Talk:Western Rite Orthodoxy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Western Rite Orthodoxy was a nominee for good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on April 25, 2007.
February 22, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed
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.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy. See also the Eastern Christianity Portal. (with unknown importance)
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] Merge

I am suggesting that this article be merged with the new article Western Rite Orthodoxy. The latter is much more comprehensive and already incorporates or expands a significant portion of the material in this article. If there are no objections, I will go ahead and place the redirect on 04 May 2007.

jackturner3 20:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Romanian official documents about Orthodox Church of France ECOF

Le Patriarcat Roumain Le département des relations ecclésiastiques extérieures Roumanie

423/3.III.1993

A son Excellence l’évêque Germain de St Denis Paris France

VOTRE EXCELLENCE

Nous portons à votre connaissance que le saint Synode de l’Eglise Roumaine, dans sa session de travail du 23 janvier 1993, a de nouveau examiné la situation de Votre Excellence et de l’Evêché Orthodoxe Catholique de France,

Comme Vous savez, en 1972, ce diocèse Français, à la demande instante de ses représentants, a été reçu par le patriarcat Roumain sous sa juridiction, afin de lui offrir, par économie ecclésiastique, la communion canonique de même que la possibilité de s’intégrer dans l’ensemble de l’Orthodoxie et de progresser spirituellement.

Peu de temps après avoir été reçu sous notre juridiction et après le sacre épiscopal de Votre excellence, au sein du diocèse et dans Votre activité commencèrent à se manifester. diverses erreurs d’ordre dogmatique, liturgique et de discipline canonique, ainsi que des enseignements et des pratiques contraires à l’orthodoxie universelle, qui ne firent que se multiplier avec le temps continuant à présent encore et étant maintes fois portées à notre connaissance.

Au long de toutes ces années, le Saint synode, dans l’Esprit de la charité chrétienne et de la tolérance à l’égard de votre excellence et du clergé et des fidèles de l’Evêché Orthodoxe Catholique de France, a fait de considérables efforts pour vous aider à faire remédier les erreurs et à redresser la vie religieuse de ce diocèse, afin que vous puissiez entrer dans la communion de l’orthodoxie universelle.

Par conséquent vous avez été maintes fois invité par le patriarcat Roumain de participer, accompagné par vos collaborateurs, à des discussions dans le cadre de diverses commissions synodales. Chaque fois ont été dressés des protocoles et vous avez signé des engagements et des déclarations (1974,1976, 1978,1979, 1982, 1985, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990), stipulant que vous allez vous intégrer dans l’orthodoxie universelle. Vous les avez cependant chaque fois ignorés et transgressés sciemment, faisant preuve de désobéissance et d ‘insoumission.

Etant donné que vous n’avez pas respecté les susdits protocoles, les déclarations et vos propres engagements de vous intégrer effectivement et sincèrement avec le diocèse dans l’orthodoxie universelle ;

Compte tenu de l’attitude permanente de désobéissance et de la transgression délibérée de vos propres engagements quant à l’observation et de la doctrine et de la pratique de la vie religieuse orthodoxe,

Le saint synode de l’Eglise Orthodoxe Roumaine a décidé de retirer définitivement la juridiction canonique de l’Eglise orthodoxe roumaine à Votre excellence et à l’Evêché Orthodoxe catholique de France. Par conséquent, l’exercice de toute fonction épiscopale vous est désormais défendu. Toute correspondance reçue de Votre part à ce sujet ne sera plus prise en considération.

Il a été également décidé que les prêtres ou les communautés du respectif diocèse qui souhaiteraient maintenir les liens canoniques avec L’Orthodoxie universelle puissent s’adresser à cet effet aux juridictions canoniques orthodoxes locales.

Les susdites décisions seront communiquées aussi au conseil diocésain de l’Evêché Orthodoxe Catholique de France, aux prêtres appartenant à ce diocèse, au Comité Inter-épiscopal orthodoxe de Paris et aux Eglises Orthodoxes sœurs. Avec le regret que le patriarcat roumain ait été contraint de prendre de telles mesures disciplinaires, nous prions le Seigneur de vous accorder son aide et sa lumière et de vous protéger dans la grâce miséricordieuse ;

Président du saint Synode + Théoctiste Patriarche de l’Eglise orthodoxe Roumaine

Secrétaire du Saint synode, + Evêque Nifon Ploiesteanul Vicaire patriarcal

PATRIARHIA ROMANA CANCELARIA SFANTULUI SINOD SECTORUL PENTRU RELATII EXTERNE BISERICESTI

AVIS D’EXPERTISE CANONIQUE

No 9 /3 Janvier 2001

Après une suite d’erreurs de l’ex-évêque Germain de Saint Denis, le Saint Synode de l’Eglise orthodoxe Roumaine a été obligé de prendre la. décision disciplinaire de lui interdire l’exercice de toutes fonctions épiscopales. Cette décision no. 423 / 1993, ci-après annexée, a été communiquée aux intéressés par une lettre du 3 mars 1993, ci-incluse.

Pour expliciter cette décision du Saint Synode nous précisons que “retirer définitivement la juridiction canonique” et ‘l’exercice de route fonction épiscopale vous est désormais défendu” signifient du point de vue canonique que l’ex-évêque Germain est exclu de l’épiscopat (c’est à dire la déposition), et est réduit â l’état laïc et ainsi n’a plus le droit de célébrer la Sainte Liturgie, ni aucun office religieux, ni de effectuer des ordinations et dispenser les Saints Sacrements, ni de conduire une communauté cultuelle orthodoxe. Par suite il n’est reçu par aucune autre juridiction Orthodoxe.

Contrairement à la décision du Saint Synode de l’Eglise orthodoxe Roumaine, l’ex-évêque Germain, aggrave sa situation ecclésiale en poursuivant l’exercice des fonctions épiscopales, et ainsi tombe sous l’incidence des canons l’excluant de l’Eglise. Tout acte de culte et d’autorité excercé par un évêque après sa déposition sont nuls de fait et de droit (28eme règle apostolique et no. 4 du concile d’Antioche 74ème règle apostolique 9 et 17 du IV concile oecuménique et no. 15 du concile d’ Antioche). Les ordinations pourront être soumises par économie à l’examen de l’autorité canonique.

En continuant ses errements et passant au delà de toutes règles canoniques l’ex-évêque Germain, M. Gilles BERTRAND-HARDY, en se mariant est tombé définitivement de son état épiscopal et conformément aux Saints Canons la sanction appliquée par le Saint Synode pourrait être l’anathème, (no. 6 du VI concile oecuménique, no. I Néocésarée et no 12 et 48 du VI concile oecuménique).

En conclusion, par application des Saints Canons cités qui sont valabLes dans toutes les Eglises orthodoxes, l’ex-évêque Germain, M. Gilles BERTRAND-HARDY non seulement aperdu sa qualité d'évêque mais de plus encourt l’exclusion de l’Eglise orthodoxe,

Le secrétariat du Saint Synode de l’Eglise orthodoxe Roumaine

Evêque Ambrosie Sinaitul Vicaire administratif P. Constantin Parvu Vicaire Patriarcal

Can we get a translation of this?
jackturner3 20:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sourcing

Much of this article is clearly taken from the OrthodoxWiki:Western Rite article. This must be noted, as it is illegal to transfer material from there without attribution. 71.245.5.209 01:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I will admit that I did lift the external links section more or less whole cloth (though I reorgnaized many of them and deleted several more). But, it is of note that I not only reworked most of the material that was on the OrthodoxWiki (which, it should be noted, are poorly written, lacking sources for many quotations, sources that I am having to hunt down for myself), the vast majority of the material is also my own composition. I think its also worth pointing out that there is addtional material included in this article which is not included anywhwere on the Orthodoxwiki site, either in part or in whole. I don't know if this would count as transfer of material without attribution, though I would happily add the main Orthodoxwiki article to the external sources.
jackturner3 11:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 28 September Revert

I'm reverting this article because I feel the sections on the WR in the nineteenth century and the EOCF no longer make much sense. Overbeck's life doesn't need to be parred down because Overbeck's life is the WR in the nineteenth century. And, while it is my hope that some day the EOCF will warrant a full scale article, I haven't done enough research on the history of the ECOF (or even Overbeck) to justify that at present. In my opinion, more skillfull editing is necessary if these two sections are to be shortened, so to that end, I'm restoring the sections as they were to allow someone (the original editor, myself, or someone else) to do that. -- jackturner3 20:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm not going to do any major editing any more, but I do think that this article is seriously overplaying Overbeck and the ECOF. JASpencer 22:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how it's possible to overplay Overbeck since his biography really is the history of Western Rite Orhtodoxy in the nineteenth century. Additionally, while the section on the ECOF is given significant press, it's not more than is being paid to the AWRV, which is what most people think of when they hear "Western Rite Orthodoxy." If the articles need to be cut down, I can go with that, but they need to be done in a bit more sophistocated manner. -- jackturner3 15:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Western Rite Vicariate of the Antiochian Orthodox Church

It seems to me that the recent edits adding "Antiochian" in front of every instance of "Western Rite Vicariate" created some redundancies in the text. Personally, it would seem to me we only need to say “Western Rite Vicariate of the Antiochian Orthodox Church” or “Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate,” but not “Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate of the Antiochian Orthodox Church” since it really is cumbersome. The internal literature of the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese doesn’t designate a name for the vicariate other than “Western Rite Vicariate.” However, is someone would prefer that every instance read “Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate” rather than “Western Rite Vicariate of the Antiochian Orthodox Church,” they are free to change it to the former (without the redundancies). Personally, I don’t care either way, just so long as “Antiochian” doesn’t show up twice in the same name. -- jackturner3 13:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA comments

I saw this at WP:GAC. A few suggestions:

  • reduce use of the word specifically and also; they sound repetitive
  • the "Orthodox Church of France" section has no citations, and "Criticism" is usually a touchy subject that benefits from clearly indicating who made each criticism
  • the "main article" for the France section seems to include everything said in this article, so this article is not quite using WP:Summary style
  • there are too many external links in article ("Congregations") and at end. Some at the end should probably be cited as references. If there is a site with a church directory, use that rather than have 20 links in the text.

This looks like a big topic. Might be worth considering a sub-article on the liturgy, development and books. Gimmetrow 03:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your review. You are correct that this is indeed a large topic, one that I hope to work on my fully as time progresses. At present, I don't think I have enough information to do a full-scale sub-article as you are suggesting, which is why I have contented myself to let it remain in the larger article; that, and becuase any further work I do might cross into a grey area of Original Research (since I am doing original research in the first place), and I neither want to violate policy or make wikipedia my first instance of publication on the subject. However, to your other concerns:
  • I will go back through the article and edit the prose a bit.
  • I was unaware that there were no citations in this section. I will correct that as well. As to the criticism section, some of these arguments are things I have "absorbed" through my own studies, but I will go back and see if I can provide some citations.
  • That's actually something of a touchy subject for me. I think the section as it stands gives the minimum (and I mean bare minimum) of information necessary to actually understand this topic. However, someone else decided that it would be the subject of a great article, so they came through, lifted it out whole, made a new article, and then totally shredded the prose. I reverted to the original form, left the link to the longer article, and prayed that I would eventually have time to expand the sub-article, but thus far I have not.
  • I realize the Congregations do have a lot of links. However, I think it's also important to point out that it is also the most comprehensive listing of current links anywhere on the web. Yes, there are other sites that do have links to these congregations, but in many instances the links are broken or the listing is incomplete. As a result, I thought it was better to synthesize research rather than link to four or five other sites.
Again, thank you for your review. I will let you know when I have implemented the changes in the first two sections as you recommended. -- jackturner3 (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

Hi, I'm initiating the article's GA review. I will complete my initial assessment prior to 2/19. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 19:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I suppose the article is big enough for two reviews. Gimmetrow 19:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Er ... I assume that you're providing advice as part of an informal review -- which is great that you're providing feedback. The nomination list at GAN indicated that the article had been nominated but still needed a reviewer, so I followed GAN review process and signed up to evaluate it. If it was your intention to initiate a proper GA evaluation, please let me know and I'll be happy to step back and let you handle the evaluation. Either option is fine with me. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Since there's some doubt about who's conducting the GA review for this article, I'm going to play it safe and resign from the review. I'll make the appropriate changes at GAN and then Gimmetrow or another reviewer can sign up to undertake the GA evaluation. Please let me know if there's anything I can do to help. Thanks, Majoreditor (talk) 14:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
No, that's fine. You do it. Gimmetrow 20:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Please add a map (with places where this is practiced and with some % of the population practicing it) before rating this article as a GA. Nergaal (talk) 06:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That would be pointless. Most Western Rite Orthodox are a congregation here, a congregation there. It's estimated anecdotally that there are only 20,000 canonical Western Rite Orthodox in North America (a number which, in my opinion, is probably vastly inflated). That being said, there are nearly 6,000,000 Orthodox of all jurisdictions in North America. Thus, canonical WRO only account for 0.33% of all Orthodox on this continent. You can't put that on a pie chart or show it on a map, in my opinion. Of course, if you have such a map, please upload it and I'll be glad to add it to the article. -- jackturner3 (talk) 13:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
After the confusion it appears nobody is reviewing this, so I guess I'll say something. Of 11 online references, three are to a closed blogspot site, and one is to OrthodoxWiki. Another two are to the geocities page of a church in the Orthodox Church of France, which might be OK as a self-published source, but it isn't ideal. The article in the "unofficial" parish newsletter is a similar concern. Another four references are to unpublished Master's theses, and another one to an unpublished paper. The Anson and Ward/Persson/Bain references are fine, but probably fairly limited in content. I believe the article here is probably accurate, but I don't think it is verifiable at present. Let's see what other sources can be found, and you can resubmit the article later. OK? Gimmetrow 00:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
If it's not "verifiable" right now, then it's not going to be ever. The reason is that there has been little scholarly treatment of the subject aside from a few articles specifically considering the merits/dismerits of the two AWRV liturgies. There was one article published in 1958 which treated the history of the subject to that point, but there has been nothing of significant note published in the last forty plus years. Personally, I don't see why two masters thesises are to be denigrated as a source. Yes, they are not as ideal as a scholarly monograph or journal article, nor even as ideal as a doctoral dissertation, but they are better than self-published web sources becuase they have at least been evaluated by academics. However, if the problem is simply the sources, and thier lack of acceptbility is the issue, then we need to go back through and remove a large number of GA for referening similarly problematic sources. I don't think this article should have been failed; put on hold for additional sources perhaps, but not failed. However, if you really, truly have a problem with the sources of the article's sources (which are the only ones available), will never get to GA becuase the only significant scholarly source is going to be my dissertation on Western Rite Orthodoxy, and I'd feel kind of funny citing myself (considering, of course, that it apparently wouldn't be an acceptable source becuase it would be unpublished), not to mention the problems with OR. So, unless there is any other reason to let this nomination slip beyond the (I'm my opinion, unfounded or at least excessive compared to other GA articles) concerns over verifiability, the nomination should be reinstated in it's original position. -- jackturner3 (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Listen, I'm willing to help here. I may have some other sources. I have no problem at all with citing a master's thesis, but with citing an unpublished master's thesis. It's obvious you've already put a ton of work into this article; if someone else (like Majoreditor) wants to OK the article, I won't complain. But I would like to look up what I can find about the subject. Are you on a deadline, or will a few weeks matter? Gimmetrow 01:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
If you want to do so, that's fine with me...I just don't know where you'll be able to find the sources you're looking for. I've worked pretty hard at digging up sources for the past year, and while I've obviously found more than what are used in this article, it's not a lot more, and some of them are of considerably worse quality. But, I'm kind of giving up on this one becoming GA for a while, I guess. -- jackturner3 (talk) 14:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking Le Soufre & L'Encens would have something on ECOF. Gimmetrow 19:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Not that I'm aware of, though I suppose I could have eaisly missed something there; I would assume any reference to ECOF would have been brief. -- jackturner3 (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Even if brief, it would be an indepedent reference. Gimmetrow 19:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Le Soufre & L'Encens has two pages on ECOF. Unless you think that book is biased, I can add a couple refs to the book in the appropriate section. Gimmetrow 23:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

(<-) Anything I can do to help? I'm busy for the next couple of weeks but would like to help Jack get this (eventually) to GA. Majoreditor (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you think it's ready now? Gimmetrow 19:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
My humble opinion is that it's not quite ready but it's close. Jack has done a solid job gathering content. The building blocks are there, it's primarily a matter of arranging and packaging the existing material. I share your concern about citing blogs, but most of the other source material is serviceable, if not ideal. Majoreditor (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to add some material and citations. Please feel free to tell me if I make some boneheaded edits. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 02:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trimming a paragraph

Somercet expressed concern about on of the paragraphs, which I have trimmed from the article: [1]. Feel free to add part of all of it back if you can provide an in-line citation. Thanks Majoreditor (talk) 23:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)