Talk:Patriarch

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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
Catholicism Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.


Contents

[edit] About schismatic note on Rome

Quote: Ghirlandajo (why one schismatic patriarch of Rome should be listed before the Ecumenical patriarch and three other original patriarchates??)

First of all your note is offensive in the history section and please note that the Council of Chalcedon gives the Pope the first place in the order of precedence in Canon 28.

Also I would like to point out that the mutual excommunication made in 1054 was lifted in the 1960's by the Roman Catholic Church and Orthodox Church of Constantinople so in a way one of the original reasons for schism has been solved.

Whom "Orthodox Church of Constantinople" recognizes as patriarch is the private affair of that church. This church cannot speak for the Eastern Orthodoxy in general. I revert the schysmatic bishop to the end of the list. --Ghirlandajo 17:52, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

You are right about that (also, i may point that full communion between constantinople and rome has also never been really established, not even in 1960), and that's why, if this was a paragraph listing the patriarchs in the orthodox church now, rome not even would not be at the first ranking, but it would not even be in the list not even at the last place. But this is a list of "ancient pentarchy", BEFORE the schism, and, when we speak about that, history says us that rome HAD the first ranking at that moment (it has rightly been spoken about the council of chalcedon), and the ecumenical patriarch, that was already named ecumenical before the schism, still was in the second place after rome until 1054. And also some of the roman pontiffs of the period are still venerated as saints by orthodoxy, like, for example, saint clemens, pope of rome. User:PravoSlav.

[edit] Rearranging

I'm leaning towards turning patriarch into a disambiguation page, and moving the material from this page to patriarch (Christianity) or something like that. The dab page would link to the main senses of the word such as the Christian title, Biblical patriarchs, and patriarchy, as well as less common uses like presiding patriarch and Sangharaja. Opinions?

Object. Start patriarch (disambiguation) if you have nothing better to do. --Ghirla -трёп- 19:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Duly noted, but one must also note that you have not mentioned any particular reason. In the interest of even-handedness, I didn't really explain my reasoning either. My reasoning is that "patriarch" has several meanings, and the Christian church title is not outstandingly more common, although it's an interesting subject that deserves it's own article. The introduction to this article is presently a bit awkward as it tries to cover several subjects, while the body of the article is just a list of Christian church patriarchs. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 21:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

It might also be interesting to try to incorporate large or small portions of the lengthy and interesting Catholic Encyclopedia article on "patriarch".

Object. We don't need more Papist propaganda. --Ghirla -трёп- 19:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, obviously it would have to be well de-propagandised before we could use it. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 21:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, what's up with this "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church", etc., business? That links to an article which begins "In Christian theology, One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is a phrase describing ..." and contains a section called "conflicting boundaries and definitions". It doesn't seem quite fair to attribute these patriarchs to Christendom in general: for one thing, I suspect that the ancestors of today's Oriental Orthodox churches never recognised a patriarch of Constantinople or of Jerusalem. And then, patriarch goes on to use constructions like "Holy Catholic and Orthodox Church" and "One Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church" which apparently means Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism respectively? If that's what we mean, why don't we just go ahead and say it in terms that normal laymen will be able to understand? - Nat Krause(Talk!) 17:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links between Popes

I have started the above page: links with and between patriarchs would be welcome (in which case the article title would have to be changed - Links between Christian religious heads probably.)

Jackiespeel 16:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kiev etc.?

What about some of the smaller churches with patriarchs, such as the Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kiev Patriarchate? I'm sure there are others as well. Do they deserve a mention in this article? Gentgeen 21:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

  • They certainly do -it would be most un-encyclopedic to censorise less 'notable' churches; it's one of the few ways they can express how distinct they consider themselves- with this obvious proviso: please make sure they are properly identified and classified, especially as some are 'cohabiting' at nominal and real 'addresses' (episcopal sees, that is), which can easily lead to desparate confusion Fastifex 13:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Buddhist Patriarchs

The wiki on patriarchs focused only on the patriarchs of Judaic religions (Judaism and Christianity.)

In Mahayana Buddhism, patriarchs played an important historical role. While Theravada (The Way of the Elders) records that the Buddha explicitly did not leave a successor, Mahayana Buddhism believes that the Buddha did select a monk to be a successor, and that there was a series of at least 28 Buddhist patriarchs. The Chan/Zen branch of the Mahayana adds another 10, and the Chogye and Kwan Um (both Korean) subbranches of Zen believe that the patriarchy contains unbroken to this day, though they have different people in mind. For the Chogye, the 85th is now alive. The Pure Land branch of the Mahayana also believes that they have the living Buddhist patriarch.

Tharpa —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.66.106.50 (talk) 18:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Patriarchs in the OT

The newly-added section on OT patriarchs is a mess. Should it be cleaned up or spun off into another article? Majoreditor 04:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Silly me. I see that there is already an article named Patriarchs (Bible) which covers this material. Majoreditor 04:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)