Talk:Orthodoxy

Untitled
I'm making some minor revisions on a factual basis, and providing a little more information. Also the extraneous last line of the article is both false and nonsensical. It's removed. --Kaelus 20:06, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I might also expand the page and provide a detailed treatment of the development of the concept of orthodoxy throughout history, though this will have to be something of an overview; I'm sure there is a wealth of material already available on the respective religion pages (e.g. Islam, Christianity, etc). Are there any objections? --Kaelus 21:11, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Most of the "Claims to Orthodoxy" section deals with the Christian Churches. Should this be spilt off into it's own section? (And the current section expanded with non-christian orthodoxy) 128.104.114.136 21:11, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

There is an epistemological problem I can not get any clue on. How comes the word "Orthodox" was used among those to whom it should have resembled "right, true", and to whom the(Eastern)Orthodox Church(which equals to Orthodox) should have seemed to be schismatic? Russian Orthodox Church believers would not use that term to define themselves nor in direct(since Greek has not that much influence there) neither in translated(in Russia it's not "right thinking" but "right praising") form, so it doesn't seem that the usage comes from them.

This definition is very Christian-centric. I'm a buddhist and within buddhism we see various claims to orthodoxy, usually from very fixed schools who stick to just the buddhist texts, compared to sects who accept more pagan, indigenous practices and teachings. Shouldn't orthodoxy be a universal term to indicate adherence or not to a certain view of how a belief should be? So you can be an orthodox sioux but what would that mean for you? -skoria 1.30pm 17 October 2006

Hey bud, i dunno about you, but here is how i understand it, and this is how i will explain it. People say Christianity, and they include many different "terms" when using this such as Catholics, Baptists, Protestants, etc. You get the idea. - Well - its all rubish. Christianity, in its one and true form belongs to Orthodoxy and only Orthodoxy. When Christianity began, it was all Orthodoxy, anfd from there it split. Let me try to explain this step by step. ONE, and i emphasize that, one of our core themes is that Jesus died on the cross to save all humanity. In knowing he had to do so, he bestowed upon the 11 disciples, Judas was to go on and hang himself shortly after, the right to go teach and preach to people about this. He blessed each one of them, and gave them the knowledge and wisdom to pass down to the next generations. We in the Orthodox chuch call this apostolic doctrine. Our priests, to this day, continue this lineage. We have the blessing from our forefathers which has come from the Disciples, who got it from Christ. Now, some time ago, when these different sections were there, there was a bishop who was teaching some principle. Now, ultimately, all the bishops, except for this guy, got together and came to the conclusion that what he was teaching was incorrect, and told him to rectify his teachings. The Bishop objected, and there became a split in the church. - Where do we see this split? Roman Catholic church was formed from this split, headed by this bishop. So, now we have two branches. Now Orthodox people, they tend to stick to the Orthodox church, but under extreme conditions, we are able to go to a Catholic church and accept communion. Now why is this? Because, even though the split occured with Roman Catholics, they still have what we call the Apostolic Doctrine, hence the lineage. Now within Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches, the priests are priests because they go to seminary and such and learn specific things such as how to read and interpert the Bible, and how to minister to people. - No common person can do this. Now here is the kicker. Within the Roman Catholic church, when things started to go wrong, we have people defy the church. Not so much the priests, but the people. The preists knew better, due to their extensive education and handing of knowledge. However when the people revolted, we get splits such as Protestant, Baptists. They call themself Christians, but in actuality, all they believe in is one principle. Christ is their savior..... where in truth, Christianity contains more than this. Another thing is that their preists dont have this linage or 'Apostolic Doctrine' so to speak. And if they claim that they do, well then, here is another point where orthodoxy and catholocism differ, and thats the fact that our priests observe the sacraments, and i dont really see that with these Baptists, Protestants, Non-Denominational, or Penticostal. And even then we have the really messed up people like Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons. So in any case, do some soul searching, find your own groove. I know mine. Any christian, if you're reading this and thinking im bashing you, i honestly ask you to go look at all the complete facts and those roads will lead you inevitably to Orthodoxy. Im not condeming any sect or etc. i'm just spewing forth my opinion and the truths i was taught and have come to find while searching on my own. Remember, the good book says "You are no one to judge others. Judge and thou shall be judged." - But i am human and i have my flaws, so if this appears as a bashing, i sincerly apologize. Your's truly in Christ.

Emphasis on "Greek"
In the sections which discuss Orthodox Christianity, there is too much emphasis using the word "Greek". While it is true that in past centuries "greek" was used as a common adjective to describe the Orthodox Church as a whole, today it has too much of a connotation to mean actually Greek, like the church in or from Greece. There are many parts of the united Orthodox Church that are not Greek (in country of origin or culture.)

Please consider the following revision:

The word orthodoxy, is usually associated with the Orthodox (Christian) Church which is...

There is no need to mention specific ethnicities in this page (which is more of a launch-point to topics concerning the word orthodoxy in general, and not meant to be specifically about Orthodox Christianity.) It may be better to leave out the word "Greek" entirely.

Thanks.

--Johnmblack 18:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with ethnicities. Saying "Greek Orthodox" is like saying "Roman Catholic." You don't hear of things like French Catholic. They are just Roman Catholic. You can say you are Russian Orthodox, and thats fine (and literally correct), but you are still "Greek" Orthodox. Examples - The historical Church of Greek Constantinople... The New Testament (written originally in Greek). Ancient Greek and Latin are dead languages ...er... but these Church names are historically appropriate (if not a bit misleading when viewed from a modern mind set). It's not implying "Greek" in the ethnic sense at all (the entire concept of nationalism did not even exist until the 17th century). You don't need to be Greek to be Greek Orthodox anymore than an Irishman needs to be Italian to be Roman Catholic. We come here to Wikipedia -amateurs- and assume we are an authority on this or that subject, and we don't realize how ignorant we are about things we are so SURE we are correct about. Like perhaps I'm being right now. Just some food for thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikoz78 (talk • contribs) 11:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Page redirect
The page Orthodox is an immediate redirect to Orthodoxy. I'd recommend simply redirecting Orthodoxy; suddently finding yourself in the middle of you-don't-know-which-page can be confusing. Thoughts? samwaltz 17:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. This just happened to me and for a second I was lost. --Kimon 15:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This is moi? Orthodoxy

!!The section on Eastern Orthodox Christians needs to be removed. It is slanted and full of errors.!!!!

The term's sorigin
Would anyone elucidate the issue of when the term in question actually first appeared (or to be found) within the Christian context.Muscovite99 (talk) 17:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems POV
..."adherence to well researched, well thought out accepted norms" This sounds POV in favor of orthodoxy. Really the term just means adherence to accepted norms, whether well thought out or not. I think "well researched" and "well thought out" should be remove to be less POV and more accurate.

209.134.115.80 (talk) 18:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Origins of the 'apostasy' or 'heresy' concept
The previous version of the article had:, a concept largely unknown before the adoption of Christianity as the state religion of Rome on February 27, 380 by Theodosius I, see also First seven Ecumenical Councils and State church of the Roman Empire

This is incorrect, since the earlier Council of Nicea (325) also had condemned certain groups as heretics, and there are writings by numerous church fathers at least about two hundred years prior to this (during the Roman persecution of Christians), that condemn various 'heretical' or apostatic groups. In any case, the idea of apostasy has no relation to the adoption of Christianity as a state religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.150.220.1 (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Confusion about scope of this article
This article is about the concept of "orthodoxy", an English term that is an antonym of heterodoxy, not Orthodox Christianity. It needs to be rewritten to move that information to the appropriate articles. See orthodoxy (disambiguation) for explanation. Editor2020 (talk) 03:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This articles seem to be solely about religious orthodoxy. The term has been used in a much wider sense as in scientific orthodoxy and political orthodoxy. Either the article should be expanded to cover non-religious orthodoxy or moved to religious orthodoxy. --Cab88 (talk) 01:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Recent changes by User:Voss101
Thank you for your earnest desire to improve this article. However, your recent edit contained several mistakes, which is why it was necessary to revert it. I will list the relevant problems here, in order from least important to most important:


 * 1) Section titles should not be bolded. This is a matter of standard Wikipedia style. Please see any other article as an example.
 * 2) The Virgin Mary is not worshiped in Orthodox Christianity, she is venerated.
 * 3) Orthodox church buildings face East, not North.
 * 4) Most important of all... This page is not actually about the Orthodox Church! The page you are looking for is here. This article is about the general concept of "orthodoxy" (correct belief). We don't need to go into details about Eastern Orthodox Christianity here. That's what the other article is for.

If you go to the actual article that covers the Eastern Orthodox Church, you will see that all of the information you wished to add is already there, and much more. Ohff (talk) 02:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I was wondering if I can edit the article but do edits to already established portions and add pictures because I still want to help improve this page but next time maybe we can work together as an wikipedia community instead of working against each other.Voss101 (talk) 01:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Of course. You can always edit this article - or any other article - and any improvements would be appreciated. But, please keep in mind that this article is not about "Orthodoxy" in the sense of Orthodox Christianity in particular. It's about the general idea of "orthodoxy" (correct belief) and the way it is understood in various different religions and outside of religion. That's why it's so short. Because it's about a very non-specific idea. I really think the article you are looking for is Eastern Orthodox Church. That article covers the Christian church that is most often called "Orthodoxy". Ohff (talk) 03:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank You, for guiding me and helping me understand the Wikipedia World better, I believe that the Orthodox article still needs more worldview as shown at the top of the article.Voss101 (talk) 02:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * once again: this article is not about the Eastern Orthodox Church. Therefore it is wholly irrelevant to add information about Slavic crosses here. There are plenty of articles from which to choose, such as Russian Orthodox Church etc. I am not sure what you mean by "Slavic Eastern Orthodox Church" as there is no one entity matching that name. Elizium23 (talk) 02:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Orthodoxy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130727022718/http://www.freewebs.com/vitaphone1/history/justinianc.html to http://www.freewebs.com/vitaphone1/history/justinianc.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

POV, But It's Partly a Matter of Scope
It's clear that the article as written is engaged with religious orthodoxy, Christian Orthodoxy in particular. And it's also clear that there are non-religious uses of the word in common parlance. It seems to me that both uses have a place on WP, perhaps in different articles (I favor that), but perhaps not.

One peculiarity of how to handle both uses together in the same article is that non-religious orthodoxy and a strictly western (non-Orthodox) viewpoint of religious orthodoxy are very much in synch with each other. Namely, they both imply adherence to beliefs, dogma, some sort of status quo, often grasped as a kind of doctrine supposedly long-proven and incapable of being overthrown (at least, when one is taking a stubbornly "orthodox" stance). That's ok, because that's the common understanding and the common language usage, and also the point of view of those who use the word that way. It expresses an opinion, but words can do that. And WP can describe the opinion(s) neutrally also, and point out common usage.

The difficulty, however, enters when such westerners are talking about Christian Orthodoxy without themselves being Orthodox, for they typically carry this common viewpoint with them when describing the religion, and express those opinions in those terms. However, it is not the Orthodox point of view, neither of the religion, nor of its stance, nor of what "Orthodox" means, not even of what the word derivation means. For the Greek ορθος (orthos) is correct, or true, while δοξα (doxz) has two meanings, the second of which is less often used simply because it refers specifically to the religion. That meaning is "glory", illustrated in the English word doxology, which most English dictionaries confirm as being about glory or glorification. This is all spelled out in the Eastern Orthodox Church article under the "Orthodoxy" section, complete with plenty of RSes. But it puts virtually this entire article out of synch with Christian Orthodoxy, at least as it describes itself and operates internally. Hence, it's all western POV, whether or not it is ever intended derogatorially. And it's regrettably incorrect in describing what makes Christian Orthodoxy actually Orthodox.

I'll start making alterations here on this basis insofar as I feel able and willing, but really, the article on the church would give anyone material to improve it also. One needs to understand that all of western Christianity has looked at creeds and doctrines, beliefs, and texts, in an unorthodox way for over 1000 years, and so the very way Catholics or Protestants usually approach their own religions is different. Orthodoxy has a different starting point, and a much different attitude. Evensteven (talk) 10:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

"Orthodox Christian" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Orthodox Christian. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 15 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 09:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Orthodox
What is it? 2601:18C:D07F:B140:89C2:F486:86FA:24EF (talk) 02:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

"Orthodox Christianity" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orthodox_Christianity&redirect=no Orthodox Christianity] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at until a consensus is reached. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 19:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

No Hinduist Orthodoxy?
The claimed lack of orthodoxy within Hinduism is directly contradicted by the article on Āstika and nāstika. The source used appears to be a single biased source. According to that article astika is defined as adherence to the dogmata: All others are called "nastika" which seems to be a slur meaning "atheist." This fits very well with the article's definition of "orthodoxy." Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 10:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) as those who accept the epistemic authority of the Vedas;
 * 2) as those who accept the existence of ātman;
 * 3) as those who accept the existence of Ishvara.