Talk:Eastern Orthodox Church/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

discussion which lead to moving the entry to Eastern Orthodoxy:

This nomenclature is not what has been developing on Wikipedia, nor is it the common nomenclature in real life. The Orthodox of my acquaintance tend to say 'The Orthodox'. If we used 'Orthodox Christianity for this group (and under the rules of NPOV we have to consider the churches and denominations 'groups') the group currently entered under Catholicism should be [Catholic Christianity], and instead of Protestantism we should have [Protestant Christianity]. If someone had written this article at [Eastern Orthodoxy] it would have lit up lots and lots of links. I, too, think that Eastern Orthodoxy is an inadequate name, but then so are most of the religious group names. Sorry about that. This should be an umbrella entry anyway, to be followed by entries for Russian Orthodox Church, etc., etc. I'm still drinking coffee or I'd move this myself. I may do so later. --MichaelTinkler.

I agree. To be consistent with existing nomenclature, the main article should probably be at Eastern Orthodoxy, with redirects from Orthodox Christianity and Eastern Orthodox Christianity to activate lots of existing links.
I've been thinking about starting this article for a little while now; I'm glad someone else got the ball rolling. Would it be appropriate to include external links to the main home pages of each of the major Orthodox jurisdictions, i.e. Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, etc.? Should Russian Orthdoxy and similar topics redirect here, or have a stub entry with a See Also that points here? Thanks. --Wesley

Terms describing the various religious divisions tend to be loaded, often distinguishing between us and them, valid and invalid.

Us-them Examples:

  • Christian - Heathen
  • Muslim - Infidel

Valid-invalid examples:

  • Christian - Cult
  • Christian - Catholic (Note: this may belong more to us-them)
  • Catholic - Protestant (Note: this may belong more to us-them)
Satirized on www.onion.com as Catholic - Hellbound :-)

--Ed Poor

Are you suggesting this article includes some loaded terms that should be revised? I'm not saying it doesn't, because I haven't read the article while looking for that sort of thing. --Wesley

I think the term "Eastern Orthodox", while obiviously loaded (orthodox meaning right belief after all), is so widely used (both by them and by non-Orthodox Christians and by non-Christians even) that it really doesn't cause a problem. Orthodox in this context has over time changed its meaning from "those who have the right belief" to "those who believe what the Eastern Chalcedonian church believes". It has lost its inherent bias by the force of centuries -- SJK


Of course it would be handy if this were a better article. since no one seems to mind (though the author hasn't weighed in), I'll move it. --MichaelTinkler.

Sorry about that clash, whoever that was. I've moved it now! --MichaelTinkler.

I'm going to add an outline at the top to hint at future expansion, and possibly slight reorginization of what's already there. The trick is going to be not to duplicate too much of what is already at History of Christianity, Christianity and related pages. Suggestions for organization and subtopics are very welcome. --Wesley

On the questions at the bottom:

Calendar - it's probably worth a whole paragraph on its own here.
Liturgy - of course it'll come up, but it needs separate entries - Liturgy of St. John Chrsostomos, Liturgy of St. Basil, Liturgical languages in Orthodoxy, etc., etc.

--MichaelTinkler

moved from article (reader note: If I am not mistaken the date of the Orthodox Easter is the First Sunday after the first full moon of Spring?)

That's close, I think, with the caveat that Spring begins on March 21 of the Julian calendar. Figuring out the algorithm makes my head hurt, so I just added a link that explains it. I'm just doing well to remember it's May 5 this year. Suppose we could mention it happened to coincide with Western Easter in 2000, and does about once every 13 years or so... I think. Wesley
Followup: the Easter article has Western and Eastern dates now, and more links to outside articles that discuss it


Very minor (nit-picky) change to the information on fasting. Great lent is actually separate from Holy Week. Thus Great Lent is exactly 40 days, but we still fast (usually more strictly) for Holy Week. Since I am new to wikipedia, I didn't want to practice editing this article! Jgilm

I think you're right. Please, jump in and fix it! Edit boldly! If you really want to practice, I think there's a "sandbox" set up to practice the mechanics. If you're just changing plain text and not links, it should be very straightforward though. Wesley

Not editing because I don't know enough about this, but I was under the impression that the Orthodox Church no longer official considers Roman Catholics heretics (and vice versa). There was a fairly well-publicized partial reconciliation in which both sides rescinded anathemas pronounced upon each other centuries earlier. This was met by some criticism by particularly conservative Orthodox elements, notably some of the monks of Mount Athos. Delirium 05:50 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, the split in 1054 was sort of "solved" numerous times, especially whenever the Byzantines desperately needed Western help later on (but the general public never accepted it). Both churches officially lifted the excommunications, sometime recently I think (I'm sure it was with John Paul II). But I don't know exactly what that meant, since there are still a lot of theological differences. Adam Bishop 05:56 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Adam, you're pretty much right on target. At one council (Council of Florence I think?) the Orthodox bishops agreed to submit to the Pope and insert the filioque clause into the Nicene Creed in exchange for military aid against the attacking Turks. The story is that the populace refused to allow their bishops to disembark from their ships when they returned home; in addition, the Roman armies arrived shortly after the Turks sacked Constantinople, too late to help. Sometime in the mid-1960s, the Pope at that time (not John Paul II, but I forget who... same one who led Vatican II) and the Patriarch of Constantinople rescinded the excommunications/anathemas of 1054. But the Patriarch of Constantinople is not an Eastern Pope, and in matters like this the other patriarchs are free to disagree with him, and many did. East and West still disagree strongly over the role of the Pope, whether the filioque clause is permissible, and other things. In North America, I believe there is a regular series of meetings going on between Orthodox and Roman Catholic bishops who meet every few months to discuss the filioque clause and related matters, that has been taking place for several years; maybe they'll be able to work towards agreement. I think that Roman Catholics will allow Orthodox Christians to receive the Eucharist (for both this is the ultimate sign of unity), but Orthodox churches will generally not allow Catholics to receive the Eucharist. (Exact criteria is usually established by each bishop, but there's usually not that much variation in this area.) Each acknowledges that the other is "close" and makes it easier for members from the other to convert, including (usually) recognizing ordained priests, etc.
But a year or two ago the Pope set up one or more new Catholic dioceses in Russia, which the Patriarch of Moscow viewed as a very unfriendly act, an attempt to win more Catholics and undermine the Russian Orthodox Church there while it's still trying to recover from decades of Communism. A similar situation exists in the Ukraine, with tension between the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and the "uniate" churches that converted to Roman Catholicism a while ago, including arguments about who owns which church property. Actions like this cause many Orthodox to distrust pronouncements of friendship. We're still a long ways from having full communion restored; my guess is it would probably take a new ecumenical council, including the Pope and the Orthodox patriarchs, to do it. And for such a council to be accepted as ecumenical, it would not only need to have representatives from all or most patriarchates, but the results would need to win approval among the people of the various Orthodox churches as well; it would certainly help if the Catholic people went along with it, I'm not sure how that would play out otherwise. Other people have other ideas about how the schism might be healed; time will tell. Wesley 16:17 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I strongly consider the last few changes to be inaccurate, and am considering reverting. Some important information was removed (Schism, filoque clause, etc.), and the article as it currently stands is completely wrong (the Oriental Orthodox are not the same as the Eastern Orthodox, and the only people who think so are those who are confused by the similarity of the names). In addition, few consider the Roman Catholic Church to be the "Western Orthodox." --Delirium 01:08 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Rather than reverting, I made an attempt to integrate some of the information. --Delirium 01:18 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)


I made the "last few changes" you referred to, Delirium, but the article already classified the "Oriental Orthodox" as Eastern, and with no caveat whatsoever. I introduced the caveat, and so improved the accuracy. Your change actually diminishes the accuracy: Although it seems silly to label the O.O.s "Eastern," my Web surfing tells me that many church leaders do. It's strange that you say the changes removed the filoque clause and other information, because the filoque clause remained and so did everything else as far as I can tell. It sounds like a good idea to put "Western Orthodox" in quotes, but otherwise I think it's usefully and not a purely idiosyncratic term. I'll make that change. Your sentences

"These represent, according to their followers, the original Christian Church. Since 1054 AD it is separated from the Roman Catholic Church (which also claims to be the original Christian Church"

in a way negate each other and end up not really telling readers anything, I think. Also, "original Christian Church" is very ambiguous. To me it suggested the traditions are unchanged since the time of the apostles, which I doubt any believers believe. So I think that phrasing should be avoided. Your continuation

"it is separated from the Roman Catholic Church...because the Orthodox consider the Filioque clause and the papal claim to complete authority over all Christians and some other Roman Catholic doctrinal and liturgic innovations as heresies"

I regard as not quite on the money. It would be more so if East and West were on the verge of unification but for these issues (actually, to some extent they are), but I wouldn't say they "are separated because" of these issues. You could say that, but it's vague. More strictly speaking they are separated now because they have been separated for a long time. Why did they separate originally? Well that's something to talk about, which is the tack I was taking in my recent rewrite. I'll put quotation marks around "Western Orthodox." Meanwhile, why don't you do whatever research you think you need to do to confirm or disprove that indeed some religeous authorities call the O.O's "Eastern," and then re-read my changes--which I will repost. Since you over-looked the "filoque" stuff, I think it will probably strike you differently on a second reading. I hope you're willing to take my point about vague language. 168... 02:00 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, I was a bit over-hasty. I'll re-read some more and do more research, and possibly reword some stuff later (and post here about it). As for being separated, I had assumed that was referring to the reason for separation in 1054 -- they were separated largely because of the filoque clause and perhaps more importantly differences over the authority of the Pope -- but I can see that it might be interpreted differently as originally written. --Delirium 02:42 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)


No church was "established" in 1054; the excommunication of the Patriarch of Constantinople and the anathema of the Pope's representative merely recognized that their differences were so great that they were no longer in full communion with each other. On a different subject, the Eastern Orthodox Church does identify itself with the "original Christian Church" because its teachings, practices and traditions are consistent with the traditions of the first Apostles, and because it is in direct historical apostolic succession. Of course new hymns and new liturgical practices have developed over time, and these have been translated into many different languages; the assertion is that these new hymns and liturgies express the same essential faith of the first Apostles. Wesley 16:54 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I appreciate that the division is a nuanced issue that calls for careful language and I don't so much object to the use of "division" instead of "establishment," but I disagree with what I take to be your rationale and the suggestion that this phrasing is somehow superior. Nobody disputes that we have separate churches now, so at some point these seperate churches had to have been established. When did that happen? Perhaps not at any single moment in time. Perhaps not in 1054. But readers of this article will expect to be told. What's more, when they read the statement about "division," they will understand it to be telling them about the creation of separate churches. So the change makes no difference to the message readers come away with, I believe. Now, one might be tempted to say that in the strictest terms "division" is more accurate to the history than "establishment" in the context of that sentence, which I would regard as the best of reasons for using "division" over establishment, if this tempting conclusion were true. But even "division" did not take place in 1054. The sentence is about what is "regarded to have taken place" (and although the sentence does not say so, "regarded," I would say, for the sake of satisfying the universal and church-sanctioned human desire for succinct summing-up statements); and the "formal establishment of separate churches" is just as much regarded to have taken place in 1054 as is "division." In fact, I would say "division" is _less_ regarded as having taken place, because "division" suggests movement, and to the extent the sentence emphasizes 1054, the separation involved little movement, I suspect. Certainly the idea of making the sentence about division occurred to me when I wrote it, but I thought (and still think) "establishment" the better choice. 168... 17:56 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)


I forgot to comment on the "original church" issue. Yes, there's definitely a point to be made there, and I appreciate you making it. Yet I think it needs to be made more explicitly than it was being made in the article. The most natural interpretation of the sentence that was in the article before was a nonsensical one. Furthermore, it wasn't clear at all which of the many possible sensible meanings it might have been intended to convey.168... 18:00 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Regarding "division" versus "establishment"... I find the word "establishment" to be completely inappropriate because none of the things that are normally associated with establishing a denomination took place in 1054. It's called the Great Schism, which means "division"; it's not called the Great Establishment. No new creeds were adopted; no new leaders were appointed; no mass evangelization took place; few if any people left their existing leaders to align themselves with new leaders. The major local churches were established in the first and maybe second centuries: Rome, Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople; I'm not sure of the date of Constantinople, but the point is it was there long before the 11th century. They always had some differences, but they all recognized each other and were in full communion with each other, agreeing to overlook whatever differences they had as minor. With a few notable exceptions of course, as in the case of Arianism, Nestorianism, etc. What happened in 1054 is that Pope's emissary decided that the differences were so great, on issues of such importance, that they could not remain in communion, so he laid the Bull of Excommunication on the altar at the Church of Holy Wisdom, cutting off communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople. The Patriarch of Constantinople in return anathematized the Pope's emissary. Over time, both East and West came to recognize that this was not just another temporary rift (which they had had before), but that neither side was going to make any compromises or accomodations to heal the schism. But the popes, patriarchs, bishops, priests, deacons, monks and people in all places continued to worship as they had before, aside from (probably) the closing of some Greek churches in and near Rome, the closing of some Latin churches in and near Constantinople, and that sort of thing. It was nothing like what happened in the Protestant Reformation for example, or like the establishment of any subsequent Protestant denomination, which are generally marked by some sort of revival, and a new church organization forming and members either leaving other denominations to join the new one en masse or occasionally joining as part of mass conversions from some non-Christian religion. Wesley 18:36 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Well, you've told me a lot of interesting stuff that I didn't know and you did briefly weakened my sympathies for "establishment," but in the end I think both "separated" and "established" are metaphors, that they are being intensely qualified by the "regarded as having been" string of words, and so you and I are arguing semantics, not facts. You say that by 1054 the churches effectively were already "established." I say effectively they were already "separate." I remain partial to my semantics. I think the question of the age of the churches may be like the question of when an "independent nation of Canada is regarded as having been established." Obviously, Canada was already established and pretty darn independent by the time the Queen's authority was reduced to posing as decoration for the money (or whatever her authority is); and I doubt that enormous machinations had to take place to make Canadian independence complete (or whatever it is); and yet I'm sure that the average school kid in Canada could answer the question unhesitatingly with a date and a year. People just think about history this way, and so indeed it's quite accurate to write "regarded as having been..." 168... 02:47 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The establishment date for both churches is the Day of Pentecost, about 33 AD or so. Think of it this way. Imagine that the United States Civil War had been won by the South and those states managed to secede from the United States. You would have a Confederacy established in 1861 or so (1860?), since nothing like the Confederacy existed before then, made up of states like Alabama that were established in the 1700s and maybe early 1800s. The dates the states were established wouldn't change, although their relationship with the larger federal government would have changed dramatically. In fact, the state of Texas makes sure everyone remembers that it was not only established long before it joined the United States, but was once an independent country of its own. I agree this is largely a semantics issue, but I think the semantics are important (as an Eastern Orthodox believer). Other states also distinguish between when they were established and when they joined the United States. After all, Catholic and Orthodox theologians are still debating whether adding filioque is just a semantic difference or whether it fundamentally alters the nature of the Trinity -- debating among themselves as well as with each other. Wesley 13:21 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, but just in case my position isn't clear, I don't dispute that there is a distinction that to somebody some place is worthwhile making--e.g. as you imply, some people sometimes are more interested in when a region of the U.S. was settled and/or when it acquired a government more than they want to know when the region signed allegiance with Washington DC. I just think for the first sentence of this article, people's curiosity will be in terms of when two churches (i.e. East and West) were established (because I don't think people think of churches in the same way they think of biological cells, which are born by division). Anyway, I'm not a believer, but I suppose I enjoy discussing semantics too. 168... 18:45 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Is there any perticluar reason that we should label Oriental Orthodox Churches as "Monophysite" or "Nestorian"? I seem like this is a needless insurtion of POV matterial. None of the Oriental Orthodox Churches descripe themsleves as "Monophysite" or "Nestorian"; these are terms invented by people who considered them hereitics. - Efghij 23:04, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)


I think you're wrong that no Nestorians call themselves Nestorians. I'm less sure about how monophysites describe themselves. But as I remarked in the comment line of the edit in which I added those adjectives, I see no evidence to see these words as tendentious or derogatory (I cited Britannica and unnamed Web pages that seem to be owned by Assyrian christians to support this view). As to why they are useful, well just imagine a sentence referencing diverse world religions in the "Calcutta Hindu Weekly". Would you be scandalized to read the words "monotheistic Judaism" within that list? I can't imagine why you would be. A first-time Hindu reader of the magazine may be unfamiliar with the concept of monotheism, and may have no idea just how different or in what way different the various religeons in the list are. "Montheistic" (especially with a link on the online version of this hypothetical weekly) therefore is of great use. The goal of the article we're discussing is to distinguish types of Christianity. To simply list types without elaboration--especially when a one-word elaboration would go a long way--is to waste a good opportunity to advance the goal. 168... 23:57, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It may be useful to use such terms if they are unarguebly factual, such as "monotheistic Judaism", but they should certainly not be used if they are denied by the churches they are describing:

  • From the Ethiopian Orthodox Church' Website: The Ethiopian Church belongs to the group of Orthodox Churches wrongly termed "Monophysite" but which prefer the epithet "Non-Chalcedonian". The other members of this family are the Coptic, Armenian, Syrian and Indian Churches.
  • From the Assyrian Church's website: If the question is, "Does the Church of the East venerate Nestorius and continue to employ his theological vocabulary?" the answer is obvious. However, if the question is whether the Church of the East is "Nestorian", the answer is not so immediately evident. Was Nestorius himself a "Nestorian" as that heresy is universally understood and described? Since many in modern times have diligently and honestly tried to come to a conclusion about this and have often answered it negatively, it is very likely that the same question applied to the Church of the East would often come up with a similar negative answer.

If anyone is curious about the theology of these churches, they can easily click on the link and read about it. - Efghij 01:54, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Efghi, your Web Assyrians declare themselves happy to be considered "Nestorian" in all but one sense, which to me establishes that it's kosher to call them Nestorian. The unkosher sense of "Nestorian" as a particular heresy as defined by an ancient council isn't the most general one, which might be expressed as "allied with or inspired by Nestor." This is like the word "Darwinian." "Darwinian" carries negative connotations among creationist fundamentalists, but there's certainly proper ways to use the term. Note also that no institution or subculture owns or defines the term "Darwinian." Yet if there is a connotation more official than any others I'd say it belongs to the people who call themselves by that term. As far as "Nestorian," besides the people who agree to be described as such at the Web page you cite, there's http://www.nestorian.org/, which describes itself as "Unofficial Web Site of the “Church of the East” also known as “Nestorian Church”." I have yet to look into monophysite, but as I said the Britannica Web site applies the term to contemporary religeons and I doubt they would do so if it were biased or inflammatory.168... 07:04, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Britannica notwithstanding, I see the objections to "monophysite" at Coptic Web sites. Because the word is unusually constructed (which I think makes it less meldable to uses other than that for which it was coined) and because it seems to have been coined in reference to a view that the "monophysite" churches seem to say they have never held, I think it's problematic as a term, even though indeed its apt in senses other than one for which it was originally coined (which presumably is why some scholars appear to apply it to the Coptic church of today). 168... 07:26, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

For what it's worth, "non-Chalcedonian" is probably a more neutral term than "monophysite". It just means that those churches do not affirm the Chalcedonian Creed or agree with the conclusions of the Council of Chalcedon that adopted and proclaimed that creed. Historically, that's when these churches left the Eastern Orthodox Church. It's not quite universally agreed that their rejection of that creed makes them monophysite. Wesley 12:36, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

"Non-Chalcedonian" sounds like a good route around the problematic term "monophysite," and I'm sympathetic to it as a solution, but I presume it would be taking the place of "monophysite" and "Nestorian" together, and so cost us the chance of signaling an (at least historically important) distinction between churches within the Oriental Orthodoxy. Perhaps there is no perfect solution. What about "monophysite" in quotes to signal it's a term of disputed meaning, with the linked-to-article elaborating on that point? I like that idea a lot. Perhaps I'll make that switch now and see how that flies. 168... 18:31, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

"Non-Chalcedonian" only applies to the suppossedly monophysite churches. The equivilant term for the Assyrian church is "non-Ephesian", although it's rarely used because there is only one church it applies to. - Efghij 21:18, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I agree, non-Chalcedonian would not be a good substitute for "Nestorian", I only meant to suggest it as an alternative to "monophysite". User:168..., I appreciate your input. Could I possibly persuade you to use an actual username instead of a number? Wesley 05:33, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I think it's extremely POV, after allowing the Easterns their name "orthodox", that the article calls into question the orthodoxy of Catholics with a gratuitous observation about how the Easterns see them. Do Catholics not regard themselves as orthodox christians? I'm no authority, but I doubt that very much. This article should not be a forum for Eastern Orthodox perspectives on all matters to be presented without alternatives. It ought to be a neutral article about the EO institution and belief system. Yes, it's highly pertinent how East and West view each other, but the views demand and deserve equal footing, which will take quite a few words and does not belong, I believe, in the first paragraph. 168... 18:34, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I don't think this is the case -- the Roman Catholicism article does the same thing from the opposite direction. In any case, stating as fact that the Eastern Orthodox churches see the Western Church as non-orthodox is relevant, and the entire reason the Orthodox Church has chosen that name for itself. That the Roman Catholic Church disagrees with the assessment of their doctrine as non-Orthodox is, I would think, entirely obvious (and if not, even more readily obvious by clicking through to the Roman Catholicism article). I would think that any claim of "X claims that Y is not a true Z" would implicitly acknowledge that Y likely does not agree with this assessment, or else the sentence wouldn't have been worded as "X claims". --Delirium 19:33, Aug 21, 2003 (UTC)


As for the name "orthodox," that's simply the name of the church. If we were to refrain from "allowing" them to use that name, we would also have to disallow the Roman Catholicism article from describing that Church with the word "Catholic," as the Eastern Orthodox Church does not accept that the Roman Church is truly a Catholic church -- they hold themselves to be the Catholic church referred to in the Nicene Creed. Renaming Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism so that the former doesn't use the term orthodox and the latter doesn't use the term catholic would be ridiculous. --Delirium 19:36, Aug 21, 2003 (UTC)


I haven't read Roman Catholicism, but I don't think it matters to the issue of what's fair. That article could as well be faulty too. It's obvious that the descendant groups of a schism would see each other as inauthentic in some way. Why then give to only one of them the utterly gratuitous privilege of having its objection to the other articulated? I think I agree about the implications of your abstract alphabetical analogy, but you don't judge the fairness of an article only in terms of what it implies after you think about it, you also have to consider the balance of what's said explicitly. A principle of equal air time applies. The Easterns put "orthodox" into their name, but presumably it's only out of civility that Catholics aquiesce to call them by that name. The Easterns are not entitled to the designation "Orthodox" as a freebie, because it's in their name. It has an implication to the listener and it will be regarded as a designation, not as a proper name. Civilly the article lets it go unchallenged in the first paragraph, which I think is appropriate. Now "orthodox" may not be in the name Catholics use for their church, but I suspect they cherish the designation every bit as much as the Easterns, and I think their beliefs deserve to be treated with as much civility as the Easterns, whether or not a belief in question is one they choose to embroider on their mitres. 168... 20:44, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

That's not quite right. The Eastern Church calls itself considers itself to be both "Orthodox" (i.e. the unchanged original church) and "Catholic" (i.e. the "One Holy Catholic & Apostolic Church" mentioned in the Nicean creed). The Western Church considers itself "Catholic" but not "Orthodox". In Catholic theology the Holy Catholic & Apostolic Church can change as much as it wants (or rather as much as the Holy Spirit guides it to). This is why one is called "Eastern Orthodox" and the other is called "Roman Catholic". - Efghij 02:02, Aug 22, 2003 (UTC)

But does the RCC view itself as having changed dogmantically? I think I read that they do not regard changes to the Nicene Creed as implying such a change, whereas to the Easterns it did. So if the NC change were the only one, or if all changes were regarded by the RCC in similar lights (e.g. as clarifications or elaborations on traditional dogma) then we're left with both churches regarding themselves as orthodox. Do you know whether the RCC speaks of itself as having changed dogmatically? 168... 05:35, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Probably the most prominent is Pope Pius XII's statement of the doctrine of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, which was promulgated as a novel doctrine under the auspices of papal infallibility (see that article for a bit more). On this topic the Eastern Orthodox Church may actually substantially agree; I don't know enough about their position on the Assumption to say. Even if so, the Catholic Church does seem to reserve for themselves the right to change doctrine, if the new doctrine is stated by the Pope ex cathedra. --Delirium 05:41, Aug 23, 2003 (UTC)


I can't tell if you're saying the PPXII or contemporary Catholic authorities regard the Assumption doctrine as having been a revision of the dogma of the One Holy etc etc Church. Is that what you're saying? To me, that's the gist of this. It's academic that papal infallibility entitles the pope to change dogma if in his infallibilty he claims he's never done so.168... 19:08, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)


For example, papal infallibility obviously looks like a new dogma to many and yet according to the Wiki article is understood by the modern Vatican "as an aspect of the infallibility of the Church Herself rather than as a personal authority." In other words, the Vatican seems to view itself as orthodox with regard at least to the alleged new dogma of papal infallibilty, if we pretend that that Wiki excerpt is authoratitive. It might be that way with all the Vatican proclamations that dissenters (typically with some justification, I'm sure) regard as affirmations of new dogma.168... 19:23, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)


Well, it seems that they don't consider themselves "bound" in a sense by considerations of orthodoxy, because they consider the papal infallibility to take precedence (i.e. it doesn't matter if it's orthodox if it's infallible). I do admit I'm not sure whether they consider themselves to nonetheless still be orthodox in their faith (that is, they reserve the right to change dogma, but have not done so). The Assumption doctrine would be the best candidate for such a change if there is one, but someone who knows more about that would have to comment. --Delirium 19:18, Aug 23, 2003 (UTC)