Talk:Pentarchy

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.
This article is supported by WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy. See also the Eastern Christianity Portal. (with unknown importance)
Assessment comments
This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain.

Contents

[edit] Recent edits

Dear Fastifex &c., thank you for your enthusiasm. Unfortunately your preferred edit completely messes up and unbalances the first paragraph, and destroys the flow of the definition of the early Christian ecclesiastical pentarchy. Furthermore, this article simply DOESN'T need a long history of the Moscow Patriarchate, expressed in quaint 1911 language. The Moscow patriarchy is only relevant insofar as it impinges on differing definitions of "Pentarchy". And this article is primarily about the ecclesiastical meaning; if you want to give the non-ecclesiastical due importance, then please create another article. AnonMoos 17:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I've heard some weird reasons to edit, but dumping context for "the flow" is a gem of absurdity, I'll credit that one on your enthousiasm for -brevity? never mind what for. If you care to update the language, feel free to. As for the modern meanings, I'm quite happy with your version. Fastifex 09:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You are in violation of 3RR rule on this article

Not only is some of the wording in your preferred version of the article stupid beyond belief ("The grand old Patriarchates"?!?!? -- gag me with a spoon), you have now violated the WP:3RR in your efforts to impose it against the best judgements of people who seem to know more about the subject than you do... AnonMoos 17:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sock puppetry

I am now operating under the assumption that Arcarius is a sock-puppet for Fastifex. AnonMoos 21:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Order of Patriarchs

I am putting them in alphabetacal order to avoid discussion over which is highest ranking Patriarch. Don't change it back unless you have a reason (Rome doesn't rank highest in the eyes of others). 207.6.229.114 01:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but alphabetical order puts first the only one of the five which has no real claim to precedence (Rome and Constantinople were capital cities, Antioch is where the word "Christian" was coined, and was an important Christian center in the aftermath of the destruction of the Temple, while Jerusalem of course has strong associations with the life and death of Jesus). Alphabetization does not particularly seem to be the solution or answer to anything with respect to this article. AnonMoos 06:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
There is, in fact, no good reason to alphabetize whatsoever. Rome was universally acknowledged as the highest ranking see. That's never been in dispute at all, and it's very puzzling that anon should say that it is. So I put it back to the way it was. TCC (talk) (contribs) 10:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I fully agree that the list should be placed in the traditional order rather than alphabetized. The traditional order was set before the East-West schism, and is meaningful, regardless of any subsequent disagreements. (Note that the order of the Pentarchy in the article Patriarch has also been alphabetized and needs to be restored to the traditional order.) MishaPan 15:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

IT ISN'T universally recognized. I'm Coptic Orthodox & we rejected Chalcedon (which is where the tradition "started"). Thus, alphabetical order is just fine for those who view the patriarchates as equal. We don't acknowledge Rome's "power". And there is no proof that it is "universally" recognized -- if it was, then I myself would have recognized these false claims. Just my opinion. So, I will put it back in alphabetacal order unless you have proof that it is universally reecognized -- then I will change it back to your view. ~ Troy 18:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Why did you revert it back without responding? You can at least explain before you revert it back. I will leave it for now, but I can do without the unexplained edits. ~ Troy
So you don't recognize it. In that case, you were never part of the Pentarchy as described in the article in the first place. This, by the way, has nothing to do with Rome's "power", and the article doesn't imply that Rome had any. But even in the days of the three patriarchates, Rome was first. You'll need a source that says it wasn't if you want it any differently. Every other one says otherwise.
You are, in any event, insisting on your own version against the clear consensus. If you want it changed, it's you who has to justify it, not the other way around. TCC (talk) (contribs) 10:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with TCC and MishaPan. Bring some referenced facts to support your position and try to shape consensus. Majoreditor 00:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, not everyone agrees (User:Lanternix reverted it back also). Secondly there is even a cached page showing it in alpha. order (just to make it easier for you to spot) [1]. It is not a "clear consensus" if there are any disagreements at all. It is ridiculous that I have to show you somewhere that has it in alphabetical order. Also, there is no universal tradition if Alexandria (the Coptic Church specifically) split before this "tradition" started. You should know that Alexandria (and antioch) are both one of the five, and that the Oriental Orthodox Patriarchs of these cities split before this "order" came about. Lastly, Wikipedia is neutral -- so this order, as said above, doesn't in any way look against that. Your "tradition" (IMHO) doesn't seem to be neutral in this manner. ~ Troy 00:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, more fool me for not supplementing my poor memory and verifying your claimed sources. The order of the patriarchs, or at least Constantinople's place next to Rome, was established by canon 3 of the First Council of Constantinople -- the second Ecumenical Council, not the fourth as earlier claimed. So it's simply false that Alexandria split away before the order was established. That Rome was first was simply taken as read. If you're going to insist that Rome did not have the first place in the traditional order, you'll need a source. The order with Rome first is easily found just about anywhere the subject is presented; for example these notes on the canon in question. Bear in mind that this is a matter of history, not doctrine, so any reliable historical source will do. This one is a standard collection of the Fathers in English, compiled by Protestants who have no interest whatsoever in promoting the claims of the modern bishops or Rome and are therefore not subject to bias in that direction. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
The "cached page" you quote is from a Melkite church website. If you look further, you will see that the Melkite church patriarchal website says this about the order of the patriarchs; to quote: "Historically, the patriarchs have had an order of precedence. The Patriarch of the West (the Pope) is the First. After the Patriarch of Constantinople (the Ecumenical Patriarch) was established, it became second."
Digging further into what the Melkite Church says on the matter, you will want to examine Melkite Archbishop Joseph Tawil's book The Patriarchate of Antioch Throughout History: An Introduction, chapter 5, "Formation of the Patriarchs". Archbishop Tawil wrote that the order of precedence was addressed by the Council of Constantinople in 381, ranking Constantinople second after Rome (Tawil, p. 64). Note that the precedence set by the Countil of Constantinople in 381 happened before the Council of Chalcedon (451), which is when the Coptic Church broke from the Eastern Orthodox/Catholic Church.
Based on that, I have to agree with TCC, AnonMoos and MishiPan. Can you cite any sources at all showing a different order of precedence?
It's important to understand that, as TCC says, that "This ... has nothing to do with Rome's "power", and the article doesn't imply that Rome had any." All we are doing is placing the list in its traditional order, as MishaPan notes above. You'll find plenty of sources for the traditional order, such as Encyclopædia Britannica. Majoreditor 02:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beginnings

I have no objection to other views being given in the article, provided sources other than the editor's opinion, are indicated. But the view expressed in the Encyclopaedia Britannica has every right to be given, attributed expressly to the Encyclopaedia Britannica and not presented as undisputed fact. According to this view, the special prerogatives and authority held by some sees with regard to other sees were a fact that preceded the fourth-century First Council of Nicaea, but the theory (call it a doctrine, if you wish) that five sees formed an exclusive pentarchy was formulated only in the sixth century.

How can it be claimed that "In the 4th century (that is, in the era when Christianity was first beginning to gain political support from the Roman state) these constituted the four most important cities of the Roman Empire, plus Jerusalem"? Constantinople was not yet founded when the First Council of Nicaea was held, and by then Christianity had already gained political support from the Roman state. Lima (talk) 06:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It's nice that you have such elevated regard for Britannica, but the Britannica definition actually has some technical problems, since the mention in Justinian's laws was not a really "proposal", but rather a codification and official Byzantine government recognition of the concept -- and of course by 692 A.D., the whole Pentarchy system was no longer even much of a practical reality, since the majority of the inhabitants of Arab-ruled Egypt and Syria had turned toward monophysite churches, while Antioch was now a front-line city in the almost continual military hostilities between the Byzantine empire and the Arab caliphate, and Rome was slipping out of Byzantine control. So it's really best to put Justinian and the rather retroactive Council of Trullo in their proper chronological place, rather than trying to move them forward.
And the cities of the Pentarchy were selected pretty much as was indicated in the version of the article before you started changing things -- by the mid-4th-century, Constantinople had indeed become one of the four most important cities in the Roman empire (the only four cities which approached or exceeded 100,000 in population, as illustrated on the A.D. 362 map on page 91 of Colin McEvedy's Penguin Atlas of Ancient History, for example), and it was exactly these four cities (plus Jerusalem for its sacredness) which became the cities of the Pentarchy... AnonMoos (talk) 10:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I understand "formulated" differently from you. I take it to mean that by his legislation Justinian gave practical expression and (to the extent that those involved obeyed him) effect to a Pentarchy vision of the government of the Church throughout his empire. To balance the view expressed by the Encyclopaedia Britannica, why not give a source about a supposed earlier existence of this vision of the government of the Church as a whole, rather than merely the existence of special privileges held by each of the sees individually within limited areas?
  • Pentarchy (government by five) means, I think, more than this last notion. If it does not, we should disambiguate the term, giving the Encyclopaedia Britannica understanding and whatever other understanding(s) exist(s).
  • The Byzantine government made its Pentarchy legislation before Mohammed was even born.
  • The previous text, as far as I know, never said "the mid-4th-century"; it said ""In the 4th century (that is, in the era when Christianity was first beginning to gain political support from the Roman state)". That means some time before 325, for the First Council of Nicaea very obviously did have political support from the Roman State. At that time Constantinople had not yet been founded. Lima (talk) 10:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
First off, the basis of the idea of the pentarchy was distinguishing a small number of dioceses as having special authority, and listing their order of precedence (though the word "patriarch" itself doesn't seem to have been exclusively reserved for those few bishops until some time later). Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria (precisely the three most important cities of the Roman empire before the founding of Constantinople) were apparently recognized at the council of Nicea, and Jerusalem and Constantinople at the council of Chalcedon (though Constantinople's elevation was controversial in some circles, and not fully accepted until later). The Pentarchy was not really the kind of thing which Justinian could effectively legislate into existence in a vacuum, unless some basis for the concept had already existed before his decree.
Second, I really don't know what your reason for objecting to the phrase "In the 4th century" is. The fourth century was the first century in which Christianity received political support from the Roman state, and also the first century in which Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, and Alexandria were the four most important cities in the Roman empire. The phrase "In the 4th century" doesn't mention any particular specific dates, doesn't intend to mention any particular specific dates, and doesn't need to mention any particular specific dates... AnonMoos (talk) 14:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
No objection to saying that four of the five sees included in the Pentarchy had been the most important cities of the empire "in the fourth century"; only to saying that they were such "in the era when Christianity was first beginning to gain political support from the Roman state".
The First Council of Nicaea decided: "The ancient customs of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis shall be maintained, according to which the bishop of Alexandria has authority over all these places since a similar custom exists with reference to the bishop of Rome. Similarly in Antioch and the other provinces the prerogatives of the churches are to be preserved. In general the following principle is evident: if anyone is made bishop without the consent of the metropolitan, this great synod determines that such a one shall not be a bishop. If however two or three by reason of personal rivalry dissent from the common vote of all, provided it is reasonable and in accordance with the church's canon, the vote of the majority shall prevail. Since there prevails a custom and ancient tradition to the effect that the bishop of Aelia is to be honoured, let him be granted everything consequent upon this honour, saving the dignity proper to the metropolitan." I have italicized a phrase that seems to indicate that the Council had no intention of dividing up the whole of the Church between just a few patriarchs. The First Council of Constantinople said, very briefly, "Because it is new Rome, the bishop of Constantinople is to enjoy the privileges of honour after the bishop of Rome." Just a matter of honour, it seems. So when did the notion begin that the whole Church was to be governed by five? Certainly not in the fourth century. Perhaps, after all, the Encyclopaedia Britannica is right in dating it to the first half of the sixth century. Lima (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jerusalem issue

There is quite a lot of politics around the old city of jerusalem nowdays. Israel claims the entire city as its capital and has altered boundaries of the District of jerusalem encompassing the entire old city within its borders. Palestanian authority from the other hand raise claims on Jerusalem concidering that the entire old city must become the capital of the new palestinian state when and if this is created. All discussions between the two parties elegantly avoid this issue stating that after all being solved they will discuss for the status of the old city. Nonetheless and because we are not here to express any political vues (like the one implying a co dominance of Israel and West Bank an idea which is not heard by any of the two parties) I would suggest that the completely neutral generic term " Holy Land" covers elegantly the issue, unless if you want the absolutely non pc fire starter expression " now de facto Israel" which I consider inappropriate as this is a historical non political religious site but even that is by far more accurate from the entry "now Israel and the West Bank" which simply doesn t have any accuracy or any kind of meaning Melathron (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

There's absolutely no need whatsoever to mention either the words "Israel" or "Palestine" in this article (it's not like people haven't heard of Jerusalem). That was introduced along with the wording that seemed to imply that the Byzantine emperor Justinian unilaterally decreed the Pentarchy into existence ex-nihilo... AnonMoos (talk)
I agree, there's no reason to mention either "Israel", "Palestine" or "West Bank". The terms add nothing to the article. Majoreditor (talk) 02:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
On AnonMoos's comment about "ex nihilo": the article states: "The theory of the Pentarchy was based on the special prerogatives and authority that the sees in question actually held with respect to others, some of them since before the fourth century." Lima (talk) 05:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Continuance?

I think the point with justinian raise a very interesting issue that is not very clae in the text. After the Chalcedonian shism and the ex communication of the oriental churches by the one catholic apostolic church, the pentarh right passed and remained in the hands of to the greek orthodox patrarchs of the east. This patriarchs along with the Pope of Rome and not the the oriental claimants sat in the next 3 ecumenical councils summoned by the roman emperor. Further points for that is that the patriarchs of the eastern churches in full communion with Rome rank below the cardinals and if they receive cardinal concecration although created straight in the class of cardinal bishops they still rank below the incumbents of the six suburbicarian dioceses of rome. Further the same title is shared by different patriarchs who lead different eastern sects for instance : HB the patriarch of Antioch for the syriacs and the patriarch of Antioch for the maronites etc. The pentarch seats of honour even today are reserved in the vatican for the greek orthodox holders and no one else. So although it is correct to say that there are many claimants for the apostolic sees of both Alxandria and Antioch it is further totally accurate to say that there exist but only one claimant as pentarch and this is the greek orthodox incumbent. I think this should be demonstrated in the text. I will make some neutral changes and please have a say weither you agree or disagree. Melathron (talk) 10:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Melathron is right in saying that the Pentarchy as formulated by Justinian allowed for only one Patriarch of Antioch, one of Alexandria etc., and did not recognize the non-Chalcedonian Patriarch of Alexandria, even if he had with him the majority of the Christians in his patriarchate. At that time the Bishop of Rome also recognized the same Patriarchs whom Justinian recognized and between whom and the Bishop of Rome there was as yet no schism. But I do not think it can be shown that today the Roman Catholic Church accords recognition to the Eastern Orthodox (Greek) Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria but not to the Oriental Orthodox (Coptic) Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria. In particular, I do not understand what are the seats of honour supposedly reserved in the Vatican for the Greek Orthodox holders of the sees of Alexandria and Antioch, rather than for the Oriental Orthodox holders of the same titles.
I suppose that by "pentarch" Melathron means "patriarch": the Eastern Orthodox Church is no longer organized as a pentarchy (5 heads), but as an ennearchy (9 heads), or rather as under a larger number of heads, since it comprises also, on a basis of equality, various other autocephalous Churches whose chief Bishop does not have the title of patriarch.
As a result of this I have felt obliged to edit Melathron's addition to the article. Lima (talk) 13:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

During the funeral of Pope Joannes Paulus II the ecumenical patriarch was offered the first seat of honour among all bishops present ie catholic cardinals , orthodox patriarchs , oriental orthodox patriarchs etc. according to what was confirmed by Justinian and confirmed during Ferrara Florence council. Equally the greek orthodox patriarchs of the east are granted the positions of honour as per the Justinian rules. The coptic pope and the syriac patriarch of Antioch are recognised as heads of their perspective churches but not as sucessors t the ancient pentarchs as Rome is bound by the decisions of the ecumenical councils that holds oriental churches to be heretics ( as per the earlier views tha led to the excommunication of those churches). Roem never consider the eastern orthodoxy as heretics but as schismatics and it was separated by them trhough two mutual anathemas issued at 1054. Nonetheless the positions of the eastern patriarchs was never challenged and now restored after the lift of the anathemas at 1963. However the oriental churches are still seen as monophysites and their canonical heads are recognised as heads of those churches they are nor recognised as sucessors to the ancient pentarchs of which the greek orthodox clergy is concedered as such. Please bear in mind that this is about the relations between the east and west and not about the claimants of the titles. There are numerous claimants but only the greek orthodox are concidered by Rome the rightful incumbents of the Pentarchy. As such I would think it would worth to have some kind of reference to this as it is very interesting how his ancient order still defines the intercommunal relations between the East and West as it demonstrates the strenth of those arrangements up to day. Strictly speaking the ancient patriarchal churches referred here for the vatican are none but the greek orthodox ones as the oriental churches were condemned and ex communicated by both east and west 600 years before the great schism. And do not forget both churches recognises all decisions taken prior to the greta schism as valid. Melathron (talk) 12:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I too would like to see some verifiable reference to what Melathron says is recognition by Rome that the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch are the only legitimate holders of those titles. I am not referring to the time of Justinian and the Council of Florence, when the situation was clear. Maybe the situation is clear also today, and it is true that Rome does not consider the Eastern Orthodox Church to be heretical; but I am unaware of any recent Roman statement denying, even implicitly, legitimacy to the Oriental Orthodox holders of the titles of Alexandria and Antioch. By recent, I also mean less than about a century old: if you went back further, you could doubtless find declarations denying the legitimacy even of the Eastern Orthodox holders of the titles and denying all legitimacy on the part of anyone at all other than those in full communion with Rome.
The L'Osservatore Romano report, with photographs, on the funeral of Pope John Paul II (issue of Saturday 9 April 2005) does not confirm that the Ecumenical Patriarch was given precedence over all present, including cardinals and other Catholic prelates. While it also does not deny it, I think that, if what you state were true, it would surely have been commented on not only on L'Osservatore Romano but also on other sources of information. Was Patriarch Vartholomaios (Bartholomew) not just given first place in the sector reserved for heads of Churches not in full communion with Rome? I would also expect the representatives of the Eastern Orthodox Church, as a body, to be placed ahead of the body of the representatives of Oriental Orthodoxy, because of being historically and doctrinally closer. But I would not expect the Eastern Orthodox representatives to be placed together with the Catholic participants, especially if the Oriental Orthodox were excluded. That, I think, would have to wait for union between East and West. Lima (talk) 14:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[2]

Classifying Orthodox by Robert L. Stern

Quote :

"The ancient Eastern patriarchates. Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem are “autocephalous” or independent churches, each headed by a patriarch. "

"Oriental churches. At the 451 Council of Chalcedon, three churches separated from communion with the others while retaining it themselves. They and their descendants constitute the Oriental Orthodox churches.

Ancient Armenia was a nation situated on the fringe of the Roman Empire. Its autonomous church was until Chalcedon in communion with the others.

The Coptic (Egyptian) church gradually departed from the usages of ancient Alexandria finally becoming autonomous under its own patriarch. A similar process was repeated in modern times when the Ethiopian church separated the Coptic and, in turn, the Eritrean from the Ethiopian.

The Syriac church similarly separated from the Antiochene and, in turn, part of the Malankara (Indian) from the Syriac."

Unquote

As you can see in this well eastablish papal agency there is a very enlighting article about orthodoxy. As you read the oriental churches are only concidered sister churches of Alexandria and Antioch with the mentioning of the four greek orthodox patriarchates as the original four ancient eastern patriarchates. The oriental ones are not recognised not even as claimants of the tradition and this is because they were excommunicated far before the great schism. Melathron (talk) 21:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Also Funeral of Pope John Paul II : "Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I attended the funeral from the honorary first seat". Melathron (talk) 21:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

As such I think we are not very accurate if we do not clearly mention that even the honour and order of the pentarchy are still reserved from the Hole see for the greek orthodox patriarchs who are the solely recognised by vativan to be till today the pentarchs. Equally eastern orthodoxy attribute to Rome the honours of the first of the pentarchs. I think it is important to include such information. Melathron (talk) 22:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of all the Churches he mentioned, Monsignor Stern wrote: "All these churches take pride in their 'Orthodoxy' — their fidelity to authentic doctrine. Their faithful witness is part of the precious patrimony of the one Church of Christ." If Monsignor Stern is considered to have said that the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria, not the Oriental Orthodox Patriarch, is the successor of Saints Athanasius, Cyril etc. (it is not clear that he did), and if he is considered to be a quotable authority for this, then he is also a quotable authority for the statement that the Coptic, Armenian and Ethiopian Churches, whom he mentions, give a faithful witness that is part of the precious patrimony of the one Church of Christ. Yet, though these Churches call themselves Orthodox, the Eastern Orthodox consider them not to be Orthodox, and this is the basis of the Eastern Orthodox claim that the Oriental Orthodox Patriarchs are illegitimate.
Yes, Patriarch Bartholomew had the honorary first seat in the section reserved for heads of Churches not in full communion with Rome. In the section reserved for "reigning sovereigns", the King and Queen of Belgium had the honorary first seats, merely, I feel sure, because of the alphabetical order, in French, of "Belgique, Danemark, Espagne, Jordanie ..." Lima (talk) 05:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I stll think that it is quite crystal clear that eastern orthodox patriarchs are the one recognised by Rome as the continuation of the pentarchs and it is even more clear that the oriental churches are concidered sister churches of Alexandria and Antioch and thus the two phrases "The Coptic (Egyptian) church gradually departed from the usages of ancient Alexandria " and "The Syriac church similarly separated from the Antiochene". It is very clear here that are not concidered part of the churches of Antioch and Alexandria, so I think we should have an entry to demostrate that. Further although for the sovereigns indeed it was an alphabetical order applied, for the church dignitaries it was not and the ecumenical patrarch held the first seat of honour not because e was on the top of the list but as the second of the pentarchs who in the absence of the soveregn pontiff was given the proper precedence as per the ecumenical councils.Melathron (talk) 10:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia rules, you can only put in the article what your source says, [your interpretation] of what it says. For my part, I do not see what part of Stern's article can be quoted as saying that the Holy See recognizes fully the Eastern Orthodox Church Patriarchs, but in no way the Oriental Orthodox Church Patriarchs.
At the funeral of Pope John Paul II, the not-in-full-communion Church dignitaries were of course not put in alphabetical order. The order was: Eastern Orthodox Churches (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Moscow, Ukraine (Patriarchate of Moscow), Georgia, Serbia, Romania, Finland, Bulgaria, Czech Republic and Slovakia, Cyprus, Greece, Poland, Albania, Orthodox Church in America), Oriental Orthodox Churches (Alexandria, Antioch, Armenia (see of Etchmiadzin), Armenia (see of Antelias), Ethiopia, Eritrea), Assyrian Church of the East, and finally "Western Ecclesial Communions" (Anglican, Old Catholic (Union of Utrecht), World Lutheran Federation, World Methodist Council, World Alliance of Reformed Churches, World Baptist Alliance, Mennonite World Conference, Disciples of Christ). These were all in the same sector, not ranged along with Roman Catholic dignitaries. Lima (talk) 12:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I can see your point. We leave the article as is then. Thanks Melathron (talk) 19:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)