Talk:Greek Orthodox Church/Archive 1

Comments
The article includes the "Orthodox Church of Antioch" among churches that use the Greek liturgy. I'm pretty sure that the local Antiochian Orthodox Church uses Syrian rather than Greek... aside from when they use English of course. ("local" meaning in the U.S.) Wesley 17:31 30 May 2003 (UTC)


 * The Antiochian Orthodox Church's official liturgical language is Greek, however it is almost never used in actual services. Most services are conducted in the local language or in Syrian Arabic, since many Antiochian Orthodox Christians are recent immigrants. The status of Greek is similar to that of Latin in the post-Vatican II Catholic Church. The Antiochian Church is called Greek Orthodox in Syria and Lebanon. - Efghij 03:18 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

POV changed to NPOV
the wording in the Greek Orthodox Church article was so absurdly POV in some sentences, it was like not funny. Not everyone believes this dogmatic statement that Greek Orthodox "origins lie in the Ancient Church". To be blunt, some view it as a corruption. Frankly, the fact is that some actually view Greek Orthodoxy as erroneous, and a pagan corrupt church, having nothing to do with first-century Christianity. That's simply a fact. Whether those people are right or wrong is not really the issue. Many theologians and ministers don't accept the notion that Greek Orthodoxy traces itself to first-century Christianity. So to say it so dogmatically, as if it's a totally uncontested and universally accepted fact, when it simply isn't, goes completely against WP policy and practice. Not everyone believes or accepts the notion that Greek Orthodoxy is actually purely from first-century "Ancient Christianity". Some do, but many don't.  So the article wording needs to be careful.

The real objective fact is that SOME BELIEVE that Greek Orthodoxy is from the "Ancient Church", in that sense. Some believe that, some don't.   So the statement "it's believed" is a neutral and objective fact. And NPOV in wording and tone. The former wording was biased point of view.

Remember...this is a NEUTRAL ENCYCLOPEDIA...where neutral tone and wording, and objective statements have to be made. Saying that Greek Orthodoxy stems right from "Ancient Christianity" is a blatant POV statement, and needed editing. The "qualifiers" were NECESSARY.

This is a Wikipedia article, not a Greek Orthodox propaganda blog piece. So there was no warrant in reverting not only "good-faith" but necessary NPOV qualifiers and neutral wording. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 07:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if you realise it, but your shouting using all capitals, bolding of text, edit-summary attacks accusing me of "bad faith" (in capitals to boot) and the polemic tone of many of your statements about Greek Orthodox propaganda blog piece, not to mention your edit-warring etc., don't create an easy environment for dispassionate, academic discussion and are blatant breaches of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:NPA among others. So please either drop the attitude which creates a toxic editing environment or you can speak to yourself. Let me remind you: Wikipedia is a community effort. It does not need your polemics to decide what enters an article or not. I will wait for other members of the community to advise about including your qualifiers or not, and if need be I will call an RfC so that other members of the community can express their opinions on the matter and I will abide by whatever the community decides. But judging from your mentions of fringe theories about the Church, and as evidenced by your capitalisation of the term "pagan" when referring to these fringe viewpoints, I do think that your POV is so strong against the Orthodox Church that you should step back and not try to edit-war your edit into the article. I already have added seven  citations which do not use the qualifiers that you are attempting to add. I know you have been warned before on your talk about the WP:3RR rule  so I will not issue a new warning to you at the moment. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις   16:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Instead of overly-focusing on occasional all-caps that were NOT meant as yelling but as simply emphasis, or other irrelevant things, why not focus on the point that NPOV has to be over POV tone and wording.  That's ALL that this is really about.  Not the nit-picky you were harping on for so long.


 * I have no POV pushing that I'm doing on this.  But rather NPOV pushing.  You, on the other hand, are clearly biased FOR the Greek Orthodox Church, and POV-pushing regarding it.  NOT the place for that on Wikipedia.  As far as "pagan", it's not as "fringe" as you like to think, and that's irrelevant anyway.  Because many simply don't believe that the Greek Orthodox Church STEMS from actual first-century Christianity, directly in that sense. And the fact is that many theologians and people don't believe the Greek Orthodox Church is actually even really Biblically Christian, but is idolatrous and pagan.   That's not "polemical", but simply factual, and making the point that a dogmatic statement of "lie in the ancient Church" in a non-biased objective neutral Encyclopedia are not the proper or correct wording, regardless of ref citations that say it, that you may drum up.


 * It's still a BELIEF...(regardless of "refs")...that the GOC is actually from a first-century ancient Christianity. Not a dogmatic universally-accepted fact.


 * Also, you were edit-warring to begin with, by your unwarranted revert, of a good-faith and also NPOV modification. And you're edit-warring by doing all this now.


 * I have no POV against the Greek Orthodox Church when it comes to Wikipedia, at all.  My position on it is not all that relevant, anyway. It's simply the fact that your POV FOR the Greek Orthodox Church is quite apparent, and has no place on a supposedly neutral encyclopedia website.


 * That's really what all this is about. NPOV wording versus blatant POV wording. Not all accept the idea of where the Greek Orthodox Church stems from.  And WP is not supposed to endorse as fact one opinion over another. Hence the more objective and neutral wording.   That does not require "consensus".  WP policy on NPOV trumps anything else, and is pretty clear.    Cheers.  Gabby Merger (talk) 18:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * You attack my edits in your edit summaries in all caps as "BAD-FAITH" and refer to my ethnicity and religion again in your edit-summaries to attack me and now you call my reply "nitpicky" after I tried to reply to your onslaught of loud polemics? Please get out of your state of denial. In Wikipedia we work by reliable sources. I repeat: I have added seven reliable sources all of which do not use WP:WEASELWORD qualifiers like "believe". You, cannot add the "believe" weasel word qualifier because that is original research on your part and it is not supported by the sources. I advise you to read the WP:NOR policy. As far as your repeated claims of fringe theories regarding paganism etc.. they are just that: Fringe claims and nothing more. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  18:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, well then my apologies if I was a bit too blunt here and there. But try to take that with a grain of salt, and understand the overall point of it. There were no "ugly personal attacks". Let's not be too sensitive here either.  I was merely pointing out (that even a blind 6-year old can see) that you have an obvious bias FOR the Greek Orthodox Church, and you don't want NPOV in wording or tone.   You can't deny that you're not exactly 10000% objective if you're actually Greek Orthodox yourself.  It would be very hard to be.  Who are we kidding here?  You gonna deny you have a bias or prejudice FOR the GOC?  When you are one?   It would hard not to have any. Because we're all human here.   No one's perfect every second, in thought, deed, or in-action.


 * Also, the point is that regardless of all the refs that you found and put in, that doesn't really make much of a difference to the point that it's still a BELIEF.  You think that just because you find a source (how "reliable" are all of them anyway, if they make dogmatic statements?), a source that says something definitely and dogmatically, that that somehow makes it ipso facto true fact without question?  Or that it's still not just a belief?


 * The sources you find can say it in a dogmatic way and the thing still be just an opinion anyway. Or a doctrine of faith or belief.  The fact though in actuality is that many reputable theologians and ministers and people in general don't really believe that Greek Orthodoxy (you think the pope and RC cardinals believe that?) is directly from the ancient first-century Church.    Some many not care one way or another.    (I'm NOT Roman Catholic, by the way.)


 * Many Protestants and Protestant ministers and writers don't buy the notion that GOC comes right from first-century Apostolic ancient Christianity. So why and how can a supposedly neutral encyclopedia be saying that so dogmatically and cocksurely, when it is still just a POINT OF VIEW of people, and NOT universally accepted fact?   Why are you so against the wording "it is believed", to make it more neutral and objective?   In tone and wording?    That alone makes me say the things I said!     That you're obviously POV-pushing.     It doesn't matter much what those refs you drummed up said, or how they worded it.


 * How does that change the fact that you can find many refs and books that say something different? like "NO it's not really from the ancient church", but is a splinter from something else, and has erroneous doctrines or practices?  Whether those ministers are right or not is not the point.  The point is that it's said by quite a number, and not all believe the Greek Orthodox Church is what it totally claims to be.  So?  You like to dismiss that as "fringe"??   See what I mean.   Again, I don't have time to go over this forever.   It's simply NPOV wording (regardless of POV refs you find), over blatant (and even subtle) POV wording.    WP is supposed to be careful and clear with NPOV. That's all I meant, and that's all it was.  Sorry again though for the over-bluntness.  Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 19:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Please keep your patronising prejudices to yourself (one example amongst many: You can't deny that you're not exactly 10000% objective if you're actually Greek Orthodox yourself. It would be very hard to be.) and do not litter Wikipedia article talkpages with them. Also calling your ethnicity and religion-based personal attacks "ugly" is not a matter of myself being "sensitive". It is a serious matter of discrimination based on background and religion and you should not practice it, because it is ugly. Deal with it, without blaming the targets of your prejudice.
 * Also, the point is that regardless of all the refs that you found and put in, that doesn't really make much of a difference to the point that it's still a BELIEF. You cannot dismiss reliable sources, including encyclopedias of religion, based on your own original thought. That's a blatant violation of WP:NOR
 * Many Protestants and Protestant ministers and writers don't buy the notion that GOC comes right from first-century Apostolic ancient Christianity. The views of the opposing dogmas have no relevance to the historical facts.
 * It is apparent from your overall prejudiced comments against me, your presumptuous assumptions about my religious affiliation, your blatant disregard of the multiple reliable sources which I added, your fringe theories about paganism connections to the Orthodox church and your rapid-fire edit-warring that you have a strong anti-Orthodox POV. I will wait for a few days for other editors to chime in and then I will open an RfC. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  19:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You wrote: "The views of the opposing dogmas have no relevance to the historical facts."  That says it all. Frankly speaking, it shows that you're too much in the tank...you're too biased.  But the point is even if you believe that it's a "historical fact", you STILL can be neutral on Wikipedia about it.   WP needs to be neutral, especially with controversial things like this.   That's important.    Otherwise the credibility and integrity of Wikipedia will sink, in other people's minds too much.


 * You have been pushing a specific point of view, and CHERRY-PICKING REFERENCES, that agree with you. Not understanding that regardless of that, it's still a belief.   Roman Catholics believe that specific things are "historical facts".  Like Peter was the "first pope", when many Greek Orthodox and Lutherans simply don't believe that.   What of that, as an example?  Do we have that on Wikipedia as a dogmatically stated "fact", regardless of the real fact that many in and out of the field simply don't buy that notion?     You are pushing an agenda it seems, by your refusal of more neutral wording.  And can't accept that it's NOT a historical fact, but merely a contested opinion.   Some historians may agree with you (doesn't negate that it's still their BELIEF), but many don't.  What do we do with theologians and Protestants (millions) who don't buy at all the Greek Orthodoxy is right out of first-century Christianity?   Or even many Roman Catholics who have trouble with that view?


 * You believe that it's a "historical fact". When many in and out of the field simply don't (not just pizza place owners down the street, but other historians, theologians, etc) DO NOT believe the notion that it's such a "historical fact". It's rather quite debatable.   And not a universally-accepted thing.


 * You saying so dogmatically it's a "historical fact", simply because you can drum up some POV refs that agree with you, while ignoring other refs that would be more neutral in their wording and writing, and others that may even totally disagree with the notion, shows you're POV-pushing. And there's nothing wrong with pointing out your background WHEN YOU YOURSELF ADVERTISE IT ALL THE TIME.  In your display name characters and page.  It's rather convenient to do that, when it suits you.    If you don't want that brought up as a possible reason for your bias, then don't bring it up in the first place.  I told you I'm tired of this.  You're POV-pushing on this article at least in certain ways, and that's not something that a checks-and-balances NPOV encyclopedia article and other contributors should put up with and countenance.  I'm tired of the whining about so-called personal attacks. I already apologized for over-bluntness...but you still keep going on.  I have news for you...your BELIEF about the GOC is NOT a "historical fact". It's an opinion, that many in the field disagree with.  Some agree with you of course. But that makes no real difference on Wikipedia. You conveniently ignore the reference that would say "it is believed by Greek Orthodox that it comes from so so".   And WP has to be careful with pushing an opinion or view as "fact" over others.  It needs to be neutral.  Especially with controversial things like that.  Good day.  Gabby Merger (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I will not reply to your wall of text tirade because it's WP:TLDR but I will challenge your disingenuous comment: And there's nothing wrong with pointing out your background WHEN YOU YOURSELF ADVERTISE IT ALL THE TIME. In your display name characters and page. It's rather convenient to do that, when it suits you. I don't "advertise" anything. You chose to pick my ethnic background to blindly and unintelligently draw conclusions about my motives and my religion. You have no clue what my religion is. My background may be Greek but I may be an atheist for all you know. Your prejudiced classification of myself as Orthodox is a sure sign of mindless prejudice based on my ethnic background. I cannot help you overcome your prejudice and clumsy ethnic profiling you have so blatantly attempted against myself. But please don't play amateur ethnic profiler with me any longer. It is silly as it is ugly and for sure it does not belong in an encyclopedia. And yes, I insist that The views of the opposing dogmas have no relevance to the historical fact.. Opposing dogmas have an inherent conflict of interest and always try to distort the history of the opponents. If you don't understand that you betray your own fundamentalist dogmatic approach against the Orthodox Church. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  20:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Prejudice?  If you knew anything about me, you'd know I'm SO PRO-GREEK AND PRO-GREECE it's like not funny.  I'm not kidding. I LOVE the Greek culture and people, and have studied the Greek language (in my opinion the BEST language in the world!)   I have made and posted POR-Greece YouTube videos.    For real, I'm not joking.  So you got me pegged wrong as far as Greek ethnicity issues.  I do not agree with Greek Orthodoxy entirely (some things I agree with, but not everything). This is simply only about NPOV wording and tone on a supposedly neutral encyclopedia.  If you're not Greek Orthodox, the fact is that you do kinda come across as biased for that religion. Or pro-Greek Othodoxy.   With the POV wording and saying it's a "historical fact".  Even if you're an Atheist, it makes no difference, that the wording or notion is still just a contested opinion, that some BELIEVE is a "fact", but not all.  And they're NOT all "fringe".    Also, I have also straightened out a number of times the "Armenian Orthodox Church" article, because of too much POV-pushing that went on there.  Stating doctrinal opinions etc as if they were unquestionable or unquestioned fact.   But again, as far as Greece, trust me, I'm a big time PHIL-Hellene.    Malista!    For real.   I'm just concerned with neutrality in phrasing and wording on WP articles.  Good day. Gabby Merger (talk) 21:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * If you're not Greek Orthodox, the fact is that you do kinda come across as biased for that religion. Or pro-Greek Othodoxy. Please speak for yourself. This is your own preconceived notion of myself. With the POV wording and saying it's a "historical fact". Please do not distort my words and attempt to put words in my mouth by removing the context of what I said. I said: The views of the opposing dogmas have no relevance to the historical fact. This is almost always true and it is valid for any religion, not only the Orthodox religion. You cannot go to the opposing dogmas to try to find unbiased historical facts about their opponents. That would be silly. Finally, that the Eastern Orthodox Church, as also the Roman Catholic Church, have their origins in as opposed to be the direct descendants of the early Apostolic Church is a well-known and accepted historical fact and you should not be here to reinvent the historical wheel. As far as the rest of the disclaimers about how pro-Hellene you are, I don't think they relate to the current conflict in any way and do come across as patronising. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις   21:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I knew you'd say or think it was "patronizing", because you showed already that I can't win with you no matter what I say. I only said I was pro-Hellene BECAUSE YOU ACCUSED ME of being not only anti-Greek Orthodoxy but also anti-Greek in general.   I was merely correcting YOUR mis-notion and the thing you yourself wrote and said, and assumption.  I was simply addressing that.  Anyway, as far as the actual specific point here, I guess it depends on what is meant by "in" etc.   But it doesn't come across as totally clear necessarily what is meant, maybe to the casual reader.    But aside from that, also, it says that the practices of the GOC are in the ancient primitive Church.  That belief is NOT accepted or believed by all, even in that sense.  It's debatable in other words.    And also, as I said, there are some theologians (Robert Morey, James White, etc), that I don't necessarily agree with on everything, who have written AGAINST Eastern Orthodoxy, as NOT having its origins or whatever from TRUE "ancient Christianity" etc.  Just like they say it against Roman Catholicism as well.    Whole churches and organizations and ministries, that are not necessarily considered so "fringe", per se.   But again, I was concerned about clarity and NPOV tone.   Why not err on the side of neutral phrasing?  If there is even any "erring" at all?  At this point, it's whatever.  I'm just saying we all need to be careful about objective analysis and especially objective and neutral-sounding presentation on Wikipedia articles.   Gabby Merger (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said that you were anti-Greek. I simply said that you used my Greek background to draw conclusions about my religious beliefs and use them in a negative way against me during this editorial dispute. No other generalisation, either explicit or implied, was attempted. As far as the rest of your points in your latest reply, I can only say that most are reasonable and thoughtful, and, although I don't agree with all of them, at least I find their tone agreeable. It's just too bad that to arrive at this point we had to have so much conflict. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  23:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be a misunderstanding here. "The Ancient Church" does not necessarily mean the Church as it existed in the first century, in the time of Jesus or the Apostles. It can also mean the Church as it existed in the fourth century AD. The fourth century is also "ancient", after all. And there is widespread agreement among historians that the Orthodox Church does indeed preserve beliefs and practices dating back at least to the fourth century (e.g. the doctrines of the First Ecumenical Council, the Divine Liturgies of Basil of Caesarea and John Chrysostom, etc.)

So, in fact, the statement that "the origins [of the Greek Orthodox Church] lie in the ancient Christian Church, and they maintain many traditions practiced in the Ancient Church" is entirely correct and NPOV, if "ancient" is understood to mean "Late Antiquity" (in other words, before the Middle Ages). The Greek Orthodox Church certainly originates in "ancient" times. That doesn't have anything to do with the question of whether its theology is correct or whether its practices date back to Jesus. 300 years after Jesus is still "ancient" to us. I will edit the article to make it clear that "ancient" means Late Antiquity, not necessarily the specific time when Jesus lived. That should eliminate the controversy. Ohff (talk) 06:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * But such correction to "Late antiquity" does not exist in the reliable sources, currently in the article, all of which declare continuity with the apostolic church. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  18:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * You are correct. The sources you have added all affirm continuity with the apostolic church. However, Gabby Merger seems to strongly believe that there are other reliable sources which deny this, so I was suggesting a compromise. If there are some sources which claim the Orthodox Church originated in the first century, and others which claim it originated in the fourth century, then a statement saying that it originated in "ancient times" or Late Antiquity would cover both possibilities. Of course, it is true that Gabby hasn't added any sources yet, so the sources we currently have all support your claim. I'm perfectly ok with this - I'm neutral on the issue and I genuinely don't know who is right - but if Gabby comes back with sources to support his/her claim, please keep my proposed compromise in mind. Ohff (talk) 18:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * To Ohff, better late than never, to reply to your comment.   The problem is not the "ancient", it's the words "first century" and "apostles".    That tells you what is meant by "ancient" also.  It's referring to the notion (which is very disputed, though Dr. K. thinks only "fringe" dispute it, conveniently) of first-century directly from the apostles.  This idea too, for example, that "making the sign of the cross" came right from the apostles is A) not in the Bible all, and B) disputed by MANY outside historians, scholars, theologians, writers, and Biblicists.    So let's not try to be cute with the word "ancient", when the context and other wording is clearly referring to "first century apostles".   It's only a belief that Greek Orthodoxy came directly from there.   Not a universally or unquestioned fact.   And no, I don't just believe that there are other refs that deny this idea, there simply are.   You think every Roman Catholic priest, theologian, or writer believes that Greek Orthodoxy is directly from the apostles?   You think Robert Morey (a Protestant author, doctorate, and theologian) believes that?    Of course not.   I already provided "sources".   I mentioned reputable and known authors and refs who disavow this wording and notion entirely.   Like click here.  And the wording in the article before was clearly biased and POV.    WP is not supposed to be like that, endorsing one position over another, in cases like this.  Period.  It's supposed convey very neutral wording and tone.   And that was lacking before.  Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 07:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you Ohff. I am like you actually in that I am not an expert of ecclesiastical history. But I think this information has been known for hundreds of years, so this matter of the origins of the church should be clear. Obviously the schisms within the Church have led to many denominations which may or may not see eye to eye with each other. So naturally many sects speak against other sects, since each sect thinks it is the correct one. This antagonism however should not detract from the history of the origins of the apostolic church and how it evolved into the Catholic and Orthodox churches after the Schism. This means that the quoted sources must be neutral and not affiliated with a given denomination. I believe mine are. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις   19:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

dab style
I just removed a bunch of wikilinks and piping per MoS:DP. I left way more text than is usually proper on a dab page. Should there be a page explaining the family tree (as it were) and relationships between all these churches? That wouldn't be a dab page and would then free up this page to simply allow for disambiguating links to the "Greek Orthodox Church". Tedernst | Talk 17:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

a note
People who try to disambiguate pages that link here tend to do various mistakes. Please be more careful when you try to do it, or ask someone who knows more about it. Thanks. talk to +MATIA 07:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

does this concept really exist?
ROCOR (Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia) used to call itself the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church; the largest Catholic Church of Byzantine tradition is officially called the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church; the Carpathian Orthodox Church in the US also calls itself the Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church. I think the term 'Greek Orthodox' means either 'the Church of Greece' or the GOARCH and its equivalents but not Alexandria or Antioch etc, or 'world Orthodoxy in general'. It is common to refer to the Greek Orthodox of Alexandria, but not in the sense of this article (i.e. as belonging to a larger sub-section of Orthodoxy). Richardson mcphillips1 (talk) 19:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

All orthodox churches?
What about Ethiopian Church? Isn't that not made from Greek Church? Tourskin 01:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * no, the Ethiopian Church, like the (Egyptian) Coptic Church and the Armenian Church, is considered an Oriental Orthodox Church. They did not accept the Council of Chalcedon and are not considered Greek Orthodox. Richardson mcphillips1 (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The are not the same as the Greek Church, but have similar practices and beliefs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.178.81 (talk) 19:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Egyptian autocephalous?
When has that ever been another name for the Greek Orthodox Churches?

Anastasis777 (talk) 05:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Recent rv
Although there is no urgent need to change the links to redirect pages, there is no reason for someone to revert again and again these edits. The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople has been called the "Great Church of Christ in Constantinople" in this article for no obvious reason. The name Patriarchate of Moscow, which is used instead of the Russian Orthodox Church, actually links to List of Metropolitans and Patriarchs of Moscow.. In the first section of the article, the paragraph should begin with a capital letter. When adding a list, commas are needless at the end of each line. - Sthenel (talk) 23:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

A question
What is this article supposed to say? There really is no "Greek" Orthodox. The Orthodox Christian religion is the same in Belarus, Latvia, America ect. What I am asking is, should this really be an articlt, and if it is, what should it be saying. I'd love to work on it, since I am Orthodox myself. Thanks! -- Iliada 22:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)l

Hello, I am new here (in active participation--I have been simply a erader till today) so I apologise in advance for any errors I might make and I am thankful with the readers' patience.

OK, in response to the above-given question, I would venture to respond positively. There is a Greek Orthodo as opposed to a Russian or North American Orthodox Church. It all deepnds, of course, on whether one approaches the subject anthropologically or devotionally. Since this is wikipedia, I assume the former is the only appropriate option. It is true that the orthodox church purports unity and an ontological one at that. This of course must be respected but only as a religious belief, not as a fact. Thus, while the claim of unity and indivisibility may be thoroughly explained, the actual or, perhaps more appropriately, the visible church should be examined in all its variations.

The question still remains, "what then are the differences between greek and russian orthodoxy, and in what modalities do they emerge?" The responses are, of course, lengthy but I would like to huint at some. One is public relations. Given the close church-state links in most (and especially in greece and russia) orthodox countries, the success of the church is, at times (when competing against an external rival) the success of the state. While I am simply mentionign possibilities without wishing to post an article, I would like to mention that the late Christodoulos, Archbishops of Athens and Greece, would visit the Pope after a visit of Bartholomew of Constantinople, and would be requesting the return of ancient greek artifacts stored in the Vatican, even without any official delegation of authority by the pertinent ministry of greece.

Sociologically as well as demographically the congregations vary from orthodox area to orthodox area inetrnationally. Accordingly, sensitivities also vary in degree. For example, a beardless priest is unthinkable in greece but very much practiced in the united states.

Buddhist Jesus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buddhist jesus (talk • contribs) 13:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

"Greek Orthodox" churches as such are listed in the Sydney phone book. They should know if they exist or not.

Sardaka (talk) 09:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent photo addition
I have just notice the addition of an image of St Sophia's in Surry Hills. I don't think this is a very good example of a Greek Orthodox Church. Perhaps we could find a better example on Commons or in one of the other related articles. ***Adam*** 02:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this any better? Sardaka (talk) 09:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There seems to be plenty of Greek Orthodox Church images in this Commons link that would make a better example for this article. The one pictured would be better but still there would be a better one in the commons link provided. ***Adam*** 11:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)



I agree completely, if a good enough example can't be found in the commons, I'll upload one of my own pics, I have some that are very representative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.10.179 (talk) 09:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Albanian Church
Albanian Church is Autocephalous and recognized as such, so how is it 'Greek'? Please read this if you have any questions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocephaly —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keep it Fake (talk • contribs) 21:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC) by removing completely the paragraph. It was completely POV-ish. The Albanian autocephalous church conducts mass in Greek language for the Greek minority in Albania, that doesn't make it a Greek Orthodox Church. The two churches are separate. Besides none of the sources endorses that. It's already in the autocephalous church in Albania's article that the church conducts its mass in Greek, so there is no need to make impertinent claims here, saying that the Church of Albania is Greek Orthodox, because it just isn't. The Church of Albania has been autocephalous since 1922.--Gollomboc (talk) 18:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Clarification needed
The opening paragraph states, "The church's current territorial areas include Bulgaria, Greece, Ukraine, Lebanon, Cyprus, Turkey, Jordan, Israel, Palestine, Egypt, Syria, Russia, Albania, Ethiopia, and Italy." IMO it is unclear. Shouldn't it also include the parts of the world - such as UK, USA, Malta, etc - whith Orthodox citizens who come under the aegis of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople? Politis (talk) 08:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that table should be removed, nothing in it is accurate. The Ecumenical Patriarch is not the primate, it's headquarters are not Constantinople and it does not have a given territory. Greek Orthodox refers to a brand of Eastern Orthodoxy, not an actual church polity.--Ptolion (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

@Ptolion, tricky suggestions which I am not in a position to agree with or to reject. I think such changes would require rather substantial sourcing and even then, I am not sure if the new information would be considered by other editor as objective or subjective. Sorry for not being able to suggest anything :-( Politis (talk) 20:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The only sourcing which is required is in relation to the table. The table is unsourced, it is not likely to ever be sourced since it is inaccurate, so I am suggesting that it be removed.--Ptolion (talk) 11:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The table has 'territory' and 'possessions', perhaps we could remove the 'territory'. I would also suggest tagging the whole article as needing verification or something; for such a major religion the article is remarkably thin an unconvincing. Politis (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Albanian Orthodox Church
Can someone please help?

I can't figure out how to edit the box at the bottom, but I think the Albanian Orthodox Church (aka Church of Albania) shouldn't be there. It includes ethnic Greeks but also alot of ethnic Albanians, and back when Abp ANASTASIOS first got there in the '90s, some non-Orthodox Albanians thought he was pro-Greek and tried to kill him and other things. (There's been ethnic conflict, Greek ["Epirot"] separatism, etc., there.) Including the AOC under "Greek Orthodox Church" where "Greek" means "Hellenic" as here (vs. Rum / Romaios / Roman / Chalcedonian), thus, is not only misleading, but potentially dangerous to people on the ground there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.158.38.118 (talk) 05:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It should not be here at all. The Church of Albania has been Autocephalous since 1922 and recognized in 1937 thereby it is NOT part of the Greek Orthodox Church.sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 05:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It would be good if this edit had a better explanation. I entered dubious|verify again here. Someone please clear these verifications. --SulmuesLet's talk 21:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that there is kinda confusion here. As it is stated in the opening paragraph, "Greek Orthodox Church" is a term that includes the churches which share a Greek tradition, whose liturgy is (also) conducted in Greek and - as far as I know - the clergy is of Greek decent. Note that it's just a cultural term, completely different from the Church of Greece, and it doesn't imply any kind of subsumption under the Greek Church. - Sthenel (talk) 23:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response. No confusion on my side. The definition says that it's a Body of several churches... sharing a common cultural tradition, and whose liturgy is traditionally conducted in Koine Greek, the original language of the New Testament. Now I'll dispute each one of what the Church of Greece and Church of Albania are claimed to share.
 * 1) The cultural tradition of the Church of Albania is that of a fierce fight for autocephaly from Costantinople. That's what the history of the Church of Albania says: look at the article. You may say that there is a similarity in the lithurgy, but not culturally. Culture defines lots of other things, language included.
 * 2) Let's talk about language. In the Church of Albania mass is conducted in the Albanian language and not in Koine Greek. In the Greek minority areas Koine Greek is not used either, rather modern Greek is used.
 * 3) Sources do not support any of the claims of that paragraph, or at least the first two are not indicating any page and the third is just demential, because it's from 1956, when the clergy was supposed to be of Albanian citizenship according to the Statute of the KOASH of 1954.
 * 4) Only Ioannulatos is a Greek citizen, no one else. He was invited to guide the church because in 1991 there were no biships left in Albania, or they were in very poor health condition. To say that the Church of Albania is similar culturally to the Church of Greece because of him is WP:SYNTH. You may verify all my claims in the history of the Orthodox Autocephalous Church of Albania.

As a result, I really propose that the paragraph be deleted at least until the sources are reviewed, because they are not supporting the paragraph. That paragraph makes the article unstable and prone to arguments. Thank you again! --SulmuesLet's talk 12:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your points. These are my comments: 1. Autocephaly doesn't abolish any cultural relationship. 2. I don't know if the liturgy is conducted in modern Greek - it looks very weird to me, actually I cannot imagine the liturgy in modern Greek - but even if you are right, Koine Greek implies a Greek Orthodox culture, while modern Greek doesn't? 3. Throughout history, the Orthodox faith in Albania faced several problems and the Albanian Orthodox Church was highly affected by the (Greek Orthodox) Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Church of Greece in order to be established. 4. The fact that the official website of the Albanian Church is also translated in Greek (along with Albanian and English) looks like an argument to me, implying a Greek Orthodox heritage coming - to some extend - from the ethnic Greek population living in the country, which historically constitutes a large part of the entire Orthodox population in Albania (that came under the Patriarchate of Constantinople before autocephaly was declared), maintained and shaped the Orthodox faith in previous centuries, when the vast majority of Albanians were Muslims. Greek Orthodox Churches around the world are closely related to regions with people of Greek descent or Greek Orthodox heritage. 5. I think that it's exactly this Greek Orthodox heritage of the Albanian Orthodox Church that has been confronted suspiciously by some Albanians. 6. Greek clergy isn't such a substantial feature to determine the Greek Orthodox character of a Church, but it's a common fact that in Greek Orthodox Churches the clergy was ethnically Greek at least in some parts of history. Btw, before the Albanian Church had declared its autocephaly, some of its leaders were Greek but all of them were definitely of Byzantine Greek Orthodox heritage (which was different from the Slavic Orthodox heritage for example). 7. I found one of the sources and I fixed the reference. 8. I'm sorry but I'm not a specialist in religion-related issues so I'm trying to explain it in a reasonable way. - Sthenel (talk) 00:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * We agree that the Albanian Orthodox Church is in full communion with the Greek Orthodox Church, and there is cultural relationship, but this is not enough to redefine the concept of "autocephaly" which is connected to a political choice of being under a certain country. Mesfushor (talk) 00:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * No one is trying to redefine anything. Autocephaly just means that it is self-governing, i.e. it appoints its own bishops and clergymen, instead of them being appointed by the Ecumenical Patriarchate (probably you didn't know that). One source is good enough for what the article says, but I'm sure we could add many more if you'd like. Athenean (talk) 09:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Since my source (Barbara Larkin - International Religious Freedom 2000, p242), which clearly says The Albanian Orthodox Church split from the Greek Orthodox Church early in the century and adherents strongly identify with the Autocephalous National Church as distinct from the Greek Church.) contradicts Roudometof, then, yes, I would like to see other sources that would confirm Roudometof, before making any reconciling edits.I want to see if Roudometof is an isolated case, or there are other reliable sources that consider the Albanian Orthodox Church a Greek Orthodox Church. Mesfushor (talk) 13:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * @Mes: The term "Greek Orthodox church" is sometimes wrongly used with the similar one "Church of Greece", like in above example. In fact the Albanian Orthodox church is sometimes reffered as Albanian Greek-Orthodox Church [][][], since it's traditionally part of the church of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.Alexikoua (talk) 15:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

What about Israel? What is Palestine?
I'm aware of the fact that many believers and even leaders of the Greek Orthodox Church are hostile toward the very idea of the legitimacy of the State of Israel. However, the country exists and about half of its Christian citizens are Greek Orthodox, not counting the Russian Orthodox. If I'm not mistaken, the Israeli government has a vote on the next patriarch, as is the case with Jordan and the PA, which no matter where you stand politically, is not a state and not officially "Palestine" according to most countries mentioned in this article. It is yet to be recognized and who knows what it'll choose to call itself if and when... The relationship between the church and the state of Israel are famous. Consider, for instance, the fact that the lot on which the Israeli parliament sits is actually owned by and leased from the church. If the state doesn't exist or not part of the church's domain, who pays the rent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.176.80 (talk) 08:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Either you're trolling or just trying to spread anti-palestine/greek ortodox biased rumours.. I belive your refering to some local Greek Ortodox churches, like Palestine & Syria. the Greek Patriarch(in Constantinopel) is not by anyway selectd by the Israeli goverment.. I don't know about the local palestine/syria churches, but i very much doubt the israeli goverment would be allowed to have a "vote" in the choice of a new patriarch there.. --109.58.29.6 (talk) 22:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

New article
Those who follow this page may be interested in the new article I just created, at Archdiocesan Cathedral of the Holy Trinity--Epeefleche (talk) 07:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Official Greek text of the Orthodox Church(es)
What is the official Greek text of the Orthodox Church(es)? I saw no mention of it in the article or in the Eastern Orthodox Church article. This seems a crucial and important piece of information, and (if missing) a huge omission. Misty MH (talk) 07:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Answering my own question: "Constantinople Patriarchate edition of 1904". "The Byzantine text-type... is the form found in the largest number of surviving manuscripts.... The New Testament text of the Greek Orthodox Church, the Constantinople Patriarchate edition of 1904, is based on this text-type. ... ¶ ... the Byzantine textual tradition has continued in the Eastern Orthodox Church into the present time." I found no Wiki article for the Constantinople Patriarchate edition of 1904. It deserves one, and is highly notable. (The "Eastern Orthodox Church" is the 2nd largest in the world.) If you have any more information about this text, please post here. Thank you! SOURCE: Byzantine text-type Misty MH (talk) 20:00, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Waiting for Gabby's reliable sources
Per Mark's 3O advice, which I wholeheartedly support and thank him for, I am waiting for Gabby Merger to gather reliable sources to refute the seven sources which do not use the qualifier "believe" to refer to the Apostolic continuity of the Greek Orthodox Church. So far Gabby has attempted to eliminate Webster's Encyclopedia of World Religion from the article while at the same time changing the quotations of the reliable sources. I asked her to repair the damage she caused but she did not respond. Thankfully, Mark repaired the damage Gabby Merger caused just before the article got protected. Putting aside Gabby Merger's competence as an editor, her walls of text, and the torrent of her personal attacks, I expect that she will not in any way modify or remove any reliable sources going forward, otherwise I will treat such modifications in the future as unconstructive and report them where appropriate. Meanwhile I am waiting for her to find reliable sources which contradict my reliable sources just above. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  14:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I gave my response. And my response is basically in the section right above. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 10:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)