User talk:Phiddipus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Reply

Theodoulos,

I certainly understand your arguments and agree with them to some extent. However, I stand by my assertion that the section was entirely stilted in favor of the POV of the Churches in Resistance and ought to make note of the majority view (even if it is wrong).

The reason why I did not add the POV of the CiR to the rest of the article is that that section is the locus, as it were, of the dispute. Given the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia, from the POV of scholarship, at least, it would be redundant, ineffecient and unnecessary to note "But the CiR think that this is wrong" on numerous other assertions throughout the article. Doing so would also require expressing that disapproval from every other opposition group, which would again, be unnecessary and redundant. It is enough, it seems to me, to characterize the dispute in the section regarding the particular group in question.

Also, as a point of fact, I used the term "mainstream," not "mainline" (which has certain Protestant connotations), and you and I both know that this is simply a descriptive term referring to the majority of modern-day Orthodox Christians. It is not meant to be a POV judgment on the correctness or Orthodoxy of that majority, just simply an expression of their being the majority. This is by no means a statement on the rightness or wrongness of the majority, just simply that they exist and tend to have certain views.


In XC,

Andrew (A.S. Damick 18:42, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Claims of the Orthodox

Hey,

Yes, indeed, the RCC acknowledges that the Eastern Orthodox churches are witnesses to the traditions of the apostles. However, the paragraph, as you had written it, contained many statements that the RCC would certainly not agree to.. Saying that Eastern Orthodoxy is the modern name for the church established by the apostles is certainly not going to fly with Catholics. As the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, Lumen Gentium states, "This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd, and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority, which He erected for all ages as 'the pillar and mainstay of the truth'."

From the Catholic perspective, the RCC is the modern name for the Church established by Jesus Christ and the Apostles, and the Orthodox are schismatics—certainly their patriarchates may go back to the time of the Apostles, but they have separated from the Church.

No doubt you disagree with this all. :P But Eastern Orthodox Christianity (also called Greek Orthodoxy and Russian Orthodoxy) is the modern name for the historical church founded by Christ Jesus and the Apostles nearly 2000 years ago.' is certainly not something a Catholic would agree to either.

[edit] An addendum

Sorry, I forgot to note this earlier. It looks like you're getting your information on Vatican II from this website. What might not be entirely clear from that website, though, is that the decree in question—The Decree on the Catholic Churches of the Eastern Rite deals with the Eastern Rite churches in communion with Rome, not Eastern Orthodoxy. When it refers to the Eastern patriarchs as being cardinal-bishops, it refers not, for instance, to Ignatius IV, but rather to Ignace Pierre VIII Abdel-Ahad.
The RCC certainly does recognize EO orders, but this doesn't really mean much. Old Catholic orders are also recognized, but certainly no one believes they're the original church! The RCC holds to the Augustinian view of sacramental validity, not the Cyprianic.
I have also posted this to Talk:Eastern Orthodoxy, as other people may want to voice their opinions on this. Maybe we should hold our entire discussion there.
--Xiaopo ℑ 00:00, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A few personal notes

First of all, I'd like to express my respect to you, despite the fact that we disagree. It's obvious that you are well educated, and you give me the impression of a very strong idealist. In my personal life outside Wikipedia, I'd more likely agree with you rather than with Christodoulos. I'm a secular person and I believe that we should "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" and be tolerant. Tolerance is not an exclusively christian virtue, and it's sad that the leadership of the Church is so blatantly intolerant.

A side remark: There are many things that have gone the wrong way in our country and its dominant religion. It would be better if those involved accepted their share of responsibility instead of using "papacy" and "westernisms" as an excuse for their eastern problems.

Anyway, it was a pleasure disagreeing with you. :) -- Etz Haim 13:26, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

PS. I suggest that you may add yourself to the lists of Greek Wikipedians and Multilingual Wikipedians.


Phiddipus, let me welcome you wikipedia. I'll say that, I am glad we have such eloquent and well educated Greek people here. I will second what Etz said and add that I wish people such as yourself and the bishop of Corfu had the upper hand in the Greek Orthodox hierarchy, meaning, educated, open minded people. The last two occupants of the Archbishopship of Athens have been a dissappointment. They resemble Army officers who are about to be discharged, so, they try their hardest to tend to their followers and not their flock - See such matters as the destruction of movie theathers while Scortzeze's "Last temptation of christ" was playing, the religion of national ID arguments and the ban of books and comics imposed by the greek church. OK, I think this is gonna be fun ^_^ . again, welcome Project2501a 21:47, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Phiddipus, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

[edit] Nepenthes

Hi Theodoulos

I have uploaded your very nice pic of Nepenthes alata to Commons: [1] Regards Malene 06:28, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I like the picture, and I wonder whether you had a version of it with 1) higher resolution 2) no text added on top. It would be really neat on commons. Thanks! David.Monniaux 06:42, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Priesthood

I know that there are three levels of the priesthood in Orthodox Christianity, the deaconate, prebyterical and episcopal. The thing is, I don't know when it is appropriate to use each. At my parish one refers "Father" as "the priest" and then you have "Father Deacon" for the "the/a deacon." When I say it one way (for example, "Bishop, Priest & Deacon"), I am often corrected by someone such as yourself who states that there are three priesthoods: Deacon, Presbyter and Bishop. If I state it the opposite, I am corrected to say "Bishop, Priest & Deacon." How do I know when to use each? --Michael Karazim 20:34 22 June 2005 (UTC)

A lot of the difference depends on which traditions your church follows, Greek or Russian. To make a general statement there is one priesthood with Christ as the high priest. It is usual for a bishop to have passed through the priesthood from Deacon to Presbyter to Bishop. Likewise, Presbyters had to spend some time as Deacons. It is tempting to say that the deaconate is merely a step toward the priesthood and in many ways this is true, but many choose to remain deacons for life, so it is more than just a step. Deacons are technically assistants to Bishops and Bishops rarely travel without Deacons. A Bishop cannot serve in a hierarchical service without a Deacon. As to how to address them, here is an excellent article: Church Etiquette

--Phiddipus 19:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Hmmmm... I've actually seen (with my own eyes) a bishop celebrating a hierarchial liturgy with no deacon present (served by Metr. Christopher of the Serbian Orthodox Church, at Sts. Constantine and Helen Orthodox Church in Galveston, TX, on June 6, 2003), so it can be done if the bishop so desires it, although it's certainly not normative. YBeayf 19:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nun image

The image that you added to Nun#Eastern Orthodox Christian has a warning on its page that it does not have information on its source. Since you were the one to add it, could you provide public domain or licensing info, to ensure that it does not get deleted? It's a great photo and it would be a shame to lose it. JHCC (talk) 30 June 2005 15:24 (UTC)

[edit] Good News!

There is now a stub template for Eastern Orthodox Christianity-related articles in need of expansion. Please add {{orthodoxy-stub}} to articles. You can also go to the Category page for Eastern Orthodox Christianity-related stubs and click the "watch this page" link in the sidebar, so that you can see new stub articles as they appear. Spread the word! JHCC (talk) 6 July 2005 15:06 (UTC)

[edit] Keep up the Good work

Keep up the good work, Phiddipus!!! I think you are doing an excellent job. In Christ the sinful monk Maximos--frmaximos 21:28, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Monks.jpg

Greetings Phiddipus.

You have uploaded a nice picture of a group of Orthodox monks, but not provided its source or copyright status. Would you kindly provide the missing details to it, so it can avoid deletion? Regards --Valentinian 20:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Denominations

I don't know whether English is your first language or not, but I think perhaps you misunderstand why Orthodoxy is not a denomination, while Protestantism is many denominations. Denomination bears with it the idea in English of multiplicity with legitimacy—that is, there can be many denominations, yet all are legitimate and equal.

Contrasted with Church, denominationalism is precisely the belief that there is no one Church. To label Orthodoxy as a denomination is to place it on the same level as all the various Protestant groups that regard each other as legitimate, yet practice wildly varying things and have divergent dogmatic ideas.

Communion is a much better term to refer to specific religious bodies, while grouping is perhaps the best one can do for Protestantism, which is many denominations, many religious bodies. —A.S. Damick talk contribs 19:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spiritual mothers/fathers

1. How is it a title? Yours is the first usage I've seen of it capitalized (and you seem to capitalize quite a bit more in general than most books on Orthodoxy I've read; I often find the edits you make to be grammatically and syntactically idiosyncratic, to say the least).

2. The paragraph was speaking specifically of confessors. Women cannot hear confessions in the sacramental sense. —A.S. Damick talk contribs 02:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Modernist," etc.

Your comment is addressing something I wasn't, and its tone and wording are what I think most folks would regard as insulting.

For whatever it may be worth, I am quite aware that women act as spiritual advisers, but they are not referred to in English at any rate as "confessors" (which is the term used in the article).

Sir, given the nature of your most recent contribution to my talk page, I am disinclined to discuss anything further with you. I've despaired of being able to work with you on articles. I request that you please do not contact me again. —A.S. Damick talk contribs 02:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monasticism revert

First problem is that, while some monasteries may have been training centers for clergy, and this may be the modern practice for some, historically candidates for the priesthood lived with the bishop and received instruction from him personally. I suspect (although I don't know, and I doubt you do either) that the modern practice of sending clergy to monasteries, done in some places (although by no means all, not at all) is actually a substitute for this. (I did not raise a "seminary question", so you're making a straw man argument here. I was not proposing the seminary as the historical norm, and I don't know why you think I would short of some absurd prejudice against those you label "modernist".) Actually, in many places it's still the tradition to send newly-ordained clergy to a cathedral for a period, where they serve all the daily rounds of services for a fixed time (sometimes as long as 40 days) as the final step in their training.

Second, moderation is in the eye of the beholder, and also varies from place to place. There are some coenobitic monasteries where it would not make any sense at all to characterize them as "moderate" or "beginners-only" kind of institutions. (That latter may not be what you meant, but it is what you wrote.)

Third, I had serious problems with the style. You made the eremitic lifestyle sound like the Dragon Ball Z Super Saiyan power level of monasticism. It needed to be more soberly written. Between that and the capitalization and spelling errors, it was more sensible to revert since not much of your text would have remained by the time I was done fixing it anyway.

Fourth, your edit -- particularly your claim about clergy training -- was unsourced as I said.

Fifth, your edit summary: "the end paragraph is removed see discussion" was misleading as I said. You didn't cut the end paragraph with that edit, and there was no discussion. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to point out -- but I will -- that information gathered from "direct contact" is exactly what is excluded from this encyclopedia as original research. It is not verifiable. And I'm sorry, but the information you have here is askew: bishops by and large do not live in monasteries and mostly never did. Yes, there are a few who do and did, but the life in a coenobium is by and large incompatable with the responsibities of the episcopate. That bishops almost always (now and in the past) live outside of a monastery is why there's often this perceived tension between the priestly the prophetic sources of authority. Were most bishops under the obedience of a monastery, they would be indistinguishable.
And you misunderstand my anime comparison: it was not the information you gave but the manner in which it was presented that was objectionable. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Polystavrion.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Polystavrion.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Stan 13:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Icon copyrights

I thought I should let you know that I've begun a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights about how we might correctly use scans of newer icons on Wikipedia. A couple of examples you uploaded were right in front of me so I used them to illustrate the problem as I see it, but I'm sure there are others. The purpose isn't to go after anyone personally, but I think the copyright issue isn't at all clear in this case and some discussion would be beneficial. See Wikipedia talk:Copyrights#Orthodox icons. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure how the law would treat it but, in my opinion, Icons are not copyrightable. All icons are copies of (almost always) unsigned works. Photographs of non-copyrightable material is also not copyrightable. Icons do do not have the same qualities as "artwork" especially original artwork. Icons are not created to be owned by the artist nor even ascribed to him (usually). The rare exceptions of famous Icons are much too old to be copyrighted and their creators wouldn't have done such a thing anyway.--Phiddipus 06:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you in principle, but the civil law may look at it differently. I think that's what we need to find out about. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greek altar servers

Phiddipus, I wonder if I might ask your input as I don't have enough information to know whether or not I'm correct here -- but I suspect I'm wrong. I know that altar servers in the Greek tradition wear oraria, and I am given to understand that they do in fact receive some kind of chirothesis, or at least a tonsure -- but I am unclear about what it signifies. Is there still a distinct rank of "taper-bearer" as mentioned in the ordination to anagnostis (at least in the Slavic tradition)? Or is this something else? TCC (talk) (contribs) 18:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much, it was helpful. It sounds as if the tonsure is of the same kind as (for example) church singers used to receive, back when choirs were always all-male. I know that the sticharion alone is the older usage (and is normal in the Slavic tradition) but it's also current practice in Greece itself, at least in some places. I remember seeing a photo in National Geographic years ago of a service on one of the islands, and that's how the altar servers were vested. Their peculiar way of wearing it is to wrap it around the waist and crossed over the back like a subdeacon, but with the ends hanging parallel in front. Here's the only online example I could find; it's from an American site. But as you suggest, it may not be a universal tradition. I hope it's harmless. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problems

Thanks for uploading your various images. However, in many cases, I notice the files' description pages don't provide evidence as to who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. Since you have not created these files yourself, there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia. You also need to specify where each was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

Furthermore, in many cases you appear to indicate that you believe that the nature of the work is sufficient to date it. This is not necessarily the case. Orthodox icons are created to this day, and many are sold. While they may be based on preexisting works, minor stylistic differences are sufficient to merit copyright. It cannot be assumed that they are in the public domain; we need specific evidence of this. It should be simple to find images from, e.g., museum websites that are explicitly stated to be ancient. Images without sufficient proof of date/authorship are:

  • Image:Adam and Eve.jpg
  • Image:Peter&Paul.jpg
  • Image:Orthodox gospel.jpg
  • Image:40martyrs.jpg
  • Image:Fathers-7-Councils.jpg
  • Image:The Ressurection of Christ.jpg
  • Image:The Nativity.jpg

Furthermore, you have uploaded two images that you created yourself, but the tags on them indicate that no alteration is permitted. This is not good enough for Wikipedia. At some point in the future, an editor may decide that the images could be improved upon, and if you're no longer around, improvement would be impossible. Generally speaking, prohibition of alteration is against the entire point of free content. Please clarify that alteration is permitted at Image:Orthodox-church.jpg and Image:Polystavrion.jpg.

Finally, there is one image you have uploaded — Image:OrthodoxMonks.jpg — where you mention that "I believe it is one of Gregory Kokolov's pictures originally for which I did obtain permission to use any of his work for the Wikipedia". Again, you have provided no evidence of this, and the fact that many people use it on the Internet does not justify our using it. Furthermore, redistribution by third parties is also key to free content; Wikipedia has many mirrors, and it's not acceptable for an image to be given to us to use but prohibited to them, even if many are for-profit. While I'm not aware of what roles monks play in Orthodox Christianity, it would hopefully be easy for an Orthodox Christian to take photos of some personally.

Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion, and most of these images will likely have to be. However, don't be discouraged; we value your contributions, and in the future you will know to check for evidence of dates a little more carefully before uploading your valuable images. If you have any questions, you can respond here. Thanks. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Chalice.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Chalice.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Pentecost-icon.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Pentecost-icon.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your picture of Nepenthes alata

Hi Phiddipus. I am sorry to tell you, that your picture of N. alata does not show the true species, but a hybrid plant, Nepenthes x ventrata. I have corrected this in all matching articles, so this is just for your knowledge. Denisoliver 11:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who split from whom?

Concerning whether the Roman Catholic Church separated from the Orthodox; at the time of separation there were hundreds of bishops scattered throughout the world. There were 5 major patriarchates, Constantinople, Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem. One side changed, one didn’t. No action was taken by the Orthodox, they remained as they always were, without change. Rome changed. They made the move, Orthodoxy did nothing. Isn’t it more correct to say that one Roman bishop and a few followers broke away from the vastly larger body of hundreds of bishops than to accuse the body that didn’t change?--Phiddipus 17:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all I think this needs to be discussed in the article talk page. Secondly, I am not that knowledgable about the subject, but to me this is not a sufficient argument, in article it should be more descriptive and present the facts so it doesn't appear like a POVish claim. I think it should present the facts without qualifying them, for example it should detail who took the decision and why, and what followed, not simply state that Rome left Orthodoxy or Orthodoxy separated by Rome. -- AdrianTM

[edit] Sanctuary

We may be seeing a difference in ethnic practice, although I have the impression -- please correct me if I'm wrong -- that the thronos in the nave on the right is occupied by the bishop only during services where he is present but not actually a celebrant, such as Vespers or the Hours. This throne is not present in Slavic churches, where for such services the bishop occupies his seat on the episcopal ambo in the center of the church (before Liturgy after the vesting) or a seat somewhere out of general view. This often behind the templon but facing the altar, just behind the icon of the Savior. I assume the seat at the High Place is reserved for the bishop in the Greek churches as well as the Slavic, but he occupies this only when the services call for him to be both vested and seated in the altar, as during the Epistle reading.

I must admit I have never seen a Greek bishop being vested, so I could be mistaken here. Of course, vesting the bishop is one of my duties.

I believe that the relics in the holy table are preferably those of a martyr -- it may be worth mentioning that the practice arose from the custom of celebrating the Divine Liturgy over the tombs of martyrs during the Roman persecutions -- but can be those of any saint if a martyr's relics are unavailable. I'll try to track down a reference. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

That's it then. Slavs will place a small platform, what I called the "episcopal ambo", in the center of the church, and an eagle rug is placed on it. After the bishop is vested there and blesses with trikirion & dikirion to "Eis polla..." a temporary throne is placed and he sits for the Hours. He stands at the beginning of the Liturgy for "O Heavenly King" etc. and remains on the ambo until the Small Entrance. During Hierarchical liturgies the Protodeacon reads the Gospel from the platform, minus the eagle rug of course, but flanked by dikirion and trikirion which accompany the Gospel book as it is brought out and back. If an elaborate throne is used as the Greeks have in the nave, it is at the High Place, but this is considered optional equipment for a parish church.
No doubt the passage in the Apocalypse refers to the existing liturgical practice (as does much of that part of the book). TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Which reminds me: Details of the altar table itself are covered in altar. You might want to have a look at the Orthodox section to see if there's anything important missing. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
On reflection I still don't understand the Greek practice. Is there a throne for the bishop at the High Place, and is it ever elaborated? Is the middle of the High Place itself at least reserved for the bishop? TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Do you think this calls for any adjustment to that section as it stands?
There may have been some national competition in the Slavic countries about the size of their temples, but that hardly represents the typical church building any more than Hagia Sophia is an example of a typical Greek church. Remember too that during the decline of the Empire and the Turkocratia, the Greeks simply could not afford or were forbidden to build very large churches even if they wanted to. My own parish is quite small, and is roughly the size of a small Russian village church. Some votive churches are very small even in the larger Russian cities. (This would be a church constructed by some wealthy person, usually of the nobility, as a thank-offering for blessings received. The most elaborate of these is probably St. Basil's in Red Square. This is not in fact one church but a series of connected smaller chapels. It's very large for a votive church, but it was built by a megalomaniac tsar and is very atypical.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your Thoughts on the John Chrysostom Article?

Hi, Phiddipus. I was wondering if you could look at the John Chrysostom and make or suggest improvements.  Thanks. Majoreditor 02:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/h/i/User_talk%7EPhiddipus_3586.html"