Talk:Romanian Orthodox 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. |
 |
||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |||
This article is very large, but it is terribly biased, with so many items coming from what appear to be a very nationalistic view. I will try my best to made it NPOV, but I ask for everyone's help. Crculver 12:34, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hodgepodge toi_même :) Terribly biased is only the ignorance of some of would-be editors, like crculber. And biased ignorance is not a point of view. It is only this - a terrible lack of points of view. Whoever wants to have a God's like point of view, above bird's eye views and even above common sense is obscene. Nobody invented a more poorly disgusting substitute of objectivity than would-be self-righteous vigilantes. Invoking npovism while you promote a prepostorous povista, yourself, is the so called "no point of view fallacy". It also strikes my senses like a madman's attempt to be rational. Alas, rationalizing madness in the form of "encyclopedias" without the concept of truth is only a point of view - the worst ever, and the only possible dust-raising non-resting maelstrom. Learn from logical developments based on knowledge:
All of these, in conclusion, might explain the huge success of Christianity in the Romanian regions, which may demonstrate the very first attested organization of Christianity for a complete nation in Europe.
[edit] Religious intolerance
According to US department of state International Religious Freedom Report [1], there were many cases in which Orthodox church acted against other minority religions.
Several minority religious groups complained that local authorities and Orthodox priests prevented religious activities from taking place, even when the groups had been issued permits. The Seventh-day Adventist Church reported difficulties in obtaining approvals to use public halls for religious activities following pressure by Orthodox priests.
According to minority religious groups, the local inspectors for religion classes are typically Orthodox priests who deny accreditation to teachers of other religions. According to Baptist reports, in some cases, school directors denied access in their schools to teachers of neo-Protestant religions. Religious teachers are permitted to instruct only students of the same religious faith. However, minority religious groups, including the Baptist Church, credibly asserted that there were cases of children pressured to attend classes of Orthodox religion. The Seventh-day Adventist Church also complained that the School Inspectorate of Cluj County included in the school curriculum only one of the requested three classes on Adventist religion, although there were sufficient students for three full classes. In addition, the Baptist Church reported that, at some festivities in public schools, all students, irrespective of their religious affiliation, must attend Orthodox religious services. The same reportedly happened in the Army.
[edit] Christianized Dacians
- According to an old theory... However, the weight of evidence, from archaeological to linguistical to ecclesiastical history...
I can't believe this. The article is claiming that that the Dacians were already Christianized when they were conquered by the Romans. That's original. :-) Bogdan | Talk 19:03, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It's not original. You just have to copy and paste from Tertullianus. Do you know where? Do you care? Indeed, who cares? Your opinion is much more important than his, isn't it ? And the super-POV aka "non-pov" is the golden standard. I am right because I am nonpov? Where did I hear this "argument" before ? Ah, Stalin !
- Indeed, Tertullianus enumerates about 25 nations and lands Christians could be found, among them, there are the Dacians. However, let me remind you that it was written around the year 200 AD, therefore about a century after the Roman conquest of the Dacians. This is not a proof that the Dacians were Christians before that. Bogdan | Talk 19:31, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Bogdane, Duhul Bisericii nu este polemic, ci irenic.
- O fi el irenic, dar duhul wikipediei e NPOV.
Ce e duhul wikipediei? Ce emanatie ? Sau doar pronatie ? ;-)
Dacii erau, de la Philippi la Axiopolis, primii mārturisitori.
- În afară de Sciţia Mică, nu există nici o dovadă că dacii au fost creştinizaţi.
Nu pricepi bre! Ce înseamna pentru tine dacii? Abecedarul ? Dacii au un timp si un spatiu. Tu crezi ca romanii au cucerit mai mult de 20% din tinuturile orizontului dacic, si ca au facut asta cu mai mult de doua legiuni mai bine de cinci generatii? Nici macar. Daca nu exista dovezi nu înseamna ca sunt dovezi ca nu exista. Foloseste capul si judeca si singur. Sunt convins ca o poti face fara wikinfectia meningelor cu laturile ei npoviste, stahanoviste sau doar dinamoviste.
Consensul cercetārilor, fārā pete, este acesta.
- Nu e nici un consens. Toţi marii istorici români spun că în Dacia, creştinismul a venit odată cu Imperiul Roman.
Nu e consens ca nu vrei tu! Tu ce consens ai ?
De ce te apuci tu sā rescrii Scripturile, Sfânta Traditie si istoria neamului românesc? Ce fac ei, nu desface! Nu uita ca au fost martiri iar neamul românesc este crestin de la radacinile sale pâna la Judecata De Apoi. Neamul nu este o constructie umana, ci o realitate Hristologica. Daca nu pricepi, nu pune punctele tale de vedere sau ale altora în marele cazan în care se încearca topirea si distilarea adevarului. Tu esti de-al nostru, nu de-al lor.
Ai uitat pe "sed". Dar ai facut lectiile ceva mai bine azi. Oricum, daca ti-e prieten adevarul, nu se vede din ce scrii. Astept multe ameliorari si sunt mereu pe-aproape sa te corectez in ce minuni mai faci...
Cu drag, întru Hristos, Al tāu, Dan
- However, the weight of evidence, from archaeological to linguistical to ecclesiastical history, points to a different story, especially since Saint Paul and Silvanus first preached into the Miniature Macedonian Rome of Caesarea Philippi and only later in Rome proper.
- An impressive number of toponyms, ethnographical material and the most ancient church tradition - also attested in writing by Eusebios since the 4th century follow Saint Andrew, the Apostle of Dacia and Scythia Minor. All of these could not possibly have been maintained in situ in a non-Christian organized Dacia: If the Christian faith were only brought there by Romans or Roman prisoners rather than growing locally as a grass root phenomenon, then only a few early Christian remains would be on record. In fact, the Roman army deserted north-of-Danube, Left Bank Dacian provinces in corpore starting as soon as the Goths (who were christianized only later) invaded it, around 240 AD. There are more recent historians who maintain that Christianity became widespread much later, with the Byzantine troops of the Eastern Roman Empire then with the extension of Byzantine Romania. Others still point to the Caucasian Georgia or Iberia, and the Lesser Armenia as the first Christian countries. All of them fail to explain the unique liturgical vocabulary of Romanian which could only have been acquired at the very sources of Early Christianity. Cunningly, even Edward Gibbon, as early as the 1780s, vindicates an early Christianization beyond the Left Bank of the Lower Danube.
- After 297, on the territory of the Roman province of Scythia Minor (now Dobrudja, between the Right Bank of the Lower Danube and Tomis on the western shores of the Black Sea), martyrs of the Christian faith are legion.
- Had Dacians received Christianity as religio illicita only via the crypto-Christians among the Roman troops (therefore after the Dacian Wars ended in 106, and before the 276 Roman military retreat) the deep, lasting and grass root organization of the Early Romanian Orthodox Church would remain unexplained. Truth of the matter, as always, must be searched within a larger body of knowledge:
I don't know what do with these. :-) Bogdan | Talk 19:19, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
That's honest. Than don't, Bogdane, who cares what your name means for Isacceans, and etymologists :-)
- There is nothing that could indicate a pre-Roman Christianization of the Dacians: none of the Dacian words that were kept into Romanian are in any way linked to religion; all early church sites were in the Roman Empire. I am still waiting for references that indicate otherwise. Bogdan | Talk 22:17, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Dragul meu, ideea ta despre daci, stramosii tai, este o imagine de Epinal. Vrei sa citesti o carte introductiva ? Este la http://perso.wanadoo.fr/pleiadele.dacilor/ Are password dar poti sa-i scrii autorului ca mine si ti-l da gratis.
[edit] Dumitru Staniloae
Was Father Dumitru Staniloae really regarded widely as the undisputed greatest Christian theologian of the 20th Century? Should there be quotes from all the denominational figures? Or perhaps "one of the greatest" could be better? (I'm not editing the article as I have no knowledge of who Staniloae is) --Whitti 01:36, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Not NPOV and/or factual wrong
Moved from the article:
- Factors involved in Christianization of Dacians
- Neighboring the Roman Empire well before the birth of Jesus Christ, Dacians were organized religiously in a system that impressed the authors of antiquity, from Plato to Saint Justin Martyr and Quintus Florus Septimius Tertullianus - the famous Carthaginian church father from the late 2nd century. In Adversus Iudaeos, Tertullianus literally and explicitly mentioned Dacians as followers of Jesus Christ.
- Much unlike others who were converted later and sometimes only "upside-down" - by force, starting with their military leaders (peoples extant or only arriving in Europe after the birth of Jesus Christ), Dacians were not migratory hordes. Although they had that proven military might usually associated by the Roman authors with the epithet of barbarians, Dacians also followed a well established centralized authority, maintained a continuous record of spiritual tradition, exerted harmonious systems of trade and thrived on self-sustained economics.
- All of these must have prepared conversion to Christianity in a solid, lasting, and now very well proven manner.
- Rich Romanian folkloric ethnographical and traditional material and some extremely rich or unique archaeological records demonstrate a solid, organized, and widespread Christian life at the Lower Danube well in advance of the first ecumenical synods. From the times of ethnogenesis, the Eastern Roman people of Romania grew in parallel (and indeed symbiosis) with Orthodox Christianity. Notably, the Old Church Slavonic and Gothic Runes alphabets have been developed north of the Lower Danube by missionaries of the New Rome, to help Christianize the Goths and the Slavic invaders of that Roman Empire limes. Complete Christianization of the Slavic peoples, with help from the Daco-Romanian population, gradually succeeded towards the officially recorded year, later in the 10th century, three hundred years after their invasion of the Byzantine Empire.
[edit] Oldest Known ? By Whom? By Wikipedissimi eruditissimi viri ?
In fact there are hundreds perhaps even thousands of churches older than the one you illustrate, by an indiscriminate, uncritical cut and paste "process" of thinking. A few dozen are still being researched today by the competent archeologists.
- Oldest know ORTHODOX church. Those you are mentioning are indeed Christian, but of the old Roman rite. Remember that Orthodoxy came from South of Danube, which explains why it is in Turnu Severin. Bogdan | Talk 15:28, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Look under the fundations of extant Churches and you will always find older ones. The Orthodox are always at the foundation! Even I could quote you a few dozen here below, with the approximate date of foundation :
333 Beroes - oldest in SE Europe Piatra Frecăţei (judeţul Tulcea)
353 Callatis - Mangalia, (judeţul Constanţa)
357 Dinogetia - Gârvan (judeţul Tulcea)
358 Troesmis - Igliţa-Turcoaia, (judeţul Tulcea)
358 Axiopolis - Hinog lângă Cernavoda (judeţul Constanţa)
358 Constantiana - Capul Dolojman
359 Noviodunum - Isaccea
361 Ulmetum - Pantelimon
364 Ibida - Slava Rusă singura din Scythia Minor cu trei altare spre răsărit
365 Isvoarele
367 Niculiţel (on this very page, next illustrations)
369 Densuş - oldest north of lower Danube still in use today
398 Slaveni ? (judeţul Olt)
412 Sarmizegetusa (judeţul Hunedoara)
457 Porolissum - Moigrad (judeţul Salaj)
435 Morisena - Cenad (monastery)
449 Sucidava - Celei (judeţul Timiş)
860 Dăbâca
900 Corbii de piatră
1177 Bodrogu Vechi (Hodoş) Ciala
1057 Dinogetia - Gârvan (judeţul Tulcea) - reconstructed
1066 Alba Iulia (actual catholic cathedral was built upon it)
1168 Drobeta - Turnu Severin
1304 "Biserica din deal" din Ieud
Before the independence, "prea luminatul, blagocestivul şi de Hristos iubitorul, răposatul Io Radu Negru Voivod la leat 6800 (1292)" had a document mentioning Câmpulung as capital. How would you figure a capital without (at least a Metropolitan) Church?
1370 Biserica metropolitană din Severin, sub Vladislav Vlaicu
To your satisfaction, Avars, Bulgars and their Slavic slaves destroyed, between 525 and 900, a great number. That doesn't mean there are not older churches than the one in the misleading German picture.
Bibliography? Where should you start, really ? For instance, read the Apostles, read Tertullianus, read the published local folklore, visit the places, read some Church History, read some Romanian history, and then (and only then) please come back here for a really useful, factual contribution. These are indispensable passages. Without them and with more of your scissors, Wikipedia becomes a Fictionary :O)
You are however right in at least one aspect - not far from Turnu Severin, at Schela Cladovei, you have the oldest shrine, with a clear inscription beneath it, and the first stable city in Europe, some 11,967 years old !
[edit] Bogdane, de ce desfigurezi articolul despre Biserica strămoşească?
Tu eşti de-al nostru, sau în solda Wikidioţilor? Tu denigrezi istoria patriei sau o distilezi doar, ca să "cadreze" cu masturbaţia intelectuală a "maeştrilor gânditori" de la Bomipedia? Nu uita că tu eşti cine eşti, iar nu o pocitanie fără identitate, ca ei, pentru că anonimii pe care tu îi ştergi din articol şi-au dat viaţa lor fără ca să crâcnească. Sau tu vrei să-i mai omori odată prin uitare? Altfel nu uita că Mihnea Turcitul, deşi arâta acelora ca un pom înflorit, era pe dinlăuntru doar un lac împuţit.
Vezi că mâine este Bobotează! Mai spală din păcate, apoi începe anul altfel, mai bine.
Cu dragoste întru Hristos,
Dr Dan Jâpă, MD, PhD danjipa la taie-mi nasul.freemail.iris-ward.com
[edit] Why an anonymous?
Aren't there thousands of monks with a Christian name ? Also, for whom is "oldest known" legend kept? Aren't there knowledgeable editors around ?
[edit] The Wrong images abund, the good ones are deleted
Again, aren't there knowledgeable editors around ?
[edit] Fallacious statement
"Romanians hold that their church is the first national, first attested and first apostolic (church built by the Apostles themselves) in Europe" - This statement is preposterous, especially considering that the autocephalous Romanian church dates back to the 19th century. VMORO
My poor friend, you are prepostorously ignorant in the matter and you'd better maintain your pathetic points of view in the general direction of the Wikipodologic background noise (nu pun intended). What do you know about what you write? Since when autocephalic features equal the list of firsts? You are in deep confusion, so go back to the Fox channel news where you build your preposterous sentences, especially considering that your own culture does not date back more than the 19th century...
-
- If you want to say something meaningful, sign it. If not - hold your mouth shut. My country's culture goes back to the 7th century and beyond that. Considering that as late as the 17th century the official language of the church and state in Wallachia was Bulgarian, your beating in the chest looks a bit absurd. VMORO
Dear VMORO,
I'm Danilo Prepeleac Jâpā, and i respect both you and your nation as much as I respect truth. When i child, like many in Bucharest, I learned your language in order to look at sume decent TV - the only one accessible there under that name, BTV. However, I will not argue abut facts, but Bulgarian was never an official or liturgical language north of the lower Danube. Old Slavic perhaps, but only in the context of "boscorodeala". Besides, the Germans had their Gothic alphabet and their first Bible translated north of the Lower Danube, by Ulfila, from local (Latin-written) copies. The first ecumenical council, Saint Sava, and all those bishops and martyrs used a Romance language in Church for six or seven centuries before the Slavs even enetered Scythia Minor, to say nothing about settling there. Old Bulgarian is a language now so tragically lost with its Asian origins (Balkh? Volga? Urals?). The Dacians, neo-Dacians, Daco-Romans, Daco-Romanians, proto-Romanians, Balkan Latin, Aromanians - you name it - but we both know I refer to the people of the place, the autochtonous people north and south of the Lower Danube, were not distracted by the Arian heresy either. Bulgarians first emerged as a Czarate only with a Vlach Czar, and do we need to recall the most famous "Bulgarian" Johannitius... They say I have a Bulgarian name too... Yet both you and I know I am only a Vlach. Please pardon me if once again I looked anonymous and stupid, to say nothing about chest pains. "Do not confuse your brother. If you lose his esteem, you lose Christ. And if you love your brother's heart, you've earned a place in Christ!"
With love in Christ,
Yours, Dan
[edit] Stakhanov had a field day in his tomb
[edit] By seeing you, buddies, at work, defiguring this article, the game of numbers has won
[edit] Problem is, what?
You have diluted the meaning of the article. You have "edited" out the text, by betraying the spirit of the original until it became nonsense. This article no longer represents what it says it describes. When I read it today, I couldn't stop from washing my eyes in "shock and awe". Common sense, historical data and that special living "thing" which animated the original are now killed. Although I attempted to mend fences, I only found the text to be beyond repair. This is now only an administrative document, produced by a committee. This no longer is conveying sense.
It's useless to argue with you. You don't understand facts, and interpretations, let alone value and synthesis. You don't use logic. You pretend under some fictitious "reason" - since I cannot, in good faith call a movement of bile which yields generous helpings of canned stuff under such name a "reason" - to offer "arguments". Yet they are not arguments at all. Since they don't follow the spirit of the writing, they are useless. Zilch, nada, zero. I wonder, why do you still "edit"? What do you still manage to find attractive in this business of attrition which only turns the so called encyclopedia into a permanent sandbox?
The texts I used when I learned the alphabet at age five were really more consistent than the castrated, back-of-the envelope global touristic brochure keeping busy in gathering dust. The article was about a living, truthful institution. People, wake up! This Wikipedia is only a pathetic attempt to rewrite everything with dust machines and without the concept of truth. And without truth - be it only living "glue" - you are only raising dust forever. I see no real point in continuing to raise or even attempt to settle this dust myself, given such "learned" environment. Go back to your buckets and spades and do it yourself if you have nothing better to do.
Is this what you, people, keep calling an "encyclopedia"? If so, by all means, without me, Keep digging :-)
[edit] Additions
- The bishops consecrated by Saint Andrew and their successors continuously existed inside all territories inhabited by Dacians
I would like a reference. Do your homework. I won't read you the ABC. We're here to edit at some presumably academic level :O) But OK, you are my brother. Do you have 397 K free on your page for me to dump a list of BASIC references :-) Yours, Dan
- In order to avoid the persecution organized by the Imperial Roman authorities they had to dwell for ever deeper into the Dacian land
I would like a reference. Same as above. But don't worry, i have time to upload. do you have time to download :-) Yours, dan
- When the Romanians formed as a people, it is quite clear that they already had the Christian faith, as proved by Tradition
Tradition is not a proof. Well, if it is not a proof, what proof do you have you are Romanian and not some Guarani wikipedissimus :-) My first caveat for you evidence-based medicine or only thirst, is "absence of evidence and evidence of absence". Seven steps further, we'll present you the dreaded "proof", but prepare for it if you can really stand it. It's for mature people only :-) Dar tu ai uitat ca suntem amândoi acas'acas ?
- The Elder of the Village in Church. This masterpiece of the 1930s in the collection of the Village Museum is so representative of the two millennia of the Romanian Orthodox Church that its name - Sfetnicii lui Decebal - neither needs mention, nor needs translation
What? If you mean that this was kept from the time of Decebal, you surely jest. Bogdane, you have for ever more homework to do... Bogdan | Talk 21:37, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Stoi, paşol na turbinca dakumentî i faktî
Auzi, Bogdane, cu cererile tale de ? e v i d e n c e ? îmi aminteşti nu de staliniştii care cereau mereu ? dakumentî ? ci de ungurii care ziceau că nu-s dovezi că românii i-au precedat, deci Ardealul e al lor iar românii sunt din lună, Marte din post sau din stele. La fel bulgarii, ca să-şi facă loc în istorie undeva prin Dacia Mediterranea, ziceau că nu?s dovezi că românii s-ar fi format la sud de Dunăre, etc., deci românii trebuie neapărat să se fi format în Ardeal, undeva. Capisci, tukanaglava ? Oriunde numai nu acolo unde sunt de fapt. Nici ungurii nici bulgarii nu băgasără, chipurile, de seamă, că românii, cei dintotdeauna aici, au fost, sunt şi vor fi ai locului, cel mai numeroşi şi cei mai zdraveni la capul lor, şi în inima lor, mai tare ca orice petec de hârtie al acelora. Tu, de altfel, cum dovedeşti că eşti din Isaccea de fel ? Mormonii au dakumentî că-s cutare din catastife pe sute de ani în spate. Există ceva similar la Isaccea ? Deduci oare din lipsa acelor dakumentî că tu nu exişti de fel, necum la Isaccea ? Capisci ? Orice document este atât de bun cât e valoarea ciobului sau petecului pe care există, dacă nu-i interpretat, în duhul, litera şi contextul său. Pentru asta se cer cunoştiinţe. De aceea există istorici chiar în timpul cut'n'pasteitului. Dar asta este cu totul altă poveste, doar avem azi cocleala guglitului şi lustrul dakumentîlui, nu-i aşa ? :-)
Uite, dragul meu, bibliografie e l e m e n t a r ă pentru următoarele şapte zile:
[edit] Bibliografia săptămânii a treia - 9-15 Ianuarie 2005
- Biserica Ortodoxă Română, Monografie-Album, Editura Institutului Biblic şi de Misiune al B.O.R., Bucureşti, 1987, pp. 253-282.
- Arhivele mânăstireşti din Bucium
- Lucrările părintelui Arsenie Papacioc
- Lucrările părintelui Arsenie Boca
Uite-te un pic printre titluri, sau măcar la poze, apoi mai vorbim.
Cu dragoste întru Hristos,
Al tău, Dan
[edit] Let's use English here
This is the English-language Wikipedia. Discussions on Talk
pages need to be in English so that the entire user community
can participate. I'm not saying this out of some sense of
superiority as a native English speaker--I also speak Romanian
and am writing this from Cluj--but from a desire to let everyone
here understand what's going on. Crculver 16:06,
11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
OK, dear Crculver, as you wish. So here it is: An
abstract of this page: Not so important for you, I'm afraid, only
some didactic and bibliographic stuff, at least so far. Training
Bogdan for some proficiency in the editing business... I also must
excuse myself for the next week or so, for some pressing, really
for ever more pressing medical issues (my main business being
medical, as a MD during daytime I'm only writing here during
nightshifts... Also, I'm glad to hear you are from Cluj - I have a lot
of Aromanian friends there.
Incidentally, Tu cu ce poţi contribui la articol, sau
măcar la discuţii? Cunoşti ceva despre
subiectul pe care vrei să-l editezi, sau doar te afli pe-aici în
treabă, ca Bogdan, cu câteva puncte de vedere personale ?
i'm afraid Google machine translation will have a field day for the
really difficult technical words here... Tu chiar vorbeşti şi scrii
româneşte? Then, may I suggest, as a proof of your technical
proficiency and skills, or only as a service for the entire user
community could you please translate a few technical issues
from this discussion, so that at least you can, may and even will
participate? I am, of course, not saying this out of some sense of
superiority as a native Romanian speaker writing for your understanding about the Romanian National Church, Biserica Neamului Românesc :-)
[edit] Let's use English here but let's understand Romanian if we write about Romanian Issues
We need some credentials or at least some proof of proficiency in the subject matter if we want to contribute to it. As a Romanian myself, I take this article quite seriously, and would not like to see it being fragmented, diluted and outrageously defigured by some self-centered self-righteous "naive" editing. This is, I'm afraid, mandatory for at least some credibility. Such proof may include, but is not limited to knowledge of the Romanian language, history and culture, a proven interest or only information about the basic bibliography. I'm waiting for your proofs. If you don't know what you are writing about, please don't take my time and don't make me read you loud the operating manual. For instance Bogdan here above says about an alleged consensus, that it belongs to quote all Romanian historians unquote. I'd like to see on what data does he maintain the above personal point of view. Thank you.
With love in Christ,
Dan
[edit] About recent change
I have attempted to show that the nationalistic beliefs held by one editor are not shared by the scholarly community, or even most Romanian Orthodox. I have spoken to several devout Orthodox today to seek their opinion on these distortions, and all are embarassed to know that someone is obsessed with proving their Church the first in Europe. After all, that's not what reputable works of history hold. Since the idea that the Romanian Orthodox was the first is a folk belief rooted in some circles, it deserves mention. However, the scholarly community has overwhelmingly held that the Church in Romania dates from a later time, and this is the view that should prevail.
If someone tries to fight this, I will take this to Request for Mediation. And I daresay this ethnocentric view would lose. Wikipedia generally does not look kindly on people trying to say that their countries or institutions hold a more special or holy place among others. Crculver 17:11, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Against active ignorance and ideology-based stickers, unsubstantiated and really mean
I have attempted to show
Have you attempted to edit the article, or to find anything pertinent, about the subject matter?
if someone tries to fight this, I will take this to Request for Mediation.
Mediate what? Mediation works with good will partners. You only attempt, by your own admission, to offer a party line. We need serious contributors here not supervisers. If you want to supervise, simply find something you are competent in, or only comfortable with. I will not take the tag you want to stick to me. If you want to write a neutered, castrated, touristical brochure please remember this is an encyclopedia. This is written by experts, for anybody to judge, not by commissars of the (Wiki)people who want to promote the new Stalinism.
I have spoken to several
Who are they? Can't they speak for themselves? Can't you be serious? What's that? A menace, an argument, or a scholarly debate ? Or a fact? Neither. So we don't take this into consideration.
However, the scholarly community has overwhelmingly held that the Church in Romania dates from a later time
I never heard a more blatantly stated half-truth. Is this good will? On exactly what do you base your opinion? Put data and knowledge where your mouth is!
and this is the view that should prevail.
Ah, I see. So you don't care to know anything about the article and you only want some POV to prevail. Well, in this case it's all clear and settled. Go [NPOV here].
And I daresay this ethnocentric view would lose.
Who are you to say that? Are you a prophet, a collaborator or just a troll? Why don't you sign your contributions with some credentials. As a whole, for things you either don't care to understand, or you don't want to be understood outside your self-centered, egotist, indeed manic point of view, we don't have arbitration, we have disinterest. We really are not interested in your guesswork and your asking around. If you can edit something pertinently, in good will, with at least some proof of interest, or even if only you can argue, using facts and reason, please go ahead. If not, do not, please also do not make me lose time with your "stickers" and name calling game. I will only answer arguments based on data from you, since I really have no time to lose with ideological komissars promoting the POV of the party line against "the opium of the people". This makes Wikipedia a Fictionary where someone wants to rewrite everything without the notion of truth.
With love in Christ,
Dan
[edit] Cleanup
Being not an expert, I nevertheless find the article rather unclear. The very old history claimed is in stark contrast to the 1885 autocephaly. At least the status before autocephaly should be better explained.
Done. In the article and on this page!
- In brief, the Romanians were Christianized during the Roman Empire and were then isolated from the rest of the Christians until around the 11th century, when Byzantine Orthodoxism was adopted. In 1885, after the Romanian independence was gained, the Church separates itself from Byzantine Orthodox Church and becomes "autocephalous". Bogdan | Talk 17:20, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This is downright wrong, and corresponds to a hmm, let's say, what, a "sixth grade" reasoning? Frankly, my fellow citizen, could you care to explain in writing using a language of reason, how could Christians in a whole country be isolated for eleven centuries? This scandalous argument was used by Roessler, a reactionary "historian" to deny Romanians the right to exist. Nothing is isolated in this world, and Christians neither. Bogdane, you may wish to study some bibliography before making irresponsible communications in public. What about the Epistle to Diognet? I don't know what you mean by Byzantine Orthodoxism, perhaps you care to explain this in terms of Orthodoxy. Also, I presume you know about the Schism. Before, everybody was Orthodox except for heretics. Lastly, I don't understand the quotation marks in autocephalous. The sequence of tenses in English, used properly couldn't hurt either if you care to express rationally. All in all, Bogdan, it's time for you to grow up to the task and be a responsible editor. Start by answering questions, this is a minimal courtesy in this culture (and the Western one) and then perhaps continue by using the flow, not the flaws of logick :-)
The external links section should be trimmed down to the most useful links for the english speaking reader. Two links were dead at the time of my testing. Some links have no content at all about the Romanian Orthodox Church.
Pjacobi 15:54, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)
Agreed on all planes, Pjacobi. I dunno why the previous "trimmers" used such "logic" as scissors. I leave to them, since I think it's up to them to mend the fences, and not only the logical thread which they cut. On the other hand, I should have been more careful with logic myself. The logical thread is now broken. In fact, the only thing which still seems clear at this point in time (and I take the opportunity to answer your kind suggestions) is autocephaly. Theologically, the Church is something different than an institution. Canonically, it is an institution and therefore there are laws, dependencies, and relationships of an institutional kind, to which the ROC abide. The article should have made the point, and explain the canonical and the theological standpoints clearly.
See you soon again here, in the limits of time in this crazy world!
Theologically, the Church is something different than an institution. It is the Body of Christ in this world. Canonically, the Church is an institution and therefore there are laws, dependencies, and relationships to which autocephaly corresponds. This explains why the Romanian Orthodox Church, a national church since the Romanian nation exists, needed autocephaly after the independence of the Romanian state, and also why this Church is as old as Christianity itself. Unique to Romanians are a number of theological and canonical features: Although this is not always recognised by the outside world, Romanians regard their church to be the first national, first attested, and first apostolic (church built by the Apostles themselves) in Europe.
This not a matter of pride, but an opportunity to pursue a spiritual mission in the world which is uninterrupted since the times of Jesus Christ Himself, as carried on by Saint Paul, and saint Andrew. This tradition is maintained and continued in dignity and with deep peace in the depths of the heart. The Prayer of the Heart comes in mind whenever the current decay in time so aptly called "sminteala" tries to take over "the hearts and minds" like all dying fashion. The Saint Tradition is maintained with that special flavor of the Orthodox Faith named with a word that cannot be translated - smerenie.
Disagree. A national church is not presented ethnocentrically. It is as it is - a national church. You can't delete this fact without sinning. But you may not like truth, as I explained in talk pages
/* Cleanup */ Crculver, this is the second time you make defigurements in the article without knowing what you do, and without explaining them. This is a last warning!
[edit] Crculver, this is the second time you make defigurements
Crculver, this is the second time you make defigurements in the article without knowing what you do, and without explaining them with something more mature than sticking pre-canned stuff, "ethnocentricity" tags and this sort of fabricated mud. Moreover, you don't answer to critics, and you put yourself above criticism. I offered you the second warning, now you are being watched and we will pursue you for vandalim the very moment you touch this sensitive issue again! For the record, you have admitted you care to impose your POV above all, above logic, discussion and even above common sense. Consider yourself warned for the last time! I will not lose time with you any longer, unless you care to change your "supervising" attitude and your mindless scissors with something more human. There is a serious concern here about your acts since you seem to menace the freedom of religion for a whole people with malicious censorship, which is not only sensitive, but an extremely serious issue about universal human rights!
With love in Christ, Dan
[edit] Crculver, this is the second time you make defigurements
Crculver, this is the second time you make defigurements in the article without knowing what you do, and without explaining them with something more mature than sticking pre-canned stuff, "ethnocentricity" tags and this sort of fabricated mud. Moreover, you don't answer to critics, and you put yourself above criticism. I offered you the second warning, now you are being watched and we will pursue you for vandalim the very moment you touch this sensitive issue again! For the record, you have admitted you care to impose your POV above all, above logic, discussion and even above common sense. Consider yourself warned for the last time! I will not lose time with you any longer, unless you care to change your "supervising" attitude and your mindless scissors with something more human. There is a serious concern here about your acts since you seem to menace the freedom of religion for a whole people with malicious censorship, which is not only sensitive, but an extremely serious issue about rights!
With love in Christ, Dan
[edit] Image (elders)
I removed this image, because it assumes that this "Decebalus' council" kept it's form in the last 2,000 years. That is really wrong. No name of a Roman or Dacian ruler whatsover was kept in the folklore of the Romanian people during the Middle Ages. Also, it has nothing to do whatsoever with the Orthodox Church. Bogdan | Talk 21:24, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It assumes nothing, as the legend says, it only illustrates what you don't care to read. I thought it might help you, as a member of the younger generation who learn history easier from the colored glossy albums :-)
With love in Christ, Dan
[edit] Hi, VMORO
Please stop censoring the ROC article, and if you want to discuss arguments, please use them. We have a common cause of truth in Christianity, against enemies of Christ, and we are mature enough not to let ourselves being dismembered by hidden agendas. Didn't you see they used laser-guided 2500 lb "arguments" against the Serbs? Not that Serbs aren't stubborn, they are, and even against our Romanian Church inside Serbia, but they are human beings and thou shalt not kill! I'm sure Romanians and Vlachs in Bulgaria aren't pampered either, but you are a Christian and we are brothers above all. So please forgive my stubborn insistence, for which Bulgarians are also known in our anecdotes :-)
With love in Christ, Dan
[edit] Dan, you misunderstand Wikipedia
Dan, you seem to misunderstand Wikipedia. We are not here to be Christian evangelists and claim that Christianity is true, because that is not NPOV. We are here to develop a neutral encyclopedia that respects the general findings held by the scholarly community. If you want to prostelytize, do it elsewhere. I belong to the same faith as you, but I am embarassed when you cause disruption and make false statements in the name of our religion.
My friend, having edited a few tens of thousand of pages I can barely keep my big belly in the deep laughter. Orthodoxy, being the right tradition, does not employ evangelizers. We are witnesses not advocates :-) As for prostelytize", please ask Bogdan what it means in Romanian for I can't help laughing to tears ;-) As for belonging to the same faith as you let me doubt it dear brother, as a precautionary scholarly principle :-)
Can you show any reputable scholarship that supports the view that the Dacian nation was Christianised before the arrival of the Romans? You are representing a minority viewpoint here, you need to present citations. Don't you think the fact that many users are reverting your changes suggests that you are not presenting a good argument?
Sure, look into the biblio, and ask Bogdan for some translations. He'll be happy to oblige such a paragon of internationalism, globalist and anti-Christian :-)
Furthermore, this is an egregious error which I will remove:
- Fully Autocephalous since 1885 the Romanian Orthodox Church is part of
- the spiritual, political and national identity of Romanians.
I'm afraid not, it is part of the identity of some Romanians. The Magyar and German minorities (who in English usage are just as Romanian as anyone else, because they have Romanian citizenship) are very rarely Orthodox. Even among ethnic Romanians there are thousands of Uniate Catholics and, especially among the youth, atheists. You cannot make such a blanket statement about a colourful, multi-ethnic state like Romania.
Remove youself from the egregious error you try to perpetrate :-) With love in Christ, Dan
"Some" are more then twenty million, id est more than 93.11 percent of the nation, which need not be terrorized by a bunch of pharisees claiming the rights which themselves have no intention to respect. To reduce the truth to the mantra of postmodernism does not an edit make, but shows a disgusing attempt to destroy a nation. The nation, however, is a reality. And this is an article about the Romanian Orthodox Church, not about your mantra. I see you will stop from no subterfuge in order to prevent me exert my religious freedom and my basic human rights, which are universal, by the way, no matter what garbage you throw on them!
Please register an account. Making dozens of changes just from an IP address is somewhat anti-social. Crculver 16:59, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I can't log in my account being banned for one year :O)
- Our anonymous friend, Dan, had an account (User:Irismeister) but he was banned from editing. ([[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Irismeister|one], two and [[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Irismeister 3|three]]) Bogdan | Talk 19:09, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
-
- Well, that explains a lot. I've reported him again at Requests for Arbitration and hopefully we'll see this IP at least disappear. Crculver 15:45, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
My friends, your disregard for truth has attained epic proportions, the measure of which are only matched by your self-centered, chauvinistic, and self-sufficient mind and heart. You simply are not interested in learning. You are reciting the mantra period. You cannot bear to talk for you are afraid of the ridicule and of the immensity of the desert in your understanding. This is called hubris. I see nothing in the talk, except for a backlog of unanswered questions and your unexplained cuts, plus your refusal to either refer to or read and quote the basic bibliography. Bogdane, you know what your Christain name signifies, please try to live up to the expectations, when you have such a name and a citizenship. Otherwise you'll be Bogdan Turcitul, like the abovementioned Mihnea
Mihnea încalec'
Calu'su tropot'
[edit] Romanian Catholic Church
Dan said when reverting:
- Uniate is not Catholic, Bogdane, but Orthodox. Why do you confuse things so much ?)
I am quite sure "The Romanian Greek-Catholic Uniate Church" is a Catholic Church. :-) Bogdan | Talk 19:47, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Oups, you picked the wrong Google:
Uniate Church Any of the Orthodox Churches that accept the Catholic faith and the supremacy of the pope and are in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church, but retain their own liturgy and separate organization.
In Ukraine, despite being proscribed 1946?89, the Uniate Church claimed some 4.5 million adherents when it was once again officially recognized. Its rehabilitation was marked by the return of its spiritual leader, Cardinal Miroslav Lubachivsky, to take up residence in Lvi?v in western Ukraine after 52 years? exile in Rome.
Bogdane, Bogdane, ai sā devii Gâgā dacā rǎmâi doar la prima paginā din Gâgāl :-)
[edit] "first national, first attested, and first apostolic"
To the anon, who is re-inserting:
Romanians know their church to be the first national, first attested, and first apostolic (church built by the Apostles themselves) in Europe.
This is a bold claim, and maybe one of those that can never be objectively be decided pro or against. Perhaps you should expand the rationale behind this claim?
Other churches having similiar claims most often back up their claim be given lists of apostilic succession from the apostles. Of course this is not a true objective proof of the fact of apostolic succession but at least of the claim of apostolic succession. See for examples:
- List_of_Patriarchs_of_Antioch
- List of Patriarchs of Babylon
- de:Liste der Patriarchen der Armenischen Apostolischen Kirche
- List of Patriarchs of Alexandria
Pjacobi 10:55, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
[edit] Ongoing vandalism
A wise man once said that the only thing he does know is that he does not know anything. Well obviously we can not be as wise, but at least we should try. I noticed that there is one person here who intentionally promotes a POV style in this article. Although I do not disagree with most of his claims (except the with the fact that the Dacians were christianized and a few other minor facts), I do not think it is ETHICAL to impose my point of view to others. Moreover, this article is written with a lot of passion, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but it is inapropriate, considering the fact that Wikipedia is supposed to be a source of objective knowledge. Another thing that is obvious is that whenever someone tries to express their point of view, they are violently silenced by claiming that they are just novices in learning history or even by offending them. I hope you will not offend me when you reply to this message, Dr. Jâpă. It is also obvious that the aforementioned person strongly disagrees with largely accepted Wikipedia policies. Why do you still write here if you do not agree with the Wikipedia NPOV policies?
A, si pe final asa, mai am o intrebare: sunteti cumva un simpatizant al Partidului Romania Mare?
Ioan
[edit] Irismeister/Dan Jipa is banned from Wikipedia
Dan Jipa, formerly User:Irismeister, is currently under a one-year Arbitration Committee ban (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irismeister 3 and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Admin_enforcement_requested#Irismeister). Users are encouraged to revert all contributions and admins are encouraged to block all attempts at access. Furthermore, the ban timer is reset with every contribution - David Gerard 20:20, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC) (for the ArbCom)
Well, I should say it was about time. VMORO
- The English Wikipedia is huge, so it's hard for people to know of everywhere a banned user might show up again ;-) - David Gerard 00:24, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Old references
Irismeister's references, moved from the article:
- Mircea Păcurariu, Istoria Bisericii Ortodoxe Române, Sophia, Bucureşti, 2000 (the standard text in Romanian, well updated, complete, superbly printed - an excellent reference.)
- The Sayings of the Desert Fathers: The Alphabetical Collection (Translated with a foreword by Benedicta Ward, SLG), Cistercian Publications, Kalamazoo, Revised edition 1984.
- Celălalt Noica: Mărturii ale monahului Rafail, însoţite de câteva cuvinte de folos ale părintelui Symeon, ediţie îngrijită de Pr. Eugen Drăgoi şi Pr. Ninel Ţugui, Editura Anastasia, Bucureşti, 1994 (father Rafail Noica, one of the most accomplished figures in the Orthodox spiritualiy is the "other" Noica because his father Constantin Noica is the most famous Romanian philosopher.)
- Arsenie Papacioc Scrisori câtre fiii mei duhovniceşti (Editura Mânăstirii Dervent, Constanţa, 2000).
- Arsenie Papacioc Duhovnici români în dialog cu tinerii (Editura Bizantină, Bucureşti, 1997).
- Arsenie Papacioc La Mãnãstire te desfiinţezi ca personalitate omenească în personalitate îngereascã - interviu, în Epifania, noiembrie-decembrie 1997.
[edit] Dreapta credinţă
I've made the article more neutral by removing the fact that the church is most often known as Dreapta credinţă. This is simply untrue. As a Romanian, the most common way that people, both Orthodox and not Orthodox, refer to it, is "Biserica Ortodoxă" and the followers are simply "ortodocşi". Dreapta credinţă is in my view a terribly biased term. Ronline 06:30, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Boscorodirea (in Romanian)
i don't know how NPOV could this link be, being on the site of a baptist organisation with openly criticizes orthodoxism (try reading the section about orthodoxy on that site) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.77.81.53 (talk • contribs).
[edit] Orthodoxy is the right word
Let the -isms rest in peace :O) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.249.53.175 (talk • contribs).
[edit] "Uniate"
The English term "Uniate" is increasingly seen as offensive. We should reword several portions of the article to reflect current usage. CRCulver 03:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Articolul nu ne reprezintā!
Este castrat, asta este "neutralizat". Asta face "enciclopedia" unui pornocrat! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.158.124.24 (talk • contribs).
- Thank you for the very helpful comment! bogdan 20:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
You are welcome! Castration and neutralization, bad taste and censorship aren't. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rishimeister (talk • contribs).
- Of course, I assume adding only information from trustable sources is considered castration of the imagination, right ? :-) bogdan 22:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image
The image is beautiful -- I do not know how to nominate it for use as a featured image, but I suggest it's worthy. Adamdavis 00:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Coronation of Ilie Stănescu as International King of the Rroma at Curtea de Argeş
You can find the discussed chapter here.
I added back this chapter, as it was a big scandal at the time.Dl.goe 18:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Crculver removed it:Rv non-notable
I added back the content template. The discussion is not yet finished. More opinions are needed.Dl.goe 19:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mitropolitul Banatului
A fost uitat Mitropolitul Banatului, IPS Nicolae (Corneanu) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.15.156.186 (talk) 17:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC).
