which claim "Orthodox Catholic Church" is an official name. "Orthodox Catholic Church (Eastern)" or "Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church" is also less ambiguous, since the "Eastern/Oriental non-Chalcedonian Church" does not seem to use this exact title in english. Cody7777777 (talk) 13:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I still can't follow your rationale. What is the naming conflict issue here? The Oriental Orthodox or something else? Afterwriting (talk) 13:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, the WP:NCON applies mainly when there are controversial debates about naming articles, respectively the debate here (since it states that "A naming conflict can arise on Wikipedia when contributors have difficulty agreeing on what to call a topic". I believe this also includes the ambiguity regarding the use of "Orthodox Church" by the non-Chalcedonians. Cody7777777 (talk) 13:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Cody, unfortunately the ambiguity concerning your proposal is bigger ("Orthodox Catholic Church"), because I personally haven't met any Orthodox who uses the term "Orthodox Catholic" to self-identify him/herself (and I talk with dozens everyday), and, to the contrary, the term "Orthodox Catholic" is the one that causes confusion and ambiguity; I honestly tell you that if I say in my country that I am an Orthodox Catholic nobody will understand what I mean. However, if you believe that the plain "Orthodox Church" is ambiguous, then we have the "Eastern Orthodox Church" who has been unambiguous for years!
 * In any case, can you provide us with any encyclopedic article, book etc. about the Church with the title "Orthodox Catholic Church (Eastern)". And I don't mean the term to be mentioned somewhere in the text; I mean the proposed by you term to be used as a title.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, there actually are books here which contain the title "Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church", the following google searches, also refers to the (E)OC (there is also an article titled there "Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church"). Also, this article is not just about the Greek Orthodox Church (I have not suggested adding the title "Catholic" there), this article is about the whole orthodox Church ("all of the local Orthodox Churches throughout the world comprise the worldwide Orthodox Catholic Church of Christ", "The various Orthodox Churches are all sister Churches, all part of the One, Holy, Orthodox Catholic Church"), also the website of the "Orthodox Catholic Church of Portugal" has "Orthodox Catholic Church" in its title. Cody7777777 (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I never spoke about the Greek Orthodox Church. This is not our issue. I speak as a member of the whole Orthodox Church, and, here in Brussels, if I self-identify myself as "Orthodox Catholic" the confusion is going to be equal. The term may be accurate, but it is not in common use. Very few people grasp it, and even fewer actually use it. Fortunately or unfortunately this is the situation. And its marginal use, demonstrated by your above research, proves exactly that.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) These are the sites that you provided before (some are books): ,,,,,,. All of them, and I mean all of them with no exception use as their title either "Orthodox Church" or "Eastern Orthodoxy". Yes, "Orthodox Catholic Church" is also mentioned somewhere, but it is not the one which is mainly used. Therefore, how do you ask Wikipedia to do something that not even the sources you provide do not do ?!--Yannismarou (talk) 13:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact is that all of them, as far as I see, claim that the official name is the "Orthodox Catholic Church", the wiki naming policy requests we use official names. There were other sources shown above which had the title "Orthodox Catholic Church" (for example "Rudder of the Orthodox Catholic Church"). Cody7777777 (talk) 14:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but its use is still marginal. This name may be canonically correct, but this does not mean that the term "Orthodox Church" is not used officially. It is the most commonly used in the English-speaking world (and in the Orthodox world I think); it is used by the Orthodox Churches themselves to describe not only themselves but the universal Orthodoxy as well (so it is official); it is used by the Orthodox Christians themselves as the most broadly used self-identification. What else do we want? Just because the Catholics have in their article's title, we should also add it? I don't agree with this rationale.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You know, Greece is officially called Hellas, but its article in Wikipedia is named Greece. My country has never recognized "Greece" as official. Nevertheless, common usage prevailed in the English-speaking world, and in Wikipedia as well.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also none of those sources is particularly authoritative. The first four are websites of Orthodox parishes. As Yannismarou said, they all use "The Orthodox Church" as the primary name of the church. The fourth uses exactly the same text as the third. The fifth is an individual layman's personal website and is of no value as a Reliable Source. The remainder are all non-Orthodox sources such as encyclopedias. I haven't seen an authoritative contemporary Orthodox source cited that gives "Orthodox Catholic Church" as the preferred name. Mrhsj (talk) 14:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And, in order to properly read and interprete policies, the relevant wikipolicy does not request the use of official names; this is just one of the criteria, and it is not the most important. If you read here, you'll see that this is just the second of three criteria. The first and utmost criterion is common usage in the English language. In our case, criteria 1 and 3 are fully covered by "(Eastern) Orthodox Church". Even if we accept that you are correct about criterion 2, it cannot prevail, when there is a clear common usage of another term.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My reading of Wiki policies indicates that common names are used in preference to official names unless there is a naming conflict. This is due to the importance of using names that the average reader would use - instead of those that more informed editors might use. Afterwriting (talk) 14:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The article Greece could be renamed as Hellas, if a naming conflict appears there, I believe the wiki rules would support it (not that I am suggesting any renaming of that article). "Orthodox Church" or "Eastern/Oriental Orthodox Church" ("eastern" and "oriental" are obviously synonyms), is ambiguous because the non-Chalcedonians are also "commonly" referred in english this way, so as far as I see, "Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church" is a better disambiguation. Also, the sources shown above explicitly claim that "Orthodox Catholic Church" is the official name (this means they say that is more important than simply "Orthodox Church"), according to Saint Raphael of Brooklyn, the "Church of the East" has never abandoned the title "Catholic" in an official document ("The Church of the East has never from the first been known by any other name than Catholic, nor has she set aside this title in any official document.", this means that all important official documents of the (E)OCC also include the title "Catholic"). Another important document for the (eastern) Orthodox Catholic Church, the "Confession of the Orthodox Patriarch Dositheus of Jerusalem" uses the title "Catholic Church" for the (eastern) Orthodox Church many times (in fact, the title "Orthodox Church" does not even appear there), the book shown also describes it in the following way "It is the most important Orthodox confession of recent centuries.", the following more recent articles also underline its importance "It is the most authoritative and complete doctrinal deliverance of the modern Greek Church on the contoverted articles.", the article here also mentions the Patriarch Dositheus as one of the "great teachers of the Church", The "Longer Orthodox Catechism of Saint Philaret of Moscow" also uses "Catholic Church" more times than Orthodox Church. Aleksey Khomyakov also stated "The Orthodox Eastern Church is the whole of the Catholic Church now living upon earth—The titles "Orthodox" and "Eastern" merely temporary" (a more complete text can be found here). (It doesn't really matter that some of these sources are older, they are important today for the (eastern) Orthodox Church, and the wiki policy states that in religious cases "Secondary sources are not necessarily from recent years - or even centuries."). In a more recent book, John Meyendorff claimed "There is no way in which one can claim to be a Christian except through concrete membership in the Catholic Church" (he was referring to the (eastern) Orthodox Catholic Church). Another important source is the "Rudder of the Orthodox Catholic Church". Other several books here about the (E)OCC, contain "Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church". Also, the title "Catholic Church" appears in the canons of the first Seven Ecumenical Councils, among the most important documents of the (E)OCC. All of the 3 points of the WP:NCON objective criteria need to be applied, it also does not say there the "most common" name", it only asks if it is a common usage, according to these searches, the common usage of "Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church" is obviously the Church discussed (and I think it's obviously "common" enough for the "Orthodox Catholic Church of Portugal"). Cody7777777 (talk) 17:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Cody, you've missed the mark on this. The key Wikipedia guideline is Wikipedia Naming Conventions, which is summed up in three key ideas:
 * Article names should be easily recognizable by English speakers.
 * Titles should be brief without being ambiguous.
 * Titles should make linking to the article simple.
 * The term "Orthodox Catholic" isn't recognizeable by most English speakers and is very ambiguous. Does it, for example, refer to Greek-Catholics? To Western-Rite Orthodox? Certainly, the term Orthodox Catholic is a name used occasionally in certain contexts by the Orthodox Church; however, the terms "Eastern Orthodox" or simply "Orthodox" are used far more frequently, even by and within the Church, as others have illustrated above. Indeed, most Orthodox institutions and scholarly works use the term "Orthodox Church" or "Eastern Orhtodox Church" - for example, Bulgakov's The Orthodox Church, published in 1988 by St. Vladimir's Seminary (just to pick one of many examples.) Majoreditor (talk) 22:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to say, that I have not yet ever seen "Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church" refferring in english to the uniate, as far as I know they are usually called "Eastern Catholic Churches" in english, in english "Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church" refers to the chalcedonian (eastern) Orthodox Catholic Church according to these searches,,. According to Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, "Orthodox Catholic Church" is one of the ways Orthodox Christians often call their Church (so I think this obviously means it is not "uncommon"). According to WP:NAME, "Convention: Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, title an article using the most common name...", the most "common" names are used when there are no other naming conventions which state something else or when there are no naming conflicts. The WP:Naming conflict is used when there are naming conflicts (like this debate here "A naming conflict can arise on Wikipedia when contributors have difficulty agreeing on what to call a topic"). The WP:NCON does not insist on using the "most common" name, it does however request official names ("Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the  name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution)", the following ,,,,,, explicitly claim that the official name is the "Orthodox Catholic Church", according to Saint Raphael of Brooklyn, the "Church of the East" has never abandoned the title "Catholic" in an official document, "The Church of the East has never from the first been known by any other name than Catholic, nor has she set aside this title in any official document."). "Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church" (which also includes the title "Catholic" used in more official contexts) is also less ambiguous, since the non-Chalcedonians (who are also commonly referred in english as "Orthodox Church" or "Eastern/Oriental Orthodox Church", and the wiki policy states "A name used by one entity may well clash with a name used by another entity. Disambiguation and expansion can resolve overlapping names.") don't seem to use this exact title ("Orthodox Catholic Church") in english. Cody7777777 (talk) 08:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

On the denial of Sobornost or καθόλον

 * So it is that the Orthodox do not have a concept of catholicism and that it is to be denied and or given exclusively to the one and only Catholic Church... ??? This article and website that as a source of information (encyclopedia) has to be addressed. Wiki is setting an example which is now running counter to very famous historians like James Billington..

"In short, on matters of Faith, one will find unanimity amongst Orthodox Christians (regardless of jurisdiction) where one finds a tremendous amount of disunity and disagreement amongst the Latins. The Latins may have greater external unity by means of their organisational structure, but the Orthodox have far greater internal unity. Regarding the Authority of the Church, it should be noted that the idea of a position that claims ultimate authority as in the buck stops here is unique to Western Civilisation and is contrary to the New Testament presentation of the Church and her authority. This is where the issue of sobornost is most important. The term sobornost — although not readily translateable into other languages — is probably the best word to describe the Church. It is this word (sobornyi) that is used where English uses catholic in the Symbol of Faith (one, holy, sobornyi, and apostolic Church) and represents the true meaning of catholic which comes from the Greek καθόλον (derived from κατα ['according to'] plus όλον [whole]). The word catholic thus does not mean universality as is falsely claimed by the pope and his followers, but according to the whole, according to the unity of all: the community of free and perfect unanimity, not an organisation following the dictates of a leader or leaders; the community without masters and slaves, undivided into a teaching church' and a listening church (as do the Latins). The Church is neither καθέκαστος (according to each) nor κατα των επίσκοπον τες Ρωμἐς (according to the bishop of Rome), but according to the whole. However, sobornost has a richness of meaning that goes even beyond καθόλον. Sobornost is related to the words sobirat' ('to gather together', 'to collect', 'to assemble', 'to equip', 'to fit out'), sobor ('council', 'synod'), sobraniye ('assembly' or 'collection'), and sobrat ('fellow' or 'colleague'). Sobornost can be translated as communion, catholicity, catholic, togetherness, conciliarity, etc. At the root of the word is the idea of togetherness, conciliarity, and collegiality in an integral, organic whole through time and space: that believed, as the Western Saint Vincent of Lerins described well as quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus (at all places, through all time, by all). The Elwell Evangelical Dictionary (!) by P. D. Steeves explains sobornost thus: For Orthodoxy, dogmatic authority remained rooted in the community of the church, represented by the episcopal succession from the apostles, not in the supremacy of the papacy nor in evangelical exegesis of Scripture, both of which to the Orthodox mind represented the domination of rationalism, legalism, and individualism over the true believing and worshipping fellowship of the faithful. To designate this community principle modern Russian theologians provided the definitive, but untranslatable, word "sobornost" (approximately, "communion"). It is important to understand the concept that dogmatic authority remained rooted in the community of the church. This is understood as the organic unity of all believers, including the great multitude of witnesses (Hebrews 12:1) which participate in this sobornost of the Church. The believer freely and voluntarily unites himself to this organic community of the Church because he recognises this community is intimately united to Christ and clearly shows the way to Christ. The above passage also refers to individualism, a trait universally recognised as peculiar to Western Civilisation. This concept is explained in Russian philosophy (Volume 1: The beginnings of Russian philosophy: the Slavophiles. The Westernizers. James M. Edie, editor: Epistemologically, the Slavophiles assert that knowledge (in the highest sense) and the possession of truth are not a function of individual consciousness but are entrusted only to the collectivity...As opposed to Western rationalism, ontologism considers "rational" cognition to be a secondary and derived form of knowledge, based on and flowing from a more fundamental, more primitive contact with reality which is pre-cognitive. Finally, this epistemological theory implies an ontology: it is based on the "organic togetherness in cognition" which characterizes the solidarity of true Christian believers, particularly within Orthodoxy. As long as a man is vitally inserted in this sobornost, he is in the truth and the Church is One; whenever, through pride, he attempts to discover the truth by relying on his own powers of reason, in isolation from the collectivity, he falls into error. The greatest sin of the Western Church is, by definition, pride. The greatest virtue of Orthodoxy is humility (page 162) The most important part of the above quote is that as long as a person is a living part of sobornost, he is in the truth and in the Church, the Body of Christ. But if a person attempts to discover the truth by relying on his own power of reason, apart from sobornost, he falls into error. That is why it is common in Orthodoxy to say we are being saved together and why the path of individualism is regarded as prelest and the way to hell. Here is a brief excerpt from an essay by Alexei Khomiakov that explains how individualism is peculiar to the West and how things function differently in Orthodoxy: An external unity, which rejects freedom and is therefore not a real unity — that is Latinism. An external freedom, which does not bestow unity and which is therefore not real freedom — that is Protestantism. The mystery of the unity of Christ and His elect, a unity actualised by His human freedom, was revealed in the Church to the real unity and real freedom of the faithful. Knowledge of the powers that actualised our salvation was necessarily bestowed upon similar powers. Knowledge of unity could not be bestowed upon discord, nor knowledge of freedom upon slavery. Rather, both were bestowed upon the Church, whose full unity is the harmony of individual freedoms. ... The Holy Scripture is Divine Revelation that is freely understood by the mind of the Church; the decisions of the synods, the meaning of the ritual ceremonies; in short: the whole dogmatic tradition, are all an expression of this self-same Revelation, but freely understood under other forms. Inconsistency and disagreement may be a proof of error, but not of freedom: for what is true today was also true in past ages. The contemporary thought of the Church, that is, the mind of its members united by the moral law of mutual love and illuminated by grace, is the same thought that wrote the Holy Scriptures, the same thought that, later, recognised them and declared their holiness, the same thought that, still later, formulated their meaning in the synods and symbolised this meaning in rite. The contemporary thought of the Church, like that of past ages, is a continuing revelation. It is inspiration from the Spirit of God. The Church knows well that no man is infallible, not even a bishop or an individual falsely appointed head of the Church'. Infallibility is present only in the Church as a whole, not even in a local church. That is why an Ecumenical Synod (Council) is not recognised as ecumenical until it has been received by the Church as a whole. No single person can, by his own fiat, make a synodal gathering of the Church 'ecumenical'. Unlike many in the West, Ecumenical Synods are understood as the re-presentation of the Apostolic Faith, that which was once and for all delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3). They do not introduce new teachings. They do not determine dogma. They testify to the Faith handed to us from the Apostles. Sometimes this requires inventing new terminology to en-scripturise a noetic concept for which no adequate term already exists. Sometimes this requires modifying or even re-defining a pre-existing term. For instance, the First Ecumenical Synod (Nicaea, 325), when it first heard the presentation of Arius's teaching, evinced a strong negative reaction from the gathered bishops. Eyewitness reports testify most covered their ears because they were offended by the blasphemy. The idea that the Lord Jesus Christ was not as fully God as His Father was plainly repugnant to them -- it was a novel teaching, an innovation that was clearly outside the bounds of the Apostolic Faith, the Faith of the Church. Ultimately, the bishops adopted the word οµοούσιον, a word previously rejected by a smaller, regional synod of bishops -- but only after ούσιος had been re-defined to mean (roughly) what someone is or essence. Initially, the term οµοούσιον had been resisted: not only because bishops had previously rejected it, but because it was found neither in the Sacred Writings nor the writings of the Holy Fathers. But in the end, all attempts to find a more acceptable term were thwarted by the Arians' ability to distort the intended meaning in a manner that permitted them to maintain their false teaching. The Holy Fathers of the First Ecumenical Synod resorted to οµοούσιον because it was the only term they could find which clearly explicated the error of Arius. In so doing, they reaffirmed the Apostolic Faith without change, though not without a new terminology. When the Church as a whole agrees the teachings of a worldwide gathering of bishops has re-presented the Apostolic Faith without innovations and without novelties, only then is it accepted as ecumenical. Only then does it receive an authoritative status. There are several examples of synodal gatherings that attempted to distort the Apostolic Faith." LoveMonkey (talk) 16:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you then want to deny "orthodoxy" to other churches as well? I respect your point but in terms of encyclopedia style it is only a point of view.  You can't expect to win ideological arguments on Wikipedia.  Afterwriting (talk) 16:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You can't expect to hid behind the POV you just gave and think that people won't notice? So I must deny my position (one which is what the article is about) because people disagree. Your abusing policy to push your POV. As none of the councils that are called universally accepted where held in Rome. The pope calls the area Byzantium now and we are no longer Roman as Easterns we are now Byzantines -pure lunacy. So the word catholic and the councils now belong not to where they came from nor their native tongue but they now belong to the Vatican, to wikipedia and its policies? Telling the Greeks they can not use their own words to describe themselves. Hubris pure hubris. Roman Catholics telling us what to call ourselves. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * What a very odd response! I have no real idea of what points you are trying to make and why you seem to be criticising me for expressing a point of view.  I am not hiding behind my POV and nor am I "pushing" or "abusing" it.  If anyone is pushing their POV on this issue it certainly isn't me. You won't get anywhere persuading others of your POV by responding like this - so please don't.  Afterwriting (talk) 06:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah what a very impossible criteria you outline. You comment I respond and you say you don't understand. Then you say "You won't get anywhere persuading others of your POV by responding like this - so please don't." Provoking people to response then claiming you don't understand and then telling them they should not respond. Anyone reading these comments objectively will see just how ridiculious that is. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * LoveMonkey, have in mind that most of the people (including me) who oppose yours and Cody's proposal to put "Catholic" in the title are also Orthodox Christians. We are not some "Catholics who tell you what to do". So, please, try to avoid comments that may deemed offensive.--Yannismarou (talk) 10:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yannismarou Afterwriting is not Orthodox. Why are you wasting my time and your time? Why have you not consulted the Orthodox Clergy here on Wiki (i.e. User:Frjohnwhiteford) about this whole affair? Do you not feel obligated if not as an administrator then at least as Orthodox yourself? Nice to see you running interference. But who ya running it for? LoveMonkey (talk) 12:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm also Orthodox and don't find your naming suggestion most appropriate - and that does not at all mean that I deny the Catholicity of the Orthodox Church. You and Cody, as far as I read, are right in your statements. But I suggest you find a different way to make these things published - as they are indeed very interesting. Consider a blog or a magazine or similar. The point is that the Orthodox Church is Catholic, in the correct comprehension of that word. But it doesn't mean that the naming suggestion Orthodox Catholic Church is the best option. Many people would be confused if it was about Uniats i.e. Eastern Catholic Churches. The current name Eastern Orthodox Church is also not the clearest solution, that's why I greet (and have signed) the initiative for renaming. Please also have in mind that with the attitude you are demonstrating here, not only that you are not defending the Orthodox Church, but you are doing exactly the opposite. Kpant (talk) 13:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not attacking the Orthodox Church, as you just accused me. Implied or not such is false witness and a very serious accusation. I have made no such a thing to you. I beg you to consider the gravity of your entire intervention and its potential the gravity of accusing me of attacking the Orthodox Church. Please do not make light of your comment below.
 * "Please also have in mind that with the attitude you are demonstrating here, not only that you are not defending the Orthodox Church, but you are doing exactly the opposite."
 * I have made no edits to this article and am here supporting a fellow Orthodox. What you have done I have not done to anyone least of all any Orthodox editors here. At what expense is my faith to yours? As for giving the name of the church properly if I am correct as you say then yes it belongs in the article here and not in magazines or somewhere else. As what kind of circular logic follows that the point is valid information but does not belong in an encyclopedia article about the information. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Articles on churches are not under any obligation to only reflect or express the official views of that church, a fact which some more fanatical Roman Catholic editors need to be reminded of judging by my experience of discussing that church's article name. And I will greatly appreciate it if LoveMonkey will immediately cease making unecessarily abrasive remarks - you won't achieve anything by writing as you have been.  Having just been through the Roman Catholic Church article name mediation and experienced the disturbing and fanatical mindset of some Roman Catholics I am not inclined to experiencing something similar here.  I am as entitled as anyone to express my views on the most appropriate name for this article and will continue to do so.  And, for the record, I am not a Roman Catholic and, if you had read my messages properly, you would have noticed that I have supported inclusion of the name "Orthodox Catholic Church" in the article's introduction as a more official name.  Wikipedia's article name policy, however, does not seem to support this as the name of the article on the principle that an article should generally use the most common or usual name by which that entity is known.  In this case it seems to me that this is actually the "Orthodox Church".  So please don't distort my comments in future and stop making abrasive comments. Afterwriting (talk) 13:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * More projecting. And I need you to stop with the outragious allegations first by posting what "unecessarily abrasive remarks" I have made specifically to you. Your attempts to silence my position by reducing it to POV that will not get heard is quite unproductive and appears as an attempt to frustrate not collaborate. Your reading of my comments above as strictly POV is not assuming good faith. You seem unwilling to take responsiblity for that. Your comments started that way. You engage me as you wished to be engaged. Not the other way. As for (your opposing inclusion) into the article title, good, as for you not taking responsiblity and posting your advice to me when I did not ask. My advice to you, is keep your advice. As it appears to me to imply that my attempt to atleast state my case is futile. And that is assuming bad faith. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, LoveMonkey has the impression that only Orthodox people should hava a say on this article. As an Orthodox, I strongly disagree with that, and welcome Afterwriting and anybody else who wants to contribute to this discussion, in any way he/she wants to contribute to this discussion, and having no interest in his/her theological beliefs. LoveMonkey, I am not writing a test exam in my school on Θρησκευτικά neither do I intend to confess to a clergyman, in order to consult the Orthodox clergy. I am judging an article on strictly encyclopedical criteria, and my belief is that "Orthodox Church" is a) more common, b) more accurate, c) self-identifying, and therefore it should be the article's title. On the other hand, I believe that "Orthodox Catholic Church" is encyclopedically unacceptable. If you have a different opinion, as Voltaire had said (a non-practicing Catholic!), it is your right to support and articulate it, and I'll defend your right to do so; but you cannot impose me your opinion; neither can you accuse everybody disagreeing with you as a POV pusher or a supporter of unknown and non-specified interests. Understand that such a stance weackens the positions you support.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No I was under the impression that I should try as best as possible to show the short comings of the article (which this has done BTW) as it is and try to improve it. You obvious disagree. You think I saw something different and felt the need to tell people what I think. Unfortunately your wrong. I gave my motives and they are not as you have presented them. I have not attempted to show disrespect by claiming to speak for someone else, I graciously ask that you reciprociate that and not speak for me again as you just did. I support one attempt by Cody to improve the article and was told I was wasting my time and that I can't expect to win ideological arguments on Wikipedia. Again I can't speak for you. Since you have decided to speak for me. Consider for me that I find this whole thing rather disingenuous. I pointed out how it was disingenuous and now I am told I am engaging in "unecessarily abrasive remarks". LoveMonkey (talk) 19:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

As said before, according to "Convention: Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, title an article using the most common name...", the most "common" names are used only when there are no other naming conventions which state something else or when there are no naming conflicts. The WP:Naming conflict (which is used to solve naming conflicts) requests we use official names ("Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution)". The following ,,,,,, claim that the official name is the "Orthodox Catholic Church", according to Saint Raphael of Brooklyn, the "Church of the East" has never abandoned the title "Catholic" in an official document ("The Church of the East has never from the first been known by any other name than Catholic, nor has she set aside this title in any official document."). Although not the most used, it is not "uncommon",, (and I doubt anyway someone will confuse it when they see "Eastern Orthodox" in the title, and I think it's obviously "common" enough for the "Orthodox Catholic Church of Portugal", but the lead will explain anyway to what it refers, and I don't think that the readers of wikipedia read just article titles). "Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church" (it is also called this way in the "Longer Orthodox Catechism of Saint Philaret of Moscow") is also a better disambiguation from the non-Chalcedonians, which are also "commonly" known in english "Orthodox Church" ("Eastern" and "Oriental" are obviously synonyms). Cody7777777 (talk) 14:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Cody, first of all, a friendly advice: you do not have to bold everything in your comments (WP:SHOUT); your opinions are clearly stated and understood. Secondly, I explained to you that your way of interpreting the relevant policies is not the proper one. Official names is just one of the 3 criteria; when there is common usage of a term, the latter prevails. I can list you a series of articles, where common use prevails over official use (e.g. Greece [and many other countries' articles, e.g. United Kingdom and not "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"), Byzantine Empire, Julian the Apostate etc. etc. etc.); besides the fact that "Orthodox Church" is vastly used by the Churches themselves, which makes it official.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't meant to WP:SHOUT above (sorry for giving that impression), I just wanted to underline some parts in my post. All of 3 objective criteria of the WP:NCON should be applied, and it also does not mention there that the "most common" name should be used (and the disambiguation wiki policy should also not be ignored). (Although, it is off-topic, if the names of other articles do not follow the wiki naming policy (in case there are naming conflicts there), this should not be used as a pretext for other articles to ignore the wiki naming policy (regarding the article "Byzantine Empire", I believe the WP:NPOV and WP:NCON would support the article name "Eastern Roman Empire" or "Roman Empire (Byzantine)", but this is not the subject of this discussion).) Cody7777777 (talk) 04:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Cody, I appreciate your obvious convictions on this and I can accept that "Orthodox Catholic Church" may well be the church's most official name, but the only other article naming principle which seems to possibly be important for consideration here is that of "naming conflict" and I am unclear what naming conflict you have in mind - is it "Catholic Church" or "Orthodox Church" or something else? I should point out that the policy about common names does not seem to support your comment about common names *only* being used when there are no other naming principles to be considered - the policy actually says "except" which I read as meaning that the other naming principles should also be considered - not that they take necessarily take precedence.  Also the various examples given in the policy guidelines seem to indicate that common use normally takes precedence over official names.  Afterwriting (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The naming conflict, I believe it is mainly the debate here (according to WP:NCON, "A naming conflict can arise on Wikipedia when contributors have difficulty agreeing on what to call a topic"), but I believe, there are also the needs of disambiguations which produce a naming conflict ("A name used by one entity may well clash with a name used by another entity. Disambiguation and expansion can resolve overlapping names."). And the WP:NCON requests that we also use more official titles (used also in more legal contexts) to solve naming conflicts. Cody7777777 (talk) 04:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

OK Cody can anyone here statically prove what is the proper name for the Orthodox church? I mean each position should have sources right? You provided sources and now there is the perception that one name being used statically more then the church's official name justifies the revert. I mean your sources appear to be valid. So now sources are not enough. Its now down to the ambiguity of wikipedia. Policy on the fly to suit the agenda. I even asked for him (Yannismarou) to contact an employee of the church (Father John Whiteford on wiki here) and he stated that he did not need to do that. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Since it sounded so good the first time, I may as well repeat my post from a couple of days ago, with slight modifications. Never mind "statistical proof", or contacting church employees. We need not do that; we can simply check the websites of all SCOBA members. We find that the Greeks have the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America. The Antiochians, the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America. The Serbs, the Serbian Orthodox Church in North and South America. The Rusyns, the American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese of the USA. The Romanians, the Romanian Orthodox Archdiocese in the Americas. The Bulgarians, the Bulgarian Eastern Orthodox Diocese of the USA, Canada, and Australia. The Russians, the Orthodox Church in America. The Ukrainians, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the United States of America. The Albanians, the Albanian Orthodox Diocese of America. See a pattern? Orthodox churches today, in the English-speaking world (and let us not forget the Russian Orthodox Church in Great Britain and Ireland or the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia) simply do not refer to themselves as "Catholic", anywhere. That may be inaccurate, or imprecise, but it's the way things are. And we here at Wikipedia record the outside world's reality; we do not attempt to change it to reflect our opinion of what is correct. The writings of Saint Raphael are not what counts here; rather, it is current usage - and I believe I've shown quite clearly what that usage is in the Anglosphere today. - Biruitorul Talk 17:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Orthodox Catholic Church" appears on the webistes of the "Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the United States of America","Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America",Orthodox Church in America,Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia, the following,,,,,,,,, articles from the website of the "Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America" refer to the Orthodox Church as the "Catholic Church" or "Orthodox Catholic Church". (It should also be noted that the (E)OCC is called "Catholic" in the Nicene Creed (it is used in the english translation), used by orthodox Christians), "one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" (so I doubt "Catholic" is "uncommon" for the Orthodox Christians.) According to Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, "Orthodox Catholic Church" is one of the ways Orthodox Christians often call their Church (and I think it's obviously "common" enough for the "Orthodox Catholic Church of Portugal" (which is part of the Orthodox Communion)). Also, this article is not just about the Greek Orthodox Church, Russian Orthodox Church, Romanian Orthodox Church, Bulgarian Orthodox Church, Serbian Orthodox Church, Georgian Orthodox Church etc., but about the whole orthodox Church, the following articles state "all of the local Orthodox Churches throughout the world comprise the worldwide Orthodox Catholic Church of Christ", "The various Orthodox Churches are all sister Churches, all part of the One, Holy, Orthodox Catholic Church". As said before, according to "Convention: Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, title an article using the most common name...", the most "common" names are used when there are no other naming conventions which state something else or when there are no naming conflicts. The WP:Naming conflict (which is used to solve naming conflicts like this one) requests we use official names ("Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution)". The following ,,,,,, explicitly claim that the official name is the "Orthodox Catholic Church", according to Saint Raphael of Brooklyn, the (Orthodox) "Church of the East" has never abandoned the title "Catholic" in an official document ("The Church of the East has never from the first been known by any other name than Catholic, nor has she set aside this title in any official document."), especially since the WP:NCON requests official names, his writtings about this count). "Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church" (which includes the title "Catholic" used in more official contexts by the (E)OCC) is also a better disambiguation from the non-Chalcedonians (which are also referred "commonly" in english "Orthodox Church" or "Eastern/Oriental Orthodox Church", but they don't seem to use the exact title "Orthodox Catholic Church" in english), "Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church" is used in the following "Google Searches" and "Google Book Searches" about english sources,, refer to the chalcedonian (eastern) Orthodox Catholic Church (and I doubt anyway someone will confuse it when they see "Eastern Orthodox" in the title, but the lead will explain anyway to what it refers, and I don't think that the readers of wikipedia read just article titles, and as far as I know, people usually read encyclopedias to learn). (It is also called the "Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church" in the "Longer Orthodox Catechism of Saint Philaret of Moscow".) Cody7777777 (talk) 18:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Cody has addressed the above with his sources. But for the record every Orthodox Christian clearly calls themselves catholic officially. Everytime we recite the creed during liturgy, we call ourselves catholic.

LoveMonkey (talk) 18:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Cody, let's not obfuscate the issue here. The Ukrainian church calls itself ... the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the United States of America. The Antiochian church calls itself ... the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America. The OCA calls itself ... the Orthodox Church in America. And the Greek Church in Australia calls itself ... the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia. And Bishop Ware's book is called The Orthodox Church. Period. Yes, the word "catholic" does have meaning and resonance for Orthodox. But it's not, as commonly used today, the name of the church, as one can plainly see. LoveMonkey, you might want to re-read WP:PSTS - it's not what the Creed says that is relevant here, but what contemporary English usage dictates. - Biruitorul Talk 19:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This article is not just about the Greek Orthodox Church, Russian Orthodox Church, Romanian Orthodox Church, Bulgarian Orthodox Church, Serbian Orthodox Church, Georgian Orthodox Church etc., but about the whole orthodox Church, the following articles state "all of the local Orthodox Churches throughout the world comprise the worldwide Orthodox Catholic Church of Christ", "The various Orthodox Churches are all sister Churches, all part of the One, Holy, Orthodox Catholic Church". Metropolitan Kallistos Ware claims nonetheless that "Orthodox Catholic Church" is one of the ways Orthodox Christians often call their Church (so it is obviously not "uncommon" in english usage). As said above, according to "Convention: Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, title an article using the most common name...", the most "common" names are used when there are no other naming conventions which state something else or when there are no naming conflicts. The WP:Naming conflict (which is used to solve naming conflicts like the debate here) requests we use official names ("Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution)". The following ,,,,,, explicitly claim that the official name is the "Orthodox Catholic Church", according to Saint Raphael of Brooklyn, the (Orthodox) "Church of the East" has never abandoned the title "Catholic" in an official document ("The Church of the East has never from the first been known by any other name than Catholic, nor has she set aside this title in any official document."), especially since the WP:NCON requests official names, his writtings about this count). "Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church" (which includes the title "Catholic" used in more official contexts by the (E)OCC) is also a better disambiguation from the non-Chalcedonians (which are also referred "commonly" in english "Orthodox Church" or "Eastern/Oriental Orthodox Church", but they don't seem to use the exact title "Orthodox Catholic Church" in english), "Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church" is used in the following "Google Searches" and "Google Book Searches" about english sources,, refer to the chalcedonian (eastern) Orthodox Catholic Church. Cody7777777 (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

''Afterwriting is not Orthodox. Why are you wasting my time and your time?... With an attitude like this, while presenting yourself as an Orthodox Christian, you create the false impression that the Orthodox Church is some closed, xenophobic and snobbish organization, not only unwilling to debate with anyone from the "outside", but hostile even towards its own members who dare to think differently - Nice to see you running interference. But who ya running it for?''. Of course, this is an utterly wrong impression, and a bad favour for the Church - which you say you are defending. You cannot defend the Orthodox Church in an un-orthodox manner. The Orthodox Church is, and has always been, open for debate, discussions and meetings with everybody, regardless of their religious beliefs or disbeliefs.

The red line which the Orthodox don't cross is serving Liturgy with the non-orthodox, and therefore the Holy Communion is the measure for the Church - the ones that are part of this Communion are the Orthodox Church, the others are not - which, of course, has never been a reason for elitism (that would be ridiculous in the Church). By the way, this red line has recently been crossed by some hierarchs from the Romanian Orthodox Church, still without official consequences - perhaps your insisting on the word "Catholic" in the title, is in the same direction... Kpant (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Those "hierarchs from the Romanian Orthodox Church" you mentioned have clearly acted against the canons, by sharing Holy Communion with the non-orthodox, they should not have done that (I don't agree with their action, although I'm Romanian Orthodox), and they were criticized for it. It may be possible I misunderstand what you meant here, but I don't understand what you mean by saying that by adding "Catholic" is a crossing of the "red line". The (eastern) Orthodox Catholic Church cannot renounce its traditional titles, if someone else also claims them. Indeed, the "Orthodox Church is, and has always been, open for debate, discussions and meetings with everybody, regardless of their religious beliefs or disbeliefs", however these debates do not include doctrines and theology (which is revealed by God Himself, not debated through "philosophical rationalism"), there cannot be compromises in matters of faith for the Orthodox Catholic Church (so in this case, for Orthodox Christians, there cannot be a debate if the Church is Catholic or not, it is clear enough for Orthodox Christians that the only (true) Catholic Church is what we also call as the Orthodox Church (it is obviously mentioned so in the creed, "one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church"), there is nothing to debate about this, at least not for Orthodox Christians, and obviously all the Orthodox Saints which called the Orthodox Church as the Catholic Church, did not crossed any "red line" doing so), the ecumenical councils (or other local councils) did not invented new doctrines, they mainly explained orthodoxy as it already was, identified heresies, and condemned heretics. (Also, obviously I did not invent the WP:NCON which requests official titles, nor all of these sources which claimed that the official name of the Church is the "Orthodox Catholic Church".) (I'm sorry, if someone feels offended by this post.) Cody7777777 (talk) 10:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment: Best title for this article
Requesting comments on the "Requested move" section earlier on this Talk Page. The consensus is running towards renaming this article to "Orthodox Church" with the "second best" choice being to keep the current title of "Eastern Orthodox Church". However, the proponents of the third (least favored) option have strong opinions and any decision on this question would be helped by having a clear consensus. That is the reason for this RFC... to request the opinions of a wider constituency so as to provide the best support for any final decision. --Richard (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As Roman Catholic Church has just been moved to Catholic Church, this move would seem to be supported by consistency. Peter jackson (talk) 10:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Not quite as straightforward, however, as the use of "Catholic Church" does not always refer to the Roman Catholic Church - and some people also object to the RCC calling itself the Catholic Church. The situation is not usually so complicated with "Orthodox Church". Afterwriting (talk) 15:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, changing this article's name to "Orthodox Church" is more straightforward than the recent change of "RCC" to "CC" as "CC" is more ambiguous than "OC". Afterwriting (talk) 09:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It might be straightforward to you but it is not the offical name of the Church. Why is it that Encyclopedia Britannica can clearly state in their encyclopedia entry the official name of the church is the Orthodox Catholic Church and Wikipedia can't? That is all that Cody is really saying and all this assuming bad faith, making disparaging comments and telling people how hopeless it is to try and state their case, is counter productive to the collaboration process here, to say the least. It is also not at all the best to try and cultivate compromise. I think that what they (Encyclopedia Britannica) have done is close to a nice compromise. Where their (Encyclopedia Britannica) article is named Eastern OrthodoxY, not Eastern Orthodox Church, which is what is causing the issue with the article name right now. Encyclopedia Britannica also gives the official name of the church as Orthodox Catholic Church which represents the actual historical name and stance of the church as a complete community. The Orthodox church is not really correct in that other groups already call themselves Orthodox as I pointed out earlier Jewish groups do that already. Since this wikipedia article is explicit in having in it's name church , it seems that at least encyclopedia Britannica (among many, many other sources as Cody keeps posting) are driving Cody and me to take the position we have taken. So........If you want to name the article after the entire group maybe it is better to keep it official and go with renaming the article -Eastern Orthodoxy- with the intro clearly stating the church's offical name is, as encyclopedia Britannica has it, The Orthodox Catholic Church. Please refrain from wasting my time and yours with the disparaging remarks about how I can not possibly defend my position rather lets focus on the sources that are bostering mine and Cody position on the naming of the article. Lets focus on the substance of our disagreement stop with labeling peoples position as POV. As Encyclopedia Britannica clearly shows that Cody's position is not a matter of point of view nor of concensus with a editors here on wikipedia. Cody nor I wrote that article for them and they are obviously not informed by us. Nor as a reliable source are they (Encyclopedia Britannica) alone in the names they have used and statements they have made. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I have already asked you to stop responding to my reasonable comments in an abrasive manner - yet you continue to do so without any valid reasons. If you had read my comments properly you would have noticed that I have defended "Orthodox Catholic Church" as the most official name so why do you keep critising my comments in such an offensive way?  Please stop doing this, it is completely unecessary.  Again, the issue as I understand it, is not so much about what the official name of the church may be but what is the most appropriate name for this article according to Wikipedia's policies.  I don't know what the EB's policies on article names are but there may be differences.  It is my understanding, at present, of Wikipedia's policies that "common names" usually takes precedence over official names - because many entities' usual or common name can be very different from the official name which may be virtually unknown to most people.  It is obvious from the comments of many Orthodox people's comments on here that the name "Orthodox Catholic Church" is actually unknown to them.  As far as naming the article "Eastern Orthodoxy" goes I would be open to that idea at present. Afterwriting (talk) 15:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Post what specific "abrasive manner" I have responded here. Specifically. Enough with the baseless and time wasting allegations.

LoveMonkey (talk) 17:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that EB is far from infallible. WP policy, sensibly, is to prefer specialized sources. Peter jackson (talk) 10:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The written material published by most (all that I've seen) Orthodox churches in the U.S. says Eastern Orthodox or Eastern Orthodoxy. Although the religion is simply referred to as Orthodox among practitioners, inquirers are generally given the full Eastern Orthodox name. This also helps avoid confusing it with Orthodox Judaism. Therefore, I think Eastern Orthodox, Eastern Orthodoxy, or Eastern Orthodox Church are the best options to reflect the most commonly known names for the religion.67.170.1.66 (talk) 04:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Tend to agree that "Eastern Orthodox Church" might be the best way to go. WP:NAME refers to the most commonly used name which isn't ambiguous for a group, and, to the best of my knowledge, "Eastern Orthodox" is more common than "Orthodox Catholic". Also, for better or worse, there are other Christian religious bodies, generally referred to as Oriental Orthodox, which also use the term "Orthodox" in their name, which would seem to me to make the title Orthodox Church ambiguous. Orthodox Catholic Church might be an acceptable title, but I personally can't remember having ever even heard it before, which might make its "commonality" questionable. John Carter (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "Eastern Orthodox Church" is by far the most common and recognizable name in the English-speaking world. No other title comes even close to the level of usage and recognition that "Eastern Orthodox" possesses. Additionally, "Orthodox Church" is an amiguous title far more suited for disambiguation than as a label for a single church. Common best practice and documented policy are very clear in this situation. --Vassyana (talk) 04:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Any room to compromise?
It seems that we have reached the point where we are going around in circles repeating the same arguments and basically trying to shout down Cody and LoveMonkey. Even after issuing an RFC, there seem to be no additional supporters for "Orthodox Catholic Church" leaving Cody777777 and LoveMonkey as the only proponents of that name.

Except for.... well, me. I admit that as much as I find the name a bit jarring because I had never heard it before this discussion and as much as I am annoyed by Cody reposting the same arguments four or five times, I am now persuaded that perhaps the official names of the national churches are of the form "X Orthodox Church" and yet the official name of the whole church might truly be "Orthodox Catholic Church". And thus we are left with a decision between the "official" name of the church ("Orthodox Catholic Church") and the most common names ("Eastern Orthodox Church" or just "Orthodox Church").

If there were no such thing as redirects, this would be more of a difficult decision. However, with the availability of redirects, it's not so important what an article is titled as long as the article explains the nuances of the different names.

Thus, nothing is lost by titling this article "Orthodox Catholic Church" as long as the following points are explained either in the lead or in a Note...


 * 1) The sources which indicate the "official" name of the whole church is "Orthodox Catholic Church"
 * 2) The term "Catholic" is usually dropped largely to avoid confusion with the "Catholic Church" but without relinquishing the Orthodox Church's claim to catholicity
 * 3) Thus, all the national churches tend to be known as and refer to themselves as "X Orthodox Church" although there is an argument that their official name is "X Orthodox Catholic Church"
 * 4) The term "Eastern" is almost never used by Orthodox Christians to refer to themselves but it is used by Catholics and Protestants.
 * 5) "Eastern" is becoming anachronistic as the Orthodox diaspora has created significant presence in the "West".
 * 6) "Eastern Catholic" designates the Uniate churches of the Catholic Church and are not in communion with the Orthodox Catholic Church
 * 7) The article uses the terms "Orthodox Church" and "Orthodox Catholic Church" interchangeably

Thus, my compromise proposal is that the article be titled "Orthodox Catholic Church" with redirects from "Orthodox Church" and "Eastern Orthodox Church". Many of the objections to titling this article "Orthodox Catholic Church" can be handled by text in the lead or in a Note.

I understand the argument that many people including Orthodox Christians will be confused by the title being "Orthodox Catholic Church" but, if the points above are made in the lead, the confusion will be dealt with and some people might actually learn something which is, after all, the purpose of an encyclopedia.

--Richard (talk) 14:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for proposing this, I appreciate this very much. Of course, I agree with this proposal, (however another possibility could be "Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church", but there are obviously Orthodox Christians who don't like the word "eastern" too much), and it is obviously much better than the current situation. (I didn't really wanted to repeat the same arguments again and again, but I think I was asked to do this.) Cody7777777 (talk) 17:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but no. First, I doubt if the concept of "official name" is applicable at all, since the church as a whole is hardly even a tangible, unified organisational body, but really more of a theological concept. Second, even if it was true, our policy still squarely comes down on the side of "most commonly used term in English". Also, I don't see where the "compromise" is in your proposal. The presence of the redirects? But of course there would be redirects; omitting them would be madness. This isn't a compromise, it's CodyLoveMonkey's proposal pure and simple. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Fut here. When I saw the term "Catholic Orthodox", my first thought was of the Uniate churches. In my experience, to the vast majority of Orthodox believers, the term "Orthodox" alone perfectly and fully encapsulates their religious affiliation. Even Britannica, which acknowledges the "official name", uses "Eastern Orthodoxy" as the title and name of reference in other articles. As for the "Eastern" epithet, it is still very much valid: Orthodoxy is traditionally associated with Eastern Europe and the Middle East, with their unique culture, and with the emigrant communities from these areas. And the term is used by the Orthodox themselves: the Constitution of Greece for instance clearly defines the "Eastern Orthodox Church of Christ" as the "prevailing religion" (article 3). I understand Cody and LoveMonkey's position, but, as in the similar discussion(s) over the [Eastern] Roman vs Byzantine Empire, the "official" nomenclature (if such a thing exists in regards to a body as diverse and loose as the Orthodox Church) has to be rejected in favour of the greatly more recognizable common name. Constantine  ✍  15:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As said before, in these cases, the WP:Naming conflict requests we use official names (not the "most common" name). There are enough sources claiming the official name is "Orthodox Catholic Church",(,,,,,, Saint Raphael of Brooklyn also claimed that the (Orthodox) "Church of the East" uses the title "Catholic" in its official documents). Also, I have not yet seen a case in english where "Orthodox Catholic" referred to the uniate, (the lead will explain anyway clearly enough to what it refers, the use of redirects will also solve possible problems, and the readers of Wikipedia don't read just article titles, people usually read encyclopedias to learn). Metropolitan Kallistos Ware also claimed that "Orthodox Catholic Church" is one of the ways Orthodox Christians often call their Church (this means that "Orthodox Catholic Church" is not "uncommon" in english usage). It is also a less ambiguous, since the non-Chalcedonians don't seem to use in english the title "Orthodox Catholic Church". However, to avoid any sort of possible confusion, the article could be also named as "Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church". (Also the "Eastern Roman" vs "Byzantine" debate, is not the subject of this discussion, and normally that article should also be renamed, at least in my opinion, also if other articles ignore wiki rules, it's not a pretext for other articles to do so, but this is off-topic.) Cody7777777 (talk) 17:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to agree here with Richard. Everything here is opinion except what Cody has posted. and Encyclopedia Britannica is a valid source. It is not a matter of making general statements which can not be sourced like "most" people this or "most" people that. Again what can be source is the offical title of the church is the Orthodox Catholic Church. The community is called Eastern Orthodox not specifically the clergy the buildings and the origin of the church. As Cody has posted many many sources to the effect that the Clergy, Buildings and Monasteries are all officially called the Orthodox Catholic church. The official title is not up to Wikipedia consensus. It is not a matter of a vote here on an English encyclopedia. What the title of the article should be, is uniform with other English encyclopedias. The title of the article should be Eastern Orthodoxy or Eastern Orthodox Christianity. Because the people who work for the actual church as clergy and monastics alike when legally referring to their origanization on paper they call the church the Orthodox Catholic Church.

LoveMonkey (talk) 17:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, are you guys sockpuppets of each other? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No we're not. Your an admin do an IP check. When your done can we then get to the substance of what is being addressed? Maybe? Instead of allegations. Please pretty please.LoveMonkey (talk) 17:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Now it seems to me that either the word church should be removed from the title. Or if it is then what is used, the church's official name has to be the title and that it is used there and sourced from the many valid sources that Cody has posted, that call the church the Orthodox Catholic Church. It you want to refer to all involved as community (that would include non canonical issues as well) then rename the article in the vein of the encyclopedia Britannica, which is Eastern Orthodoxy no church is mentioned in the Encyclopedia Britannica's title as it is then broad enough to include the origination (aka Eastern) and the laity.

LoveMonkey (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The suggestion to rename to "Eastern Orthodoxy" or "Eastern Orthodox Christianity" and to mention in the lead "Orthodox Catholic Church" as the official name is clearly an improvement of the current situation, however it will still clash with the non-Chalcedonians (since "Oriental" and "Eastern" are synonyms). But, they don't seem to use in english the exact title "Orthodox Catholic Church" or "Eastern/Oriental Orthodox Catholic Church", and the WP:Naming conflict requests we use official names, when naming an article. Cody7777777 (talk) 18:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You continue to misrepresent what WP:Naming conflict actually says. It absolutely does not "request we use official names." It merely suggests "Is it the official current name of the subject?" as one of several possibly relevant criteria to use in resolving a conflict. The very next criterion in the list is "Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves?" That latter principle would support the common names "Orthodox Church". We should only even be looking at WP:Naming conflict if there is some reason why the most commonly used names are not appropriate. No such reason has been given. But even if we grant that a conflict exists, it is up to the Wikipedia community to consider all the relevant criteria in WP:Naming conflict and make a balanced decision. Mrhsj (talk) 18:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * All of the 3 objective criteria needs to be applied, it also does not state there to use the "most common" name, and it states nonetheless to use official names. Also, Metropolitan Kallistos Ware claims that "Orthodox Catholic Church" is one of the ways Orthodox Christians refer to their Church, so this means it is also a "common" usage for Orthodox Christians. As said before in english the non-Chalcedonians are also "commonly" referred as "Orthodox Church" or "Eastern/Oriental Orthodox Church" (this produces a naming conflict, but the naming conflict is also mainly this debate "A naming conflict can arise on Wikipedia when contributors have difficulty agreeing on what to call a topic"), but they don't seem to use in english "Eastern/Oriental Orthodox Catholic Church", as far as I see, in english it refers to the chalcedonian (eastern) Orthodox Catholic Church. Cody7777777 (talk) 18:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The policy *doesn't* say that we must use official names - you are mistaken on this and must be misreading the policies. If you read the whole article on article names it should be clearer to you that common names generally have greater weight than official names. Afterwriting (talk) 14:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Richard, accepting the name that was least supported doesn't make any sense, and clearly that is not a compromise. The arguments are given in the discussion above, why should we repeat ourselves again under a different talk section? Kpant (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No reason... A simple "agree" or "disagree" will suffice. In fact, silence implies non-support in this case.  I was looking for a way to achieve true consensus rather than a "ram it down their throats" supermajority which is where we are headed now.  I hoped that explaining all the nuances in the lead would allow us to agree on Orthodox Catholic Church as the title for this article but it appears that no one on the majority side is willing to accept my proposed approach.  We should explain all of the points I listed anyway even if we don't change the title to Orthodox Catholic Church.  If there is nothing new to add to this discussion, then let's not keep saying the same thing over and over again.  Wait a few more days and, if no one adds anything new, it looks like we will be moving this article to Orthodox Church.  --Richard (talk) 21:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Richard, while I appreciate your desire to broker a consensus here, I havet to "disagree" with your suggestion. Despite my disagreement I appreciate your efforts to explore new options.
 * In that same spirit I'd liek to propose two ideas:
 * 1. No matter what the article is named it should mention in the lead sentence that one of the names used by the Church is "The Orthodox Catholic Church";
 * 2. The article would benefit if it includes additional details about why the Church uses the term "catholic to describe itself and why the concept of catholicism is important to the Orthodox Church.
 * Thoughts? Majoreditor (talk) 01:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The "official" name is found in the creeds: The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Which title is, of course, also claimed by several rival denominations; hence the de facto names of convenience, such as "Catholic" for the Catholics (even though the Orthodox also claim to be catholic); "Orthodoxy" for the Orthodox (even though the Catholics say they are no less orthodox); and on a distant limb of the genealogical tree, "Churches of Christ" for a particular Protestant grouping (even though all claim to be churches of Christ).


 * Beyond that, various national or local churches have their own legally-established names. These will be very diverse. (I am afraid that some of the posters above have seized upon some of these, and elevated them to general use.)


 * In ordinary English, members tend to call themselves "Orthodox" or "Orthodox Christians." The first possibility risks confusion with Orthodox Judaism, while the second may also be used by certain of the non-Chalcedonian confessions. (Is this right? I have seen a textbook which suggests this, but have no first-hand knowledge.) I would recommend using it anyway, since better-known alternative designations exist for the non-Chalcedonians (e.g. "Armenian Apostolic Church"). "Eastern Orthodox" is more common among outsiders, and also acceptable IMHO. Dawud (talk) 07:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

In case anyone didn't see my remark in the previous section, I repeat it here: I'd just like to point out that EB is far from infallible; WP policy, sensibly, is to prefer specialized sources. Note also that the previous edition of EB said the official name was Holy Orthodox Catholic Apostolic Eastern Church. Peter jackson (talk) 10:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for mentioning that, I believe "Holy Orthodox Catholic Apostolic Eastern Church" or "Holy Orthodox Catholic Apostolic Church" are more complete official titles (and I would not have any problem if the article would be renamed to one of this), however I believe there are enough sources which mention "Orthodox Catholic Church" as the main official title. Cody7777777 (talk) 13:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding the assertion about "official names", Wikipedia's article name policies *don't* say that articles should use official names of entities for an article's name. This assertion is a misreading of the policies.  Official names are one of three considerations which, in order of importance appear to be (1) Common name, (2) Official name, (3) Self-identifying name.  On this basis "Orthodox Church" fits all three, especially 1 and 3;  "Eastern Orthodox Church" principally fits 1 (and also 3 to a limited extent); "Orthodox Catholic Church" principally fits 2 and 3 (and also 1 to some extent).  Overall, therefore, it seems to me that "Orthodox Church" fits the three considerations more adequately than the other two possible names.  I am open to persuasion otherwise, however. Afterwriting (talk) 10:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not see where it mentions there an order of importance, I think there is rather an equal importance. Cody7777777 (talk) 13:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that there is any indication in the policies that they are of equal importance - but there seems to be a clear indication that common name is of greatest importance and priority. Afterwriting (talk) 14:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The 3 objective criteria of WP:Naming conflict does not state that we should use the most "common" name. Also according to WP:NAME, "Convention: Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, title an article using the most common name...", the most "common" names are used when there are no other naming conventions which state something else or when there are no naming conflicts. Cody7777777 (talk) 15:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The general principle of article naming on the Wikipedia naming conventions page that you've cited is point #1 - "Use the most easily recognized name". This principle generally trumps using official name for articles and rules out all options apart from "Orthodox Church" and "Eastern Orthodox Church". Afterwriting (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Eastern Orthodox only (maybe) applies to what would be used as a designation for churches in the West as it has been pointed out that Russians and Romanian would not call themselves (let alone to one another) Eastern Orthodox. Cody has posted valid sources while everything else appears to opinion. As again Encyclopedia Britannicia does not validate "most" people or "I think". Since no one can provide sources stating that. No Encyclopedia Britannica states something different. Since the article is about the name of the church then what the offical name is should be used. Redirects can account for the variety of opinions outside of what is official . LoveMonkey (talk) 12:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Firstly, the article is *not* "about the name of the church" and, secondly, the name of the article does *not* have to be the same as the name of the entity that the article is about. Thirdly, the article style policies of the Encyclopedia Brittanica do not determine the article style policies of Wikipedia.  In any case, as the name of the article on the Orthodox churches on EB is "Eastern Orthodoxy" - and *not* "Orthodox Catholic Church" - you are contradicting yourself. Afterwriting (talk) 13:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe all of the 3 objective criteria of the WP:NCON need to be applied in this case. Cody7777777 (talk) 13:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course, but your comment has nothing to do with my earlier comments. But, in any case, if the three objective criteria are used this seems to indicate "Orthodox Church" as the most appropriate name for the reasons I have discussed elsewhere in this section. Afterwriting (talk) 14:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * While "Orthodox Church" is a correct name, I have not seen yet any source which explicitly claims the official name is simply "Orthodox Church". We should also, not ignore the wiki disambiguation policy. Cody7777777 (talk) 15:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

"The Hellenic Republic"
Just want to point out that the Constitution of the Hellenic Republic calls it the Eastern Orthodox Church, and goes on to describe this as being all those bodies in communion with the Patriarchate of Constantinople.http://www.hri.org/docs/syntagma/artcl25.html Eugene-elgato (talk) 14:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for mentioning that, however the Constitution of the Hellenic Republic, does not seem to say what is the official name of the "Eastern Orthodox Church". Cody7777777 (talk) 15:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's surely at least 'official' in Greece? I'd say this bit of evidence is quite significant because it is made clear that the Church of Greece does not exist in isolation but is defined precisely as being always in communion with whatever the (Greek)Patriarchate of Constantinople is at any one time.Eugene-elgato (talk) 15:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * LoveMonkey (talk) 18:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So what ya saying is; there is no right answer? Eugene-elgato (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep. The only offical name is the Orthodox Catholic Church.LoveMonkey (talk) 03:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * People have been speaking of an "official" name, but there is no one body capable of providing such a name. In fact, various national and local churches have their own names, in different languages.


 * The visitor to Athos will find, on the registration forms for the various monasteries, a long line of other visitors who indicate their religion as "X.O." (For "Christian Orthodox," or the Greek equivalent.)Dawud (talk) 01:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe there were shown enough sources which claimed that the official name is "Orthodox Catholic Church", please check them in earlier posts. Cody7777777 (talk) 07:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Alright now the ascetics have a whole nother thing. As indeed X or the X O is proper as also the name of Ancient Christianity and Christ himself is X. LoveMonkey (talk) 02:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm confused. First we're asked for an 'official' name? Then there's no official name. Now there's one official name I.e. Orthodox Catholic Church? I found an 'official' name that says Eastern Orthodox; another 'official' one from Greek birth certificate (father's religion) and athonite visitation documents is Christian Orthodox; so where even was Orthodox Catholic anyway?Eugene-elgato (talk) 08:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

(OK i can see there are some earlier posts on why Orthodox catholic is official; but is it official or isnt it ?? )Eugene-elgato (talk) 08:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This article does not talk about official names, obviously "Orthodox Church" or "Eastern Orthodox Church" are correct names of the Church, but I have not seen yet any source which explicitly states that the official name is simply "Orthodox Church" or "Eastern Orthodox Church". Also, "Constitution of the Hellenic Republic" is not a constitution of the Church, nor does it explicitly state that "Eastern Orthodox Church" is the official name of the Church. I believe there were enough sources shown before which explicitly claimed that the official name is "Orthodox Catholic Church", and as said before according to Saint Raphael of Brooklyn, the (Orthodox) "Church of the East" has never abandoned the title "Catholic" in an official document. Cody7777777 (talk) 09:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) Common names in English usage are Eastern Orthodox Church & Orthodox Church. All others are extremely rare (except Greek Orthodox Church, which nobody would claim is "correct").
 * 2) I looked up the EB reference, & found what it actually says: OCC is the name used in liturgical & canonical documents.

Peter jackson (talk) 10:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Canonical documents could be considered to represent legal contexts, the WP:Naming conflict states that we should use official names found, used in more legal contexts, ("Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution)"). Also,  according to Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, "Orthodox Catholic Church" is one of the ways Orthodox Christians often call their Church, this means it is not "uncommon". (Also, as said several times before, "Orthodox Church", and "Eastern/Oriental Orthodox Church" clash with the "commonly" used name in english for the non-Chalcedonians, I believe it was explained in earlier posts why "Orthodox Catholic Church (Eastern)" is better as an article title (according to wiki naming policy), please check earlier posts.) Cody7777777 (talk) 10:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Peter jackson (talk) 16:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) You seem to be agreeing here.
 * 2) I think you've missed my point here. The vast majority of English-speaking people who mention the Church aren't members of it. It was in that sense that I described all other usages as extremely rare.

My problem with the whole 'Catholic' inclusion
Clearly, as an Orthodox, I say the Nicene Creed "...and in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church..." A billion Roman Catholics say the same. Sometimes in Greek we call them Latins to distinguish them from us, because we ARE catholics. Actually, we are in a sense ROMAN CATHOLICS also, because Byzantium is Roman, and the Greeks are Romans, only not Latins. Even there, actually some of us are latin too, ie The Rumanian Patriarchate. Does anyone see what I'm getting at?? We are catholics yes; but this article is a popular encyclopaedia, not one of our own publications. I tell people I'm Eastern Orthodox and immediately they get me (actually some don't but it's because they're generally ignorant). If someone said Orthodox Catholic to me, the first thing I might think of would be either some uniate thing, or more likely some antipope thing, like that guy who'd recently been pardoned by the Pope who headed a breakaway society....think also of Anglo-catholics who are Anglicans tilted away from protestant doctrine....Eugene-elgato (talk) 11:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, this has gone far enough. I read your sources etc, but they do not provide evidence as to why the Orthodox church should be named "Catholic Orthodox Church". On the contrary, I'll provide you with two examples that the biggest orthodox church (under the jurisdiction of the Moscow and all Russia Patriarchate) calls itself Russian Orthodox Church and what a surprise google gives you nearly 600,000 hits with Russian orthodox church in quotation marks. How many hits your church - 735. What does Britannica have to say? "largest autocephalous, or ecclesiastically independent, Eastern Orthodox church in the world. Its membership is estimated at more than 85 million." Oh, and just to be sure let's check how each Orthodox church is referred to. This link includes every major and not so major Orthodox church. How many are Orthodox Catholic? None. Thank you.


 * And something from all your links. I'll leave those from the catholic encyclopedia aside as they are from the Catholic encyclopedia. As fro all the rest - did you notice they come from the Greek ORTHODOX Church, The ORTHODOX research centre, the book named The ORTHODOX Church having just one reference to the catholic church? If your idea was so prominent why not even one of these institutions has changed its name to orthodox catholic?


 * To summarize: (Eastern) Orthodox church is the most common name in English; Orthodox is the official qualifier of all churches; not even one is named Orthodox Catholic. How could the whole of them be Orthodox Catholic then? I think that's all. We could end this lame dispute and go to our usual work now. --Lav e o l  T 12:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This article is not just about the Russian Orthodox Church (or other national Orthodox Churches), this article is about the whole Orthodox Church. There's also an article from the website of a jurisdiction belonging to the Russian Orthodox Church, which I believe claims clearly enough "The various Orthodox Churches are all sister Churches, all part of the One, Holy, Orthodox Catholic Church" (also, the "Orthodox Catholic Church of Portugal" (which is part of the Orthodox Communion), does calls itself "Orthodox Catholic" although it is a national Church, but this article is not just about the national Orthodox Churches). Also, I have not yet ever seen in english "Orthodox Catholic Church" referring to the uniate (in fact, to be honest, I have to say that this assumption could even be considered WP:OR). I believe, there were shown enough sources, which claimed that "Orthodox Catholic Church" is the official name of the Church, (there have not been yet shown any sources which explicitly claimed that the official name is simply "Orthodox Church" or "Eastern Orthodox Church", or that "Orthodox Catholic Church" is not the official name). I believe, it was explained above why (according to wiki naming policy), "Orthodox Catholic Church (Eastern)" as a wiki article title, is better than simply "Orthodox Church" or "Eastern/Oriental Orthodox Church" (both which clash with the non-Chalcedonians). Please check earlier posts. Cody7777777 (talk) 13:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, there are overwhelming evidence that the article should not be moved or if moved it would be in the interest of a shorter and easier target name (Orthodox Church). You have not provided any evidence that any of the Orthodox Churches is officially recognised as Catholic (maybe except that Portugal thing which still says in the title Portugal Orthodox Church). So on both official and common usage level you lack. And it is your mistake to think that this is not an article about the Orthodox Churches. It is and it is clear from the title. There is no high governing body of the Church that is Orthodox Catholic, for God's sake. Every single evidence you've provided comes from an Orthodox source not from an Orthodox Catholic one. And there is no clash with the other Church you mention since the two are easily distinguishable and if you're so considerate about it why don't you go ahead and move the other page in the interest of clarity? You're lacking evidence on every possible account, the community is clearly against the move to Orthodox Catholic, what else do you want. It just won't happen, ok?!--Lav e o l  T 13:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedia Britannica states the official name is the Orthodox Catholic Church . Kallistos Ware stated that official name is the Orthodox Catholic Church. The OCA clearly states that the church is referred to or called the Orthodox Catholic Church . Me and Cody did not start this and are not responsible for what these sources have said. This article has standards to source I posted valid sources from inside and outside the church. Neither me nor Cody have made this up or fabricated it. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying you fabricated anything- just that you're proves show just the opposite. --Lav e o l  T 13:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would have to say that while Orthodox Church is most common in English, it isn't in other languages. The majority of the Orthodox Church speak languages other than English, and we must remember this. I'm not suggesting we include those other languages here, but maybe we ought to reflect them. It does not matter to me if we call it Orthodox Catholic Church or Eastern Orthodox Church. Eastern Orthodox might be more recognizable and better to deliniate it from Catholics & Orientals, though it isn't the most accurate canonically or "legally".--OrthoArchitectDU (talk) 12:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, well in Slavic languages it is the most common name, not that this helps in this particular matter--Lav e o l  T 13:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding other languages, I believe some improvements could be done in the "typica" section about this.Cody7777777 (talk) 13:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I am going to be careful in saying this but the naming of the church officially is already done. And Cody has given valid sources to show that. Kallistos Ware is an authority in the church, but he is also an University of Oxford professor (and yes he makes mistakes he's human). By Wiki standards that should be enough. Now what Cody has done so effectively is show that this is a common issue for the church and that this common issue needs to somehow be expressed in the article. As I have repeatedly posted that the OCA felt the need to address this directly with an article of their own. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem with the sources you quote, is that you consistently cherry-pick things. On the OCA page, the term "Orthodox Catholic Church" is given as one alternative among others: "Sometimes the Orthodox Church is also called the Eastern Orthodox Church, or the Oriental Church, or the Christian Church of the East, or the Orthodox Catholic Church, or the Graeco-Russian Church. But once more, these are all different names for the same Church." Going on, the term "Orthodox" alone is used to identify and set apart the Orthodox Church, but never again is the term "Orthodox Catholic" used. And the very site is called "Orthodox Church in America". This applies to almost all the links that you and Cody have supplied, so clearly, "Orthodox Church" as the common denominator is the most common and, by itself, non-ambiguous name. Constantine  ✍  13:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly my point. Every soure they've provided comes from an Orthodox Church entity. If Cody's idea was so prominent at least one those would be called Orthodox Catholic.--L<font color="#009900">a<font color="#00aa00">v e o l  T 13:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I can only validate the official name from valid sources. Kallistos Ware and Encyclopedia Britannica is a matter of cherry picking as they explicitly state the official name of the church not just the many names the church goes by. The OCA article does not give an official name. You do not point this out. I posted it to show that this whole thing is a bigger issue then two editors on wikipedia. And also that Cody has posted valid sources (I gave just two Encyclopedia Britannica and Metropolitian and Professor Kallistos Ware) that state explicitly what the official name of the church is not just the various names that people call it in passing. As simply Orthodox could apply equally to the Armenian and Coptic churches. That is why the church has an official name (Orthodox Catholic Church) and me and Cody have posted the official name and then sources what the name is. Tell where Encyclopedia Britannica got it wrong?

LoveMonkey (talk) 13:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Who are these guys by the way? And these? They say they are in-between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. Aren't they the real Orthodox Catholics or whatever you're trying to prove Eastern Europeans are?--<font color="#007700">L<font color="#009900">a<font color="#00aa00">v e o l  T 13:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * They are about "Orthodox Catholic Church of America", but anyway the suggestion is not to rename to simply "Orthodox Catholic Church", but to "Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church" or "Orthodox Catholic Church (Eastern)", (although as far as I see, that group is officially called "Orthodox Catholic Church of America", not simply "Orthodox Catholic Church"), most google searches about "Orthodox Catholic Church" refer to the Church, discussed in this article,. Also, "Orthodox Catholic Church" appears several times, on the website of the Orthodox Church of America. There are also several important books, titled this way ,.I believe there were enough sources shown (some of which were also in jurisdiction of the "Orthodox Church of America", which claimed explicitly that the official name of the Church, is "Orthodox Catholic Church" (regardless, how these websites were named, they still claim this nonetheless. The article titles "Orthodox Church" and "Eastern/Oriental Orthodox Church", still clash with the non-chalcedonians (much more than "Orthodox Catholic Church" clashes with the so-called "Orthodox Catholic Church of America", there actually won't be any problem for "Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church" or "Orthodox Catholic Church (Eastern)") and there are also no sources which explicitly claims that the official name is simply "Orthodox Church" or "Eastern Orthodox Church". (This is off-topic, and I'm very sorry to say this, but I believe an (eastern) Orthodox Christian should not claim that those people (the "Orthodox Catholic Church of America") are the "real Orthodox Catholics", from an Orthodox point of view, there is no other Orthodox Catholic Church, but what we also call as the "(Eastern) Orthodox Church", it should also be added, that many Saints and Holy Fathers have referred to the Orthodox Church as the "Catholic Church", they clearly knew what they were talking about, I'm sorry if anyone feels offended by these off-topic statements, I was just trying to state an orthodox POV.) Cody7777777 (talk) 14:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well are they canonical? If so they can call themselves whatever they like but the larger organization that provides their apostolic succession will provoke an official name. If they are Roman Catholic then that will be their official name if they are Orthodox Catholic as part of an Orthodox Catholic Church then that will be their official name. I mean, either the Eastern Orthodx are part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church or we are not. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

what would Kallistos say anyway
His Grace Metropolitan Kallistos (Ware) of Diokleia to be clear is an accomplished theologian, and yes an authority. He would say that this religion called in Greek Agia Or8odo3ia, Holy Orthodoxy, is THE WAY. In a sense, it's not a religion at all, at least for the people who believe in it. Its name therefore is a description of itself, ie. Right Glory, or Right Worship. This is common to other religions that consider themselves the true faith, eg Islam is a description of itself meaning Submission to the Divine. For Orthodox Christians "Orthodox Judaism" for instance would be a misnoma. Clearly the issue is that for an encyclopaedia there must be NPOV, so we couldn't call it The Way. But Orthodoxy seems to be precisely what all of us call ourselves in our respective languages, like Pravoslav....If it were Catholic, there's another issue. In my view, what it comes down to is the difference in the two schools of thought, one being that the West in 1054 became heretical and not just schismatic, and that we have no place praying for a reconcilation, because there's only one side and not two to reconcile. The other school of thought is that in 1054, Rome became schismatic and can and must be prayed for reconciliation. The Russian word Sobornost means just that, and is the name given to the journal of the sainst sergius and alban society that aims at Anglican-Orthodox reconciliation. People on both West and East are some on one school and others on the other. Either way, Catholic for them serves their own purpose. If you believe the other side is heretical you're saying your own church right now IS catholic/universal.....if you believe the other side is merely schismatic then you are Catholic/universal precisely because you are seeking reconciliation. So it's circuitive is it not? leaving catholic out of it, to my mind avoids this quagmire, which could be the issue for another article. Why not have "the naming dispute" as an article unto itself??Eugene-elgato (talk) 14:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I can not speculate on what Kallistos would say. I do agree that naming despute needs to be a section or article though. As for ecumenism, well it's complicated, no? For what a grievious sin to the church it is to cause division.

LoveMonkey (talk) 14:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes of course, all division is bad. It's been happening for a long time between Moscow and Constantinople. Anyway, Kallistos called it The Way, and said in his book that some of the early Holy Fathers called Christianity simply that. A new article would be better than a section because this one is too long. Messy. Eugene-elgato (talk) 14:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Well I can't say it would resolve the name issue here as it stands but I can't see creating an article as such being bad per se.LoveMonkey (talk) 15:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Creating a separate article about the "naming dispute"
The problem with the so-called "naming dispute" being an article unto itself is that the dispute qua dispute is a Wikipedia phenomenon. I challenge you to find me one reliable source that asserts that there is a dispute. Even when a source says the church should be called "Orthodox Catholic Church", it doesn't say that the others are wrong to call it anything else. Thus, I doubt that there is really enough here to warrant an article (but apparently enough to generate thousands of words of dispute from Wikipedians). All of this can be summarized into an explanatory Note. See the Catholic Church for an example.

I recognize that the above paragraph is a bit snarky. FWIW, I doubt this page has approached even one tenth of the amount of time and energy that was spent on mediating this issue over the lead (and subsequently the title) of Catholic Church. Note how many archives there are in the mediation talk page. This mediation took nearly a year to complete.

I considered creating an article about the Naming of the Catholic Church but abandoned it partly due to the difficulties of achieving consensus on the content and partly due to doubts about the encyclopedicity of the content. This is a collection of sources that we gathered regarding the dispute over the "official" name of the Catholic Church ("Catholic Church" vs. "Roman Catholic Church"). Do you really want to go down this road? --Richard (talk) 15:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Something should be mentioned in the article at least. As I posted a link to the OCA website clarifing that this an issue. It could be part of the jurisdictionalism problems that plague the community (in America) due to the inviseration of the Russian Church for example. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that the article would benefit if it has additional information on the names of the Church. This discussion has highlighted how many different names are used to refer to the Church. That's not a bad thing; if anything, it indicates the scope and scale of the Church. Majoreditor (talk) 00:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is really necessary to do an entire article about this issue (although even if it is done, it probably won't discuss about naming disputes, but rather just explain why there are multiple names used). Nonetheless, there should be indeed explanations about these names in a section of this article, perhaps a "Nomenclature" section. Cody7777777 (talk) 07:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Elimination time?
Nearly a week into this discussion, which is veering badly off course, we have (unless I count incorrectly) 15 users favouring "Orthodox Church" or "Eastern Orthodox Church" and just two opting for a title with "Catholic" in it. It seems clear that the latter group, despite their passionate argumentation, has failed to win over support. (This does not mean the "Catholic" business should not be mentioned, either here or at Catholic; I am talking about the title.) I know there's no official way of eliminating options in a poll, but would it not be more productive to consider the "Catholic" option dead at this point, and focus on the narrower "Orthodox Church" versus "Eastern Orthodox Church" question?

I'm sure it would be fun to keep hearing how "according to Saint Raphael of Brooklyn, the (Orthodox) "Church of the East" has never abandoned the title "Catholic" in an official document", but fifteen times - yes, fifteen - is plenty already, and that line of reasoning won't be any more persuasive the 16th, or the 30th time. - Biruitorul Talk 00:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that it is time to close this discussion. However, I think the consensus is pretty much in favor of "Orthodox Church" over "Eastern Orthodox Church".  Let's not eliminate one option; let's just agree to move the article to Orthodox Church and be done with it.  Then let's make the changes to the article text that we have discussed above.  --Richard (talk) 06:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, in this case, maybe the entire poll could be "eliminated". Although, I'm sorry that there are users who dislike this name, according to WP:Polling is not a substitute for discussion, "...policy and guidelines are not ratified through a vote", we should normally just apply the wiki naming rules. Cody7777777 (talk) 07:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Rules of Wikipedia Naming conflict
Actually according to wiki policy, WP:POLLS should normally be avoided, and I'm sorry to say this, but to be honest, polls in fact nearly give the impression of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT arguments, which should normally be avoided on Wikipedia. Perhaps, we should apply the objective criteria of WP:Naming conflict ("A naming conflict can arise on Wikipedia when contributors have difficulty agreeing on what to call a topic") and also the wiki disambiguation policy, ("A name used by one entity may well clash with a name used by another entity. Disambiguation and expansion can resolve overlapping names.") to these proposed names:

"Orthodox Church"
 * Is the name in common usage in English? (it is)
 * Is it the official current name of the subject? ("Orthodox Church" is clearly a correct name for the Church, but I have to say, that I haven't seen yet any source claiming that the official name of the Church is simply "Orthodox Church")
 * Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? (it is)
 * Does it need disambiguation? (It clashes with the "commonly" used name in english for the non-Chalcedonians).

"Eastern Orthodox Church"
 * Is the name in common usage in English? (it is)
 * Is it the official current name of the subject? (I have not seen any source claiming this is the official name of the Church)
 * Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? (according to Metropolitan Kallistos Ware it is)
 * Does it need disambiguation? ("Eastern" and "Oriental" are synonyms, and so It clashes with a "commonly" used name in english for the non-Chalcedonians).

"Orthodox Catholic Church" or "Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church" I believe, the wiki naming policy supports mainly the article name "Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church" or "Orthodox Catholic Church (Eastern)" (the WP:NCON objective criteria does not mention that the most "common" name must be used). (And I think silence, could rather mean agreement in this case.) Cody7777777 (talk) 13:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Is the name in common usage in English? (it is according to ,,)
 * Is it the official current name of the subject? (It contains "Orthodox Catholic Church" which according to the following ,,,,, is the official name.)
 * Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? (according to Metropolitan Kallistos Ware it is).
 * Does it need disambiguation? (it doesn't seem to be used by the non-Chalcedonians in english, however it may clash with some small groups also claiming a similar title to this).


 * While there are valid arguments for the use of either "Eastern Orthodox Church" or "Orthodox Catholic Church" there does not seem to be any major source that would indicate "Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church" as either the appropriate name for the church or for this article. "EOCC" seems to be a complete non-starter.  There would be greater validity for using "Orthodox Christian Church" or "Christian Orthodox Church" both of which have some currency. Afterwriting (talk) 14:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church" appears in the following ,,. However, we could also rename to "Orthodox Catholic Church (Eastern)" or even simply "Orthodox Catholic Church". I believe "Orthodox Christian Church" has largely the same problems as simply "Orthodox Church". Cody7777777 (talk) 15:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the assumption that "Orthodox Catholic Church" is commonly used, especially when compared to "Orthodox" or "Eastern Orthodox". Most other editors appear to agree and have voiced their preference. At this point we're re-hashing old ground. It is safe to say that there's no consensus to re-name the article "Orthodox Catholic Church".  03:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As said before, WP:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. According to Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, "Orthodox Catholic Church" is one of the ways Orthodox Christians often call their Church, this means it is not "uncommon". I think it was explained above why "Orthodox Catholic Church (Eastern)" is better as an wiki article title (according to wiki naming policy). Cody7777777 (talk) 07:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It is uncommon, because most English speakers aren't Orthodox. Peter jackson (talk) 09:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Although, it is not very common, I don't think there is any clear evidence that it is "uncommon", (at least it does appear in the following ,,). However, it should also be noted that the WP:NCON places more emphasis on self-identiftying usage, but this does not mean of course that the disambiguation policy can be ignored. I believe it was explained above why "Orthodox Church" and "Eastern Orthodox Church" have more problems as article titles than "Orthodox Catholic Church (Eastern)". Cody7777777 (talk) 16:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Closing the discussion on naming of this article
Cody, that makes 16 times that you've repeated the same argument. It's time to stop or else you will likely be blocked for disruptive editing. It is true that polling is not a substitute for discussion. However, what that means is that decisions on Wikipedia should not be made solely by voting. There has been plenty of discussion, including a seemingly endless repetition of the same argument by you. If it is not clear to you by now that there will not be a consensus formed by you repeating the same arguments another 15 times, then it is time for an uninvolved admin to come and "do the honors".

It's clear what the consensus is. If additional editors were joining the discussion and supporting your side, there might be some argument for keeping the discussion open. Since there has been nobody supporting your side except for LoveMonkey, it's time for you to throw in the towel and admit defeat.

Let me put it this way: If the consensus were running in your favor, how long would you be willing to allow one or two editors to hold up the decision by repeating the same arguments over and over? This is not the U.S. Senate and, even if it were, you do not have enough !votes to continue this filibuster.

I am hereby closing the discussion and renaming the article to Orthodox Church per the consensus expressed in the Survey above.

--Richard (talk) 07:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I edited the Eastern Christianity accordingly and the Orthodox disambiguation page, and also edited and moved History of the Orthodox Church in accordance to the consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kpant (talk • contribs) 13:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Richard, I applaud your boldness. However, I wonder if, at some point in the near future (but not now, as I'm sure we've had our fill of this topic), it might not be a good idea to request a move from Orthodox Church back to Eastern Orthodox Church, in order that the arguments in that debate should be more fully aired (which they weren't, really, the argument to a large degree having been overshadowed by "Orthodox" vs. "Catholic"). Just a thought, at any rate. - Biruitorul Talk 14:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Biruitorul, the Survey shows "Orthodox Church" with 10 "first choices + 3 "second choice / weak support" followed by "Eastern Orthodox Church" with 3 "first choices" + 7 "second choices". "Orthodox Catholic Church" and its variants had only two supporters: Cody7777777 and LoveMonkey.  Even if they both supported "Eastern Orthodox Church", that would leave us with 10 clear supports for "Orthodox Church" and 5 clear supports for "Eastern Orthodox Church".  I really think this suggests the consensus leaning towards "Orthodox Church".  What would you be seeking in reopening the debate?  A 12-3 consensus instead of 10-5 preference in favor of "Orthodox Church"?  Is it really worth more debate?  What kind of !vote would be necessary to leave the article where it is?  9-6, 8-7?  Let's say it's "8-7" in favor of "Orthodox Catholic Church".  Would you then close the debate as being "no consensus"?  Fine... if there are two people who !voted for "Orthodox Catholic Church" who want the debate continued, let them say so.  They can even post a requested move back to Eastern Orthodox Church if they think we have somehow gone against consensus.  Frankly, I don't think it's worth the time.  It's just a title and all three names should be mentioned and explained in the lead so I don't see what the fuss is about.  There are more important discussions to be had than this.  --Richard (talk) 23:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You're probably right, Richard. In any case, should I open a new move request, it won't be for at least three months. - Biruitorul Talk 02:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, this recent move, as far as I see, was not supported by any strong consensus (in that poll 3 users supported "Eastern Orthodox Church", while 2 supported "Orthodox Catholic Church (Eastern)", so there were five users in that poll who did not believed that the current title was the best option), and as far as I see, much less by wiki rules (according to WP:POLLS, decisions cannot be done through polls, "...few decisions on Wikipedia are made on a "majority rule" basis...""Wikipedia is not a democracy; policy and guidelines are not ratified through a vote", these polls largely give the impression of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT arguments (at least in my opinion) which should be avoided on wiki). The reason, I kept repeating the same arguments, was that as far as I see, the problems stated there were ignored. Even "Orthodox Christian Church (Eastern)" or "Orthodox Christianity (Eastern)" would've been a bit better as an wiki article title than the current, although "Eastern" and "Oriental" are synonyms, but still better than no disambiguation at all, ("Chalcedonian" and "non-Chalcedonian" could've been more explicit disambiguations, but I doubt someone would've liked them, in fact I don't like them too much either), but anyway as far as I see, the wiki naming policy supports mainly "Orthodox Catholic Church (Eastern)" (so, I believe any title for this article which does not contain "Orthodox Catholic" would be disputed by the WP:NCON). Cody7777777 (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me remind you (and the others) that you initially renamed this article without a consensus. The current consensus is far stronger than that. Your suggestion (sorry to repeat this argument again, but you just keep ignoring it) would eventually cause confusion with the uniats. I don't know if that is exactly your aim or not, but currently, you are not receiving sufficient support. Kpant (talk) 17:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you also seem to ignore (since it was already said above), that there were no sources shown in english, which used "Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church" for the uniate, so there is no proof (as far as I see, it is an assumption and it can be considered to be Original Research). (If you have sources, that it refers to the uniate, please show them.) I renamed that article earlier, because no one stated to oppose at that time (at least, as far as I seen), and there were 2 users which supported (and I have to say, that I was not expecting a strong opposition against this, in fact I was quite amazed, but maybe I don't understand something), but mainly, I believed it was the wiki naming policy which supported it. (Also, I do not aim at "uniatism".) Cody7777777 (talk) 17:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Cody, your understanding of the article naming policies is incorrect. The overiding naming principle is that the name should be easily recognised and, unfortunately perhaps, the names you have argued for are not - regardless of what degress of "official" use they may have in the church.  The most easily recognisable names are "Orthodox Church" or "Eastern Orthodoxy" in that order.  Afterwriting (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe this was also explained before, that part of WP:NAME (about the most easily recognized name) does not refer to cases when there are naming conflicts (and I also do not know if simply "Orthodox Church" can be so easily recognizable when seen by non-orthodox), the WP:NAME does state "Convention: Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, title an article using the most common name of the person or thing that is the subject of the article (making the title unique when necessary as described in the following section and in the disambiguation guideline). The naming conflict guideline may help resolve disagreements over the right name to use.", I believe this shows clearly enough that the "most common" name, are used only when there are no problems (or when other naming convetions, don't state something else). Cody7777777 (talk) 17:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "I believe this was also explained before..." Indeed it was, ad nauseam. You may rest assured that you did not lose the argument for lack of trying. We've all read your arguments and rejected them. Over a dozen editors - some with a long history of involvement with this article and some with none - have weighed in and none has been persuaded by your reasoning. I encourage you take Richard's advice to heart. Mrhsj (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you also seem to ignore (since it was already said above), that there were no sources shown in english, which used "Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church" for the uniate, so there is no proof (as far as I see, it is an assumption and it can be considered to be Original Research). (If you have sources, that it refers to the uniate, please show them.) You could have tried to search for "Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church" or "Orthodox Catholic" through your favourite internet search engine before writing. You would have found plenty of non-orthodox sites. Here you are, just a few examples: The Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church in Canada and the Americas, Eastern Orthodox Catholic Archdiocese of the Americas and Deprndencies (here we can read that: The Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church first traces its Apostolic Succession back to St Peter the Apostle through the Syrian Orthodox Church and Catholicate and His Holiness Patriarch Ignatius Peter III of Antioch... Secondly, but equally as important, comes Apostolic Succession from the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church... - clearly not the Orthodox Church this article is about), A community of The Holy Eastern Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church in North America (THEOCACNA) (these theocacna write about The Ecclesiastical Death of Orthodoxy and the like), The Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church Internationa etc. Why don't you also try to search on Wikipedia? You may find out about Orthodox-Catholic Church of America (OCCA) and similar. Kpant (talk) 20:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The "Orthodox Catholic Church of America" was actually already mentioned earlier. It should also be noted that these noncanonical groups don't appear to be officially called simply "Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church" or "Orthodox Catholic Church", they add "..of America", "...in North America" or "...in Canada and the Americas" in their titles, and as far as I see, in most of these google books,, "Orthodox Catholic Church" or "Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church" refer to the (eastern) Orthodox Church"). However, you proven indeed that "Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church" can also be ambiguous (although in english, it refers usually to the Church discussed in this article, and not to these noncanonical groups). According to the websites of these noncanonical groups, it seems that most of them have broken away from the whole Orthodox Catholic Church (I wasn't aware of the existence of these noncanonical groups also calling themselves as "Eastern Orthodox Catholic" when I proposed this name, however, I think it is clear enough that the (eastern) Orthodox Church, cannot abandon its name, because someone else also uses it). Since as far as I see, there was no explicit evidence shown yet that the official name of the entire Church is simply "Orthodox Church" or "Eastern Orthodox Church" (and I believe there were enough shown above which explicitly claimed that "Orthodox Catholic Church" is the official name of the (whole) Orthodox Church), this means that the WP:NCON objective criteria would still support "Orthodox Catholic Church" (without any disambiguation), rather than other titles. However, since you proven that the proposed "Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church" can be ambiguous, I will no longer insist now on renaming the article to "Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church" (although this name is used by the (eastern) Orthodox Church, but the argument you presented here is clearly not a WP:JDLI argument, like polls usually give the impression, and I appreciate this). (Probably it is not really necessary to say this, but the "Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church", which you mentioned, refers to the current "Orthodox Church in America" before it became autocephalous around the year 1970, and in its "Tomos of Autocephaly" (offerred by the Patriarchate of Russia), the (eastern) Orthodox Church, is referred as the "Holy Orthodox Catholic Church of Christ".) Nonetheless, the current name still has problems, if "Orthodox Catholic Church" clashes with these small noncanonical groups, clearly "Orthodox Church" clashes with the non-chalcedonians, I believe the article could also be renamed as "Orthodox Christian Church (Eastern)" or "Orthodox Christianity (Eastern)" (although, "Eastern" and "Oriental" are clearly not very good disambiguations, but it may be better than nothing, if we decide to ignore the disambiguation policy, then we should still rename to "Orthodox Catholic Church" according to the WP:NCON) and the lead could start like "The Orthodox Christian Church, in official contexts referred as the Orthodox Catholic Church," (I realize other users have already improved the lead, I wish to thank them for this). Cody7777777 (talk) 09:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Is everyone aware of http://www.orthodoxwiki.org ? I wonder what name they prefer? Let's find out. Drumroll please...

http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Orthodox_Church


 * Strangely, there seems to have been no discussion, let alone controversy, over the naming issue. ("Orthodox Catholic Church" is mentioned among the alternative names, in the third tier, after "Eastern..." and "Greek...") Also, study the titles of books in their bibliography, taking care to notice which names are found there...and which do not appear at all. Dawud (talk) 00:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes but as has been pointed out to the point of convulsion that article too does not give the church's official-name. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You keep talking about an "official name." What authority would, in your opinion, make such a name official? The Greek government? A pronouncement by Jesus Christ? What? Dawud (talk) 00:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Britannica says OCC is the name in liturgical & canonical documents. I'm not sure why liturgy should be relevant, but canonical, ie legal, ones would seem to be. Peter jackson (talk) 10:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Redirect Link?
I've just noticed the change of name here. However I think there should really be another, "see also", redirect link at the top of the page to give readers the choice of moving to the Oriental Orthodox Churches article.  Xan  dar  22:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I am soon going to assume that silence on this matter implies consent to the proposed change. I think it is important because of confusion that could arise. For example the first paragraph of the article states "The Church is composed of several self-governing ecclesial bodies, each geographically and nationally distinct but theologically unified." This is not true of the Oriental orthodox Churches, and that fact either needs to be clearly stated at that point in the article, or a "see also" top link to Oriental Orthodoxy added.  Xan  dar   13:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

So...
Is titling this article "Orthodox Church" not clearly as ridiculously exclusionary of the Oriental Orthodox to the status of being the Orthodox Church as the titling "Catholic Church" of the Roman Catholic Church is of the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox?? As someone pursuing membership in the Oriental Orthodox Church, I find this move no less offensive than the move of the those on the RCC article. Deusveritasest (talk) 23:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, churches should be called what they call themselves. The name of the church is the Catholic Church.  The Orthodox call themselves Orthodox.  Yes, some people find that exclusionary, but it's what they call themselves, and it's no more exclusionary that the names of many other churches which no one bats an eye at.  The Episcopal Church isn't the only one with Bishops.  The Presbyterian Church isn't the only one with presbyters.  Most churches regard themselves as Disciples of Christ whether they belong to that denomination or not.  And most would claim that they at least try to Witness for Jehovah.  No one tries to deny those other churches the right to use their own name, why should it be the case with the Catholic or Orthodox Churches?  Carlo (talk) 00:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The main problem, I believe is that there are more Churches which claim the titles "Catholic Church" and "Orthodox Church". (And according to the WP:NCON, the name of this article should've rather been "Orthodox Catholic Church", I believe this was shown above.)Cody7777777 (talk) 10:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * What people refer to themselves as is not always what is most clear to others. Titling the body of churches who are in full communion with the bishop of Rome to be "Roman Catholic Church" may be more descriptive to outsiders than simply "Catholic Church". Likewise, grouping the Chalcedonians on the Eastern side of the Great Schism as "Eastern Orthodox" and those who rejected Chalcedon to be "Oriental Orthodox" further helps clarification of the nature of these churches, even though they themselves generally have both been satisfied with just referring to themselves as Orthodox Churches. And I think Wikipedia should seek to define according to what is most informative. Deusveritasest (talk) 05:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

This whole discussion about the titles of the articles on the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church seems increasingly silly to me. Actually, it's probably always been silly and I am amazed that I have allowed myself to get sucked into wasting so much time and energy on these discussions.

Remember that Wikipedia is not paper. It's not as if there is only one name that can be used in Wikipedia as is the case for an article in a paper encyclopedia. Given the ability to redirect Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church and Oriental Orthodox Churches to the right place, why have we spent and why do we continue to spend so much time and energy arguing about what the actual title of the article is? It's not as if a reader would type something else and wind up at the wrong place.

And, as for informing the reader about the other names of the church and the rationales for using or not using those other names, both articles have mention the other names in their lead sentences accompanied by notes which make an effort to explain the history and usage of those other names.

Any further yapping on this topic is really just POV-pushing. Actually, all the past yapping on this topic has also been POV-pushing.

I wish you would all cease and desist and go find something more valuable to do.

--Richard (talk) 07:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Just remember......
....things change, and Wikipedia is always a work in progress. We are now very very close to reconciliation between the Monophysites and the Constantinople, and those other 13 or 14 jurisdictions. It'll happen some point soon, sooner than the reconciliation with the Anglicans and certainly the Vatican. So wait and see, and probably the naming thing'll be a lot easier. I guess it might create some more fractures with groupings from either camp who wouldn't be happy their patriarchate reconciled, but those will be insignificant populations....so my main point is that The Orthodox Church will probably become even more reasonable and will naturally refer to both eastern and oriental, and Wikipedia will still be there. Eugene-elgato (talk) 15:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Watch out with that usage. Some understand "Monophysitism" to refer to Eutychianism whereas "Miaphysitism" is the terminology used for Cyrilline one-nature Christology. Many Non-Chalcedonians would be offended if you referred to them as Monophysites. Deusveritasest (talk) 03:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * OO are good people. The Coptics admit that Christ has two natures and Christ has Free will. So the reconciliation is well underway and it is purely now just a matter of time. Thank God. And Glory be to God as they are simply the best of people. They have much respect for their struggles with Islam and tyranny - Ethopia. Besides Bob Marley rules. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's really not as simple as "Christ has one nature" or "Christ has two natures". The meaning of the term nature has been muddled, confused, and found to mean different things to different people. In the Alexandrian tradition, nature was understood to be synonymous with hypostasis. In this context, it would truly be heretical to say that Christ has two natures. If dialogue is not prefaced with a definition of what is meant by nature, then the Non-Chalcedonians will not admit to Christ having two natures. However, when it is prefaced with the Justinian redefinition of the term nature to refer to an ousia, or a common way of being, as distinct from an individual, then some Non-Chalcedonians will be able to admit to two natures. Only in this latter redefinition of physis is it appropriate to say that Christ has two natures. Deusveritasest (talk) 03:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I should normally not post this, since this talk page is not a forum, but since other users have already expressed their point of view about this, I will also express mine. Although, the chalcedonian and non-chalcedonian seem similar, as far as I know there still is an important Christological difference between them which refers to the relation between Christ's natures. As far as I know, for the chlacedonians, the divine (uncreated) nature and the human (created) nature are joined in the one hypostasis/person of Christ (but the natures themselves are still distinct), however for the non-chalcedonians, as far as I know, the divine nature and the human nature are joined between them, becoming mixed together somehow (resulting in one (composite) nature, like the word "miaphysite" seems to suggest). (However, I'm speaking mainly from a chalcedonian point of view.) Also, I don't think the non-chalcedonians, are actually willing to accept the Council of Chalcedon (this means, that to achieve an union with them, the later Ecumenical Councils, after the 3rd one, could be reduced to the status of local councils), and as far as I know, the (miaphysite) Pope Dioscorus I of Alexandria and the (miaphysite) patriarch Severus of Antioch are considered saints by the non-chalcedonian, however the chalcedonian consider them as heretics. So, I don't think an union can be achieved too easily (this of course, does not mean that reconciliation is impossible). The following|+monophysites+|+non-chalcedonian+|+Oriental-Orthodox+natures+inauthor:Meyendorff&lr=&as_brr=0|+monophysites+|+non-chalcedonian+|+Oriental-Orthodox+nature+inauthor:Meyendorff&lr=&as_brr=0|+monophysites+|+non-chalcedonian+|+Oriental-Orthodox+nature+OR+natures+inauthor:Meyendorff&lr=&as_brr=0 also offer some information about this subject, I'm sorry if someone feels offended by the content offered by these web links or by this post, I was not claiming here who is right or wrong, I was just expressing my own point of view about the differences between the two, I hope I'm not starting a controversial dispute here. (On-topic, this could mean that it is necessary to distinguish between them.) Cody7777777 (talk) 12:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, the matter of the natures of Christ may be what appears to be most important to you. But for Non-Chalcedonians who have studied this matter it is actually generally regarded as somewhat lower down on the list. More problematic than the Chalcedonian Creed, actually, are the Tome of Leo and the Three Chapters, both of which were tolerated if not approved at the Council of Chalcedon. Approval, even toleration, of the Tome of Leo or any of the Three Chapters is generally unthinkable for an Oriental Orthodox individual. For the Tome of Leo ascribes divine agency to the Word and human agency to the flesh rather than both to the Word. While Leo may not have been shooting for Nestorianism with this, it certainly appears to be how the content turned out. The Three Chapters are even more unacceptable, having attacked Cyril of Alexandria, upheld Theodore of Mopsuestia as a doctor of the Church, and directly contradicting the dogmas of the First Council of Ephesus. While it is possible that the fathers of Chalcedon did not explicitly approve the Three Chapters, they certainly did have it read and did not object to it, and reinstated their authors, thus certainly tolerating them. This is even more unacceptable for the Oriental Orthodox mind. The fact that the Chalcedonian Creed used the ambiguous "in two natures" (having only previously been used in the East by Nestorians) instead of "of/from two natures" is small fries compared to these other two points.


 * From what you further describe of Miaphysite Christology, I don't really think that you understand it. The Orientals certainly do hold to Cyril's claims that the distinction of the humanity and divinity are not taken away. The problem is that the Chalcedonians and Non-Chalcedonians are meaning different things by nature in the first place, so to apply the same meaning to both formulas will obviously make the claims appear to be heretical. If we absolutize the Cyrilline understanding of nature to be synonymous with hypostasis, then the Chalcedonian claims of Christ to have two natures will obviously appear to be Nestorian. If, on the other hand, we absolutize the Justinian understanding of nature to refer that which is held in common by hypostases, that being ousia, then the Non-Chalcedonian claims to Christ to have only one nature will obviously appear to be Eutychian. The latter is what it appears that you are doing. What needs to be realized, however, is that neither of these are accurate approaches, and that the Chalcedonians and Non-Chalcedonians are in fact meaning different things by "nature". The Non-Chalcedonians are thus saying that there is only one hypostasis of Christ, God the Word become Incarnate, whereas the Chalcedonians are saying that there are two ways of being, ousia, in Christ, humanity and divinity. Both are obviously orthodox. And in the context of the Justinian understanding of "nature", the Non-Chalcedonians do not believe in only one nature. They do not believe in a mixture or confusion of the humanity and divinity of Christ. They are made hypostatically one, but not essentially one.


 * Yes, you are correct in assuming that the Oriental Orthodox are, as of yet, unwilling to accept the Council of Chalcedon. This is not because they believe the Eastern Orthodox to currently be heretics. Most are willing to make a distinct between historical circumstances and the current substance of the Church. A number of points of tradition claimed by the EO are regarded as heretical by the OO. "In two natures" at Chalcedon is not accepted because its meaning in distinction from that of the Nestorians was not sufficiently clarified. The Tome of Leo is rejected because it is understood to have taught a double agency in Christ and thus two hypostases. The Council of Chalcedon is also rejected because of its toleration of the Three Chapters. These are non-negotiable points for the Oriental Orthodox. They are willing to see the doctrine expressed the EO today as orthodox. But that doesn't mean they are willing to accept the Council of Chalcedon. The further councils are not so highly objected to, however. The Second Council of Constantinople, aside from its understanding of Chalcedon, is recognized as having been extremely close to the faith of the Orientals. The Third Council of Constantinople, in explaining that there is one hypostasis and agent in Christ who desires both things human and divine and performs things human and divine, is also agreeable to the Oriental faith. While the Orientals are clearly not as heavily as iconodulist as the EO, the general appropriateness of the veneration of icons as upheld at the Second Council of Nicaea is likewise agreeable. The filioque is likewise condemned, as in later EO tradition. And the Hesychast receives a certain degree of respect in the Oriental churches. Chalcedon remains the only major problem.


 * Dioscorus and Severus are generally upheld as saints by the Orientals. The veneration of both is widely accepted and typically even formalized by those of the Coptic and Syrian traditions. The only group where this is not the case is with the Armenians. The Armenians are fine with Dioscorus, but historically have had a problem with Severus, though for entirely different reasons from the Chalcedonians, though this is a whole 'nother story which I should not get into here. Anyway, I wanted to point out that it is not entirely accurate to say that the Chalcedonians generally regard these two figures as heretics. There are a number of Chalcedonian fathers shortly after Chalcedon who recognized that Dioscorus was not deposed at Chalcedon because of the faith. A modern writer who has sought to point this out is John Romanides. I hope this helps to clarify. You are right that there are still significant differences between the Byzantine and Oriental traditions; but it is good to clarify exactly what these differences are. Deusveritasest (talk) 05:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your explanations, it is indeed better to clarify what these differences are. The Three Chapters were condemned at the Fifth Ecumenical Council, this might make that council more acceptable to the non-Chalcedonian. However, regarding the Sixth Ecumenical Council, this article claims that it is also not acceptable by the non-Chalcedonian. (I do not know if it's right or wrong about this.) Cody7777777 (talk) 13:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You may have a point about the Third Council of Constantinople. The Orientals did a certain amount of siding with a particular school of Monothelitism. I think their main issue was that they insisted on will and action being made manifest in the theanthropic hypostasis rather than in the two ousia in distinction. If will and action was to be understood as being made manifest in two distinct natures, then they could not see how this did not establish two agents in Christ and thus two hypostases. But the issue is more minimal than might be at first expected, because the Orientals certainly do not believe that Christ has only one divine will and action, but rather one will and action that is dual in composition, both divine and human. If, however, the Third Council of Constantinople is understood to mean one theanthropic agent who wills things both human and divine, the Orientals appear to be willing to accept this interpretation. Deusveritasest (talk) 18:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes the two natures. Christ is a glass filled with oil and water both remain separate both remain in the glass.LoveMonkey (talk) 18:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That analogy has some important flaws in it; let me explain them. For one, it establishes Christ being one nature (glass/cup) that contains two other natures (water and oil), thus consisting of three natures. In actuality, Christ was from all eternity the divine (ousia) Word (hypostasis) who individuated to Himself an instance of humanity (the other ousia) in perfect union with Himself. For another, it establishes that Christ's two natures are "separate" from each other. If understood to be the same for His true humanity and divinity, this is clear heresy. To be hypostatically united, the humanity and divinity must be perfectly indwelling each other, thus not at all being separate. They remain distinct, but not separate. This is a problem with using water an oil in the first place. While they can be alongside each other, they tend to polarize and drift away from each other as much as possible. This cannot at all be applied to the Incarnate Word. The humanity of Christ is shot through with His divine essence, more like a cell being filled with water than water alongside oil. Deusveritasest (talk) 05:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Glass not nature, glass thing that exist. Existence mean hypostasis. Water, oil have one hypostasis yes, but only if through glass. Water and oil two natures. Two ousia in one hypostasis. Two that permeate but do not mix into something else or one thing but remain oil and water in one reality or existence. One sword of iron when heated, cuts as iron, burns as fire, still one sword.LoveMonkey (talk) 05:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * According to the following article, Saint Maximus the Confessor and Saint Martin claimed that Christ "has two distinct and separate natures in one person". Cody7777777 (talk) 13:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That doesn't seem that weighty to me. It's entirely possible that Thomas Hopko is misinterpreting Maximus and Martin. Or it's also possible that he's using imprecise language and he doesn't actually mean that Christ's humanity and divinity did not perfectly indwell each other. Perhaps he did properly interpret them, and they themselves are using imprecise language. Or perhaps they truly did conceive of the natures being separate and are thus in error. Anyway you look at it, it doesn't change the fact that we must believe that the divinity perfectly indwelled the humanity such that to refer to them as truly separate is erroneous. Deusveritasest (talk) 18:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, from a Chalcedonian point of view, the divine nature and the human nature are united in the one Hypostasis/Person of Christ (so they cannot be separated from the Hypostasis, they are two different natures of one Hypostasis/Person), but the natures do not mix into one another, they remain distinct separate (not mixed) natures, the Hypostasis unites the two natures. So, the natures do not unite (or indwell) into one of the natures (from a Chalcedonian point of view that could mean they become mixed), the natures are united/inseparable (or they indwell) in the one Hypostasis/Person of Christ. Christ is fully God and fully man. As far as I see, the difference about this, although I could be wrong, seems to be that the non-Chalcedonian claim that the natures unite (or indwell) in each other, while for the Chlacedonian the natures unite (or indwell) in the one Hypostasis/Person of Christ. (However, language can indeed be difficult to interpretate sometimes.) Cody7777777 (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I do however think Oriental Orthodoxy needs a top redirect, and since nobody has argued with me on that, I am adding one.  Xan  dar   22:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I just tweaked it to distinguish since it better fits: we primarily want potential readers to distinguish between the two terms. I also changed the word "officially" to "sometimes" since this is what the first note says + the church is officially the Orthodox Church. It is only sometimes mentioned as anything else (catholic)--<font color="#007700">L<font color="#009900">a<font color="#00aa00">v e o l  T 22:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The statement that the (whole) Orthodox Church is officially called the "Orthodox Catholic Church" is sourced .Cody7777777 (talk) 10:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Well all-righty then, could one of you fine gentlemen fix the Bob Marley article? Since its all figured out now. And no one editing that article on Bob (hint hint User:Yorkshirian maybe had something to do with it) could ever be confused like Cody keeps trying to get across. LoveMonkey (talk) 02:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes the legend. aka Berhane Selassie, meaning Light of God. Always a bone of contention amongst Rastafarians, but his wife Alfarita remains also in the Tewahedo Church.Eugene-elgato (talk) 18:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yup and in Bob Marley's -article, bio- it has an incorrect mention and redirect that he's part of the Orthodox church and not the Oriental Orthodox church. Which is the whole confusion Cody was talkin bout. Yorkshirian even recently edited on Bob's bio and didnt notice such a, as he puts it "obvious thing". Go read Bob Marley's article and see for yourselves this is exactly what Cody was talking about.LoveMonkey (talk) 00:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

number of orthodox
The link in the article gives the number of orthodox as 225m there is no mention of 300m. Further the method of counting is much more aggressive than what would typically be used. At the very least I think we should cut the number to 225 million and if everyone is in agreement bring in some sources with lower estimates. For example if you look at the CIA world factbook they put the percentage of Russians in the Russian church as: Russian Orthodox 15-20% of the population not around 70% like these estimates appear to be using. jbolden1517<sup style="color:darkgreen;">Talk 13:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Who knows? God in the Old Testament hated and cursed censusses of his people, and the Jews also were angry that Herod has ordered God's People to be counted. Also, how can you know anyway? People are baptized into the name of the Trinity and end up confessing all sorts of divergent beliefs; could be then to be Orthodox you need to have been immediately Chrismated after your baptism, but so what? What if they brought in a rule like i think the anglicans maybe have, where you are excommunicated if you go more than a year without having recieved the Gifts? Loads of people in these countries like Russia you say, are about as spiritual as a stand-up comedian; others in the anglican communion like CS Lewis, may as well themselves have been Orthodox, if it's to mean anything at all. Eugene-elgato (talk) 16:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There's a lot of validity in what you say. Numbers of adherents give a very partial & perhaps misleading picture. Phrasing might be chosen to avoid problems, perhaps. On the actual numbers, it's important to look at the sources to see exactly what they say. Many sources use "Orthodox" to cover more than EOC. (The one cited at present is definitely EOC.) Peter jackson (talk) 10:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Might it be a good idea to simply use adherents.com for the figures of ALL religions on wikipedia? It would provide consistency; nobody knows actual numbers (or even how to define actual numbers); and I think adherents.com does about as responsible a job as can be expected.  Providing different sources sounds nice, but you have sources with a vested interest in inflating the numbers and sources with a vested interest in diminishing them, producing a gigantic range.  "Approximately 225,000,000" sourced to adherents.com strikes me as more useful - and more accurate - than "estimates range from 70,000,000 to 900,000,000" or whatever the actual numbers would be. Carlo (talk) 14:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe. I'm not sure they're entirely consistent, though. Peter jackson (talk) 16:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

On Apostolic succession
"All Orthodox bishops trace their lineage back to the Apostles through the process of Apostolic Succession, in the same manner as the Roman Catholic." This statement seems rather POV. Most EO have explained that they hold a different view of Apostolic Succession from the RC's. Given their system of understanding, many belief that the RC's do not have Apostolic Succession. So is the way of phrasing things not siding with an RC or Anglican view of Apostolic Succession? Deusveritasest (talk) 23:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That is correct, that phrase was misleading. I'll cite something from an article on the website of the "Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America": "However, Apostolic Succession is not merely an historical pedigree, but also requires Apostolic Faith. This is because Apostolic Succession is not the private possession of a bishop, but is the attribute of a local Church. A bishop who goes in schism or is cast out of office due to heresy does not take his Apostolic Succession with him as a private possession. To be authentic, a bishop must teach Apostolic Faith and must be in communion with the other bishops of the Church.", this belief should be clarified in the article. Cody7777777 (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Definitely. Deusveritasest (talk) 01:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * How is that different from the RC view? Do the RC allow apostolic succession through bishops who are in schism or cast our for heresy? Do the RC regard apostolic succession as the private possession of a bishop? Mrhsj (talk) 03:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears that the RCC does not deny now the Apostolic Succession of Orthodox Bishops, at least according to the following from the website of the Vatican, "Because these Churches (it refers to all oriental Churches in this context), although separated, have true sacraments and above all – because of the apostolic succession – the priesthood and the Eucharist, by means of which they remain linked to us by very close bonds", but the EOC does not recognize Apostolic Succession for non-Orthodox Bishops. In my opinion, to avoid possible confusion, there should be an explicit mention that the EOC denies the Apostolic Succession of non-Orthodox Bishops. Cody7777777 (talk) 17:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The RC recognizes Apostolic Succession simply on the basis of preservation of proper form of Holy Orders, mostly deriving this opinion from Augustine of Hippo. Thus, they recognize Apostolic Succession as definitely existing within the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and even among the Old Catholic Churches, even in spite of such doctrinal divergence as exists within these groups and in contrast to the RCC. The EO, on the contrary, recognize that form is important, but also say that preservation in one faith is fundamental as well, such that if this faith is deviated from that Apostolic Succession cannot exist. Some even go so far as to say that Apostolic Succession cannot exist outside of the mainstream EOC. The RC's also make a very stark distinction between "licitness" and "validity", such that a person can be not allowed to be ordained a bishop because of schism or heresy (meaning it is illicit), but that if they are ordained with the proper form it will still be valid. The EO Tradition does not really follow along with such thinking. Deusveritasest (talk) 20:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that the EOC regards sacraments ouside it as having potential validity, so that the Church can decide whether to recognize them or not. Eg, in 1755 it changed its policy of not requiring rebaptism of Catholic converts. (Maybe it's since changed it back, I don't know.) Similarly, it's said that, if the Pope renounced his "heresies", he would once again be recognized as head (in the Orthodox sense) of the Church. Peter jackson (talk) 16:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Forgot to say this doctrine is called economy (oikonomia). See last para of latter article for a bit on the subject. Peter jackson (talk) 10:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Hearsay. No, the pope would be restored to the first among equals with the other equal to him patriarchs, Jesus Christ is the only head of the church.LoveMonkey (talk) 12:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's what I meant by "head (in the Orthodox sense)". Peter jackson (talk) 09:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Second or Third largest church
In the article the Eastern Orthodox church is claimed to be the 3rd largest single communion church, but in the source attached it is the 2nd largest church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.131.183 (talk) 00:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * it might be vying for second place with the pentecostals. Eugene-elgato (talk) 22:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

a cappella musical groups
i took the liberty of placing the article under the too long articles categorization. but would someone please explain to me what a cappella musical groups is, and why the article is there? and if not we will remove it. Eugene-elgato (talk) 22:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)