Talk:Orthodox Christianity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy. See also the Eastern Christianity Portal. (with unknown importance)
Assessment comments
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on the Oriental Orthodox Church on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

I don't think this is NPOV. Certainly all of those claim to be orthodox, but also that the others are heterodox. There is not general agreement on which churches are orthodox. The Anglican churches also consider themselves orthodox, for example. Michael Hardy 00:28 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I'd say ditch this article entirely. If "Orthodox" is used here in the sense of "correct" or "traditional," then it's far too vague for an article. Better stick with the agreed-upon divisions, and separate articles on them: Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholic Church, etc. --Delirium 00:36 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I don't doubt Anglicans believe they're doing as God wishes, but I would be surprised if church leaders use the word "orthodox" to describe their church in terms of the larger history of Christianity. I don't know if they were Anglicans, which of course makes all the difference, but I'm sure I've heard people describe the Anglican church as protestant, of all things. Can you cite any text in which an Anglican leader calls the church "orthodox" in an appropriate sense? While I admit that the connotations of "orthodox" are problematic, I think "Orthodox Christianity" is a technical term that people use, and not an offensive one like "nigger." In the absence of evidence that other Christian sects are vying explicitly for the designation "orthodox" (i.e. as opposed to vying simply to be regarded as the most Christian, as fundamentalists do) I don't think there's any NPOV violation in defining the term as the article does now. I'm certainly open to evidence though. 168... 01:27 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

"Orthodox" is used as a title, "orthodox" as a descriptor. The same could be said of "Catholic" and "catholic". The Anglican church can and has used both "catholic" and "orthodox" to describe itself, but never to my knowledge "Catholic" or "Orthodox" when referring to itself as a body (as opposed to lables given to movements within the church, such as "Anglo-Catholic")
Therefore, in my opinion, this should be disambiguation page that keeps strictly to giving a list of named Churches that use Orthodox in their title, plus a brief word about the difference between big-O and little-o orthodoxy, and their relative objectivity. Tobermory 01:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Eastern & Oriental Orthodoxy unrelated?

While there are minorities within both the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox communions who would argue that "the term Orthodox Christianity when used to refer to these two Churches collectively has little meaning" (as this article states), it's my understanding (and certainly my experience) that the mainstream of each communion regards the other as extremely close or identical in doctrine, worship and spirit. I've heard stories of frequent, authorized intercommunion among the two Churches, especially in Lebanon and Syria. As such, I believe the "Note" at the bottom of this page represents a minority POV. If there's no objection, I plan to remove or revise this note in the next day or two. Buddhagazelle 00:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

For the above reasons I've deleted the "Note." The Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches are what they are-- the article quite nicely and succinctly defines who each is, and the manner in which they differ (seven vs. three councils) is made quite clear. There is no need for a clarifying note; and the "Note" as it stood was in fact misleading and inaccurate (or at least strongly POV). Buddhagazelle 18:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Folks, I have not been monitoring this page for while so I missed this edit. Let me state clearly: You are completely wrong here. Please do not make edits like this without researching. What was stated here is correct. Doctrinally the Roman Catholic Churches are much closer historically than the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches. Remember than until around the turn of the millennium the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches were the same church whereas Oriental Orthodox Church was separate. The similarity in Eastern and Oriental Orthodox is cultural, NOT religious.
Again, please be careful about making uninformed edits. The precise reason I added this note was specifically because of this common misunderstanding.
--Mcorazao 04:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Please provide a source for your statement that "the term Orthodox Christianity when used to refer to these two Churches collectively has little meaning". The Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches typically refer to their division as "a split within Orthodoxy," rather than as the one being Orthodox and the other not. In many parts of the world, especially Lebanon and Syria, intercommunion between the two churches is authorized and frequent. Check also the "Relationships with the Eastern (Chalcedonian) Orthodox Churches" on this page, which states that "the official view of both families of Churches was clearly expressed at the 1989 meeting: 'As two families of Orthodox Churches long out of communion with each other, we now pray and trust in God to restore that communion on the basis of the apostolic faith of the undivided Church of the first centuries which we confess in our common creed.' ".
While there is a substantial minority within both the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox traditions that holds the other to be completely non-Orthodox, this is a minority position on both sides. Most Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Christians regard the other to be also Orthodox. Removing the "Note" does not imply that the two Churches have no differences-- the differences between the two are quite clearly stated in the article (that the one accepts seven councils and the other three). A note to clarify that the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox communions are not (yet) in full communion with one another might be in order. But the "Note" as it stands is really very POV. Don't accuse me of making "uninformed" edits without sourcing your own claims. --Buddhagazelle 02:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Population?

Okay. Really, what is the population of Orthodox Christianity, and what are the sources for those? Robotbeat 09:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tidying up Eastern Christian entries

Please see my proposal on the discussian page of Eastern Christianity. This may be a way of dealing with some of the problems behind the ambiguity of the word orthodox.

Dorotheus 10:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] merge proposal

Dorotheus, I changed your merge proposal. I hope you don't mind. Discuss it at Talk:Eastern Chrisitanity --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] addition by 72.66.231.187: "Ukrainian Reformatory Orthodox Church"

User 72.66.231.187 added this reference on 2006-09-17 under "See also", but there is no article under that name; therefore I shall remove it. Chonak 02:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

This page was marked for cleanup per MoS:DAB. I deleted sublinks that were already listed as mainlinks, and moved some of them up from the "See also" section. I also deleted the descriptions from the "See also" section, but provide them here if someone thinks those links (with descriptions) should be listed under the main "may refer to":

– sgeureka t•c 11:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This page has been reverted to-and-fro several times in the meantime, so I'll be more clear. That page was marked for DAB cleanup, and I cleaned it up using the rules of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). Please familiarize yourself with that topic before doing any more reverts to the for-cleanup-marked page. That page is a disambiguation page to help people find what they want quickly (see Wikipedia:Disambiguation) and not a page where to describe the linked-to pages in detail. I have reverted it back. You may help by building on my cleanup version where you think I was too bold in removal of information. – sgeureka t•c 22:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
That's just it - I think ALL of the removal was too bold, and giving so-called "Conservative Christians" in the West as the primary meaning of "Orthodox" is completely unacceptable. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Please read WP:REVERT#Don't. Your reverts seem inappropriate, especially since you didn't improve my edit but rather reverted back to a version that is obviously not acceptable by MoS:DAB standards. As for putting Conservative Christians first: I'm not familiar with Christianity and simply went for an alphabetical order, with no harm intended. That alone should not have been your reason to revert, especially if a simple cut-paste job would have done. I'm leaving this note up for others to decide what should be done. Please also read WP:3RR. One of the reverts back to my version was not by me. – sgeureka t•c 23:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, DO NOT delete {{disambig-cleanup}} until this disambiguation page has been properly cleaned up per MoS:DAB (or until we could find consensus otherwise). Anyone may clean up. – sgeureka t•c 01:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the best course of action is for Codex Sinaiticus to expand the page into a comaprison of the various orthodoxies. Consequently, I'm removing the disambiguation tag from this page altogether. Ewlyahoocom 20:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

That change has made it much worse than it was before (IMO). I've looked through the history. Please look at the evolution of this page: Dec 2001 (creation) Feb 2002 Jul 2003 Jun 2005 Aug 2005 Jan 2006 Feb 2006 May 2006 Sep 2006 Sep 2006 Jan 2007 (when marked for {{disambig-cleanup}}). I think this page was right to be a (topic) disambiguation in the first place, even if religion tends to not have strict borders. But for disambiguation pages, there is MoS:DAB, and this should apply here also. I'm still inviting others to apply those cleanup guidelines here. – sgeureka t•c 20:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record: The whole {{disambig-cleanup}} tag has been deleted in the last revert (not by me), thus deleting the DAB status of this page (although I think it is a DAB page, even though not in the strictest sense). I am going to leave this page alone for now and wait what others think about it being a DAB page. – sgeureka t•c 11:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caution

At the risk of sounding obnoxious ...

There have been a some fairly questionable edits in the last few months, cases of people apparently just making assumptions without checking facts. I realize we all make mistakes but please try to check facts especially when undoing someone else's edits (i.e. it is one thing to mistakenly add something but it is another to remove something that was actually correct).

--Mcorazao 04:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)