Talk:Georgian Orthodox and Apostolic Church
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy, an attempt to organize information in articles related to the Eastern Orthodox Church. 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.
You may also want to look at the current collaboration of the month or the project's notice board. |
 |
Contents |
[edit] Changes to Georgian Orthodox and Apostolic Church
I've made a number of changes to the article:
1. The view that "Georgia is allotted to the Most Holy Mother of God" is clearly a POV of devout Orthodox Christian Georgians. I doubt if you'd find that, for instance, Muslim Georgians would support it.
2. Georgia is clearly part of the Eastern Orthodox tradition - the Eastern Orthodox Church article links back to the Georgian Church article. It was also definitely influenced by Byzantium - I've added some more information on this.
3. The Patriarch article includes a link to an (as yet unwritten) article on the Patriarch of All Georgia - this article needs to have a similar link for the sake of consistency.
4. I've added more historical detail, particularly for the medieval and Soviet periods.
-- ChrisO 10:09, 19 Jan 2004
[edit] Answer from "Levzur"
Dear "ChrisO"
Please stop to intervene in the sphere, where your competence is highly doubtful. When we write about the Georgian Orthodox Church we are based on sufficient historical sources. It is enough also to say that we had gotten in touch with the Patriarchate of the Georgian Church.
- Actually, it is not enough to say that. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of, by, and for the Orthodox. We Orthodox cannot presume that everybody knows what we mean when we say something. To you and to me, simply mentioning the Catholicos-Patriarchate is enough--we already know. To most people who read Wikipedia, especially Americans, who are used to thousands of Christian sects that may or may not have any connection to each other, no matter how close the names might be, it is not obvious. Dogface 21:26, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
As regards muslim Georgians, it is the perfectly different theme. Now we talk about the Orthodox Church. The above mentioned part of Georgian people became muslim by force. Gradually, of one's free will they return to Christianity.
Since 1010 the official title of the heads of the Georgian Orthodox Church is Catholicos-Patriarch of All Georgia. To judge about the title of the Georgian Church, you must better acquinted with the official Web Site of the Patriarchate of the Georgian Orthodox Church.
With best regards,
Dr. Levan Z. Urushadze (user "Levzur")
- Morwen and I have made some changes to the page to improve the grammar and to get it to fit the NPOV requirements. I'm sure you have "sufficient historical sources", but why do you object to providing a link to the page on the Georgian Orthodox Church on the Catholic Near East Welfare Association website? It seems to be a well-written and informative piece. Or do you object to Catholics commenting on an Orthodox Church?
- Also, I don't understand why you removed the statements about Georgian Orthodoxy being influenced by the Byzantine rite. Surely that's a matter of established historical fact? You've said yourself that the Georgian Orthodox Church was under the jurisdiction of Antioch, a Byzantine see. -- ChrisO 23:03, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Please stop!
Please stop to intervene in this article. It is article about the Georgian Orthodox Church, not about the "religious freedom in Georgia" (article about the religious freedom is already published on the page Georgia (country)).
[edit] Discuss this article, or it will be locked
As usual, you're not bothering to answer questions or discuss your edits, and you keep reverting back to badly written POV edits. So let me put you on the spot.
The material that I have added is based on the history at http://www.cnewa.org/ecc-orthodox-georgia.htm . What is factually incorrect about these additions? Why do you keep deleting that link? Do you believe that a Catholic-written history of the Georgian Church is invalid?
If you continue this behaviour, I will ask for this page to be locked to prevent further abusive editing. -- ChrisO 08:47, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- YES! I BELIEVE THAT A CATHOLIC-WRITTEN HISTORY OF THE GEORGIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH IS INVALID! I AM GEORGIAN HISTORIAN IN THE FIELD OF "SOURCE STUDIES" AND ALL MY EDITS ARE BASED ON THE SOURCES OF THE HISTORY OF THE GEORGIAN CHURCH AND HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY IN GEORGIA. Levzur 23 Jan 2004
-
- Thank you for confirming that - as I suspected - your edits have been motivated by nothing more than religious bigotry. I notice that once again you've refused to discuss the factual basis of the content. I've reverted most of your deletions and asked for the page to be locked. -- ChrisO 08:51, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
-
-
- It is article about the Georgian Orthodox Church, not about the religious freedom in Georgia. -- Levzur 26 Jan 2004
-
-
- Speaking as an Orthodox Christian with no connection to Georgia, I will say that, as a group, we Orthodox find Roman Catholic statements about our Church to be highly suspect until proven otherwise. For centuries, there has been the problem of the Unia, wherein Rome tries to claim that their Uniate followers are "Orthodox in communion with Rome". Now, unless Rome changes her doctrines to fit those of Orthodoxy, this sort of claim is quite absurd--one cannot be both "Orthodox" in the sense they use it (Eastern Orthodox) AND in communion with Rome. Nevertheless, questionable claims like this seem to be stock-in-trade whenever Roman Catholics start to write about the Orthodox Church. Thus, even a less biased Roman Catholic source will have a higher bar to hurdle to pass muster among Orthodox readers. It's unfair, but the impediment is in reaction against past and ongoing informational abuse by Roman Catholics. -- Dogface 23:23, 4 Feb 2004
-
-
- I can understand your wariness, but I'd also ask you to evaluate the source on its factual merits - i.e. is it right or wrong - rather than simply on the basis of who or what the source is. If the information is factually wrong then it's wrong whoever is saying it, whether they're Roman Catholic or Orthodox. -- ChrisO 00:30, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I've already done so, I'm explaining why others might not be so willing. It is very easy to sit back in comfort and judge those who live in places like former Soviet satellites. Advocating tolerance comes easy to those of us who have always led comfortable lives. However, when this easygoing mindset then becomes arrogance, becomes lecturing, becomes namecalling (I seem to recall the word "bigot" used by someone), then one has actually harmed the cause of toleration. Indeed, one could not imagine a better way to encourage people to become more entrenched and vehement in their positions than to pull out charges like "bigotry". Dogface 21:23, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
-
[edit] What language in used in the Georgian Church?
Is it modern Georgian, or some kind of Old Georgian, or something else? — Monedula 13:56, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] History and legend
founded in the 1st century by the Apostle Andrew.Is it really so certain UrmasU
- It seems most unlikely to me that, of Our Lord's twelve apostles, with the whole of the world to evangelize, five preached in Georgia and two are buried there! Having said that, the apostles certainly did go out and preach, and they all must have been buried somewhere; but a lot of countries, having become Christian in the third, fourth, or fifth century, developed traditions of apostolic or near-apostolic foundation (even Britain claimed St Joseph of Arimathaea). According to Eusebius, Saint Andrew preached in Asia Minor and Scythia, east as far as the Volga. That could conceivably include territory now in Georgia. 193.63.239.165 14:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
