Talk:Eastern Orthodox Church/Archive 3

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.

Contents

On the title of the page

It seems that it would make more sense for this entry to be titled "Eastern Orthodox Churches" as opposed to "Eastern Orthodox Church" because the church isn't under one hierarchial structure as the Roman Catholic church is. (This is nitpicking, but I think it's worth discussion.)

"One hierarchical structure" may be what defines the unity of the RCC, but it is not for Orthodoxy. Both in terms of self-understanding and in terms of the outer functioning of the Church, the Orthodox Church is one, not many. The fact that there may be disagreements and multiple administrative structures does not impair the Church's unity. ——Preost talk contribs 13:21, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, the head of the Orthodox Church of course is Christ; the various 'administrative structures' recognize this and recognize each other as part of the one Orthodox Church. Its membership also includes members who are now living and those who have 'fallen asleep in the Lord', as the Orthodox Church does not draw a distinction between the "Church militant" and the "Church triumphant" as does the RCC. Wesley 16:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Requested move to "Eastern Orthodox Church"

  • "Eastern Orthodox Church" is the term used in the article introduction, and is consistent with "Roman Catholic Church".
Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~~~~
  1. Support. For reasons above. --Xiaopo ℑ 06:51, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support. Csernica 07:15, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support. Phiddipus 20:16, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support. Preost 13:52, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

I moved the page to Eastern Orthodox Church, as per consensus. Lachatdelarue (talk) 14:30, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry I missed moving the talk page, and the archives; this has now been fixed. Lachatdelarue (talk) 15:08, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

There are numerous slight internal differences of opinion within the Orthodox Church concerning minor issues, never-the-less there is complete concensus on major theological issues. The Orthodox church is not many churches, but one body in Christ. I would propose that the article concerning the Orthodox should stick to the major issues in order to show concensus rather than a constantly changing debate over minor topics. Also, we should avoid comparing ourselves to other churches (i.e. the Roman Catholics) as a form of definition. Simply state what is historically supported, our basic beliefs, and what makes us unique, our POV....not the Russian or Greek, New calendar or Old, But rather the Orthodox POV that we all agree on. Phiddipus 20:16, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations for great work on this page

I just came to this page to clarify for myself the main differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, with only a high-school history background on either. (A friend of mine is going to Moldova as a Peace Corps volunteer and I wanted to have some fun because he is a devout Roman Catholic. "Do you know the actual differences between Moldovan catholicism and your catholicism?" I wanted to ask.) And I was astounded at the wonderful clarity of the explanation in this Eastern Orthodoxy page! So thank you all for your perseverance on this page.  :)) ---Rednblu | Talk 23:09, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Women in Altar

I've looked on the discussion in the Archives and I've seen an iteresting issue: the fact that the access of the women in the Altar area is not forbidden and that NO ONE is allowed to enter the Altar area without the Bishop's blessing. Actually as far as I know men are generally allowed to enter the Altar area on certain conditions (serious reason, clean body, clean thoughts etc). I remember that once when I visited a church with the school when I was younger, the priest said that all the boys can enter the Altar area. Also in my country (Romania) ordinary women do not usually have the blessing to enter the Altar area (although many nuns have).
Oh and considering the time of the year, "Christ is risen!" to all of you.
Ioan

No one may enter the altar without a blessing at least from the priest in charge of the temple. In the case you cited, the priest was effectively extending a blessing for all the boys to enter. Women may not enter the altar for ligurgical service except under certain conditions. As you said, many nuns have. That's because in a women's monastery there's no one else to act as servitor. The conditions you cited are simply not sufficient even for men; a blessing must be given, and of course even the priest does not enter for casual reasons. There are certain positions in the Church where a blessing is generally extended (lower clergy, wardens, etc.) and women may be blessed to enter at times other than the services for cleaning, decorating, etc.
I cite the general rule. Perhaps some other rule obtains in Romania, or in your local diocese.
Adevarat a inviat! Csernica 22:28, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I understand. Still I'll take a look in a Catechism as soon as possible, or better ask a priest. Anyway thank you for the explanation. I believe it is as you said, as the Altar is the place where the Transubstantiation takes place.
Ioan

I don't think orthodox believe in "transubstantiation" as the catholics do. ~James

"The truth"

Miskin claims to be presenting "FACTS" in a rather strident manner, but he's incorrect. The church now called Eastern Orthodox existed beyond the bounds of the Empire at the time of Constantinople's fall to the Ottomans; the EP is not, not, not the "head of all Orthodox bodies worldwide" and never has been, not even theoretically (and certainly not canonically); the "Greek Orthodox Church" properly speaking refers to the autocephalous Church of Greece which is not subject to the EP (although the body in the United States known as the "Greek Orthodox Archdiocese" is); the EP is not in any meaningful sense a "medieval" church; and "Eastern Orthodox Church" is actually something of a neologism on the scale of time we're talking about here -- in 1054 the phrase would not have been recognized by anyone, nor was the schism of 1054 permanent as he implies. His introductory paragraph is dead wrong as it stands and I'm reverting. The previous version isn't perfect, but it's far more accurate and better written to boot. Csernica 20:33, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the Church of Greece. It's about how did the term "Greek Orthodox" end up referring to any body of the Orthodox religion (which is not mentioned in the article). As for the EP being the head of all Orthodox bodies worldwide, it refers to the "first among equals". The fact that some bodies like to think that they're completely independent, it has nothing to do with the tradition of the real Orthodox church. If I come up now with an official branch of Christianity that believes in the Koran, nobody will say "some christians believe in the Koran". The EP IS IS IS by tradition the head of all Orthodox bodies worldwide, and whether or not it's accepted by them it's irrelevant. There are Orthodox bodies who have changed the original words of the Holy Book in order to suit their personal national myths - those are usually the ones who renounce the patriarch of Constantinople. You think they have the same status in the Orthodox society with all the others? I never said that the Eastern Orthodox church never existed in non-Byzantine states, I don't know how you came up with that. I was only pointing out which was the FIRST and original body of this community. This is obviously a FACT which you have difficulty accepting. Miskin

Actually, it is mentioned in the article. Search it for the first occurrence of "Greek Orthodox". Your introduction was inaccurate in that it (amongst several other errors) referred to the Patriarch of Constantinople as the patriarch of the Greek Orthodox Church—he's not, and the autocephalous Greek Orthodox Church has no patriarch.
The Patriarchate of Constantinople is certainly not the original body of the Eastern Orthodox community, either from an Orthodox point of view or a secular one. Check out the articles at Antiochian Orthodox Church, Orthodox Church of Jerusalem, and Orthodox Church of Alexandria.
I have no idea what you mean by "supposedly the head of all Orthodox bodies worldwide" (supposedly?) and frankly, neither do I care. The statement is highly misleading, and bordering on inaccurate. And, of course, as Csernica pointed out, the Orthodox Church is certainly not a medieval church, and the term "Eastern Orthodox Church" wasn't used until long after the schism. --Xiaopo ℑ 01:49, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't care about this article, but just to let you know how ignorant you are: The bodies Antiochian Orthodox Church, Orthodox Church of Jerusalem, and Orthodox Church of Alexandria are part of the Greek Orthodox Church Einstein. Learn the basics before trying to pose as an expert. Miskin 14:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, the official name of the Orthodox Church of Antioch in Arabic is not "Greek Orthodox," but rather "Roman Orthodox." ——Preost talk contribs 16:03, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

That's because the official name of the Greek people during the middle-ages was "Romaioi" (Romans) and the official name of the Byzantine Empire was Eastern Roman Empire. Read the article. Miskin 18:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

While the Patriarch of Constantinople is indeed "first among equals", that should be understood as "first head among equal heads", i.e. he is one head among several, not the only head over all Orthodox bodies worldwide. If anyone is head of the entire Church, it is Christ Himself. The word "autocephalous" means that an autocephalous church organizes itself, including choosing its own "head" or patriarch/metropolitan. And of course, if Rome were to be reunited with the Orthodox Church, then I would guess there would be a strong possibility of the "first among equals" honor reverting to Rome as it was before, although this is only speculation. Wesley 16:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's a bunch of heretic crap. First of all there are no Roman Empires anymore so your hypothesis of reuniting the churches has no basis. The only historically authentic Orthodox body was the Eastern Orthodox Church, which also happened to be the official state religion of the Eastern Roman Empire, and therefore bound to Constantinople and the Byzantine nation (Greeks). Even when the Byzantines fell to the Turks, the patriarchy of Constantinople was the only Greek body that was allowed to operate like previously. This very same body that was once called "Eastern Orthodox Church" survives until the present day as the "Greek Orthodox Church". When in 1929 the Greek-speaking (ex-Byzantine) subject of the Ottoman Empire acquired their independence, their newly created state was renamed "Kingdom of Greece". Hence the Eastern Orthodox Church changed its name to "Greek Orthodox Church". This is the true historical background of this faith, and whether or not you want to believe it is something irrelevant. Miskin 18:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are whole bodies of the Orthodox Church that have never been under Constantinople and aren't Greek in any sense of the term. Additionally, there are whole bodies of Orthodox who used to be under Constantinople but aren't any longer, and they certainly would not identify themselves as Greek. Do you mean to suggest that all Orthodox Christians are Greek and/or those that would reject the identifier "Greek" for their church are in fact not Orthodox?
In any event, I don't think even Constantinople makes official reference in our day to the "Greek Orthodox Church." They reference the Catholic Church (referring to Orthodoxy), and they certainly refer to "Greek Orthodox" culture and so forth, but I don't read the Ecumenical Patriarch or any of his spokesmen using the term to refer to the whole Orthodox Church. I don't see it from Alexandria, Antioch or Jerusalem, either.
The historical and current reality is that "Greek Orthodox Church" has never been anything but a shorthand, and it's not used in Orthodox sources to refer to the whole Orthodox Church. Further, the Ecumenical Patriarchate (which is only "first among equals," not "head") does not exercise jurisdiction, either in theory or in reality, outside its own holdings. The EP is not the Orthodox equivalent of the Roman Catholic pope. Forgive me, brother, but you're incorrect in this matter. I'd urge you to research this assertion further. ——Preost talk contribs 20:26, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Large gaps in the text

There are large gaps in the text, and i havne't been able to edit a few grammar mistakes, because the links marked edit direct me to edit other parts of the text than what i want. I'm also very worried that the tone is not objective throughout the text. It is, honestly, psychophantic. Whereas the (Roman) Catholic Pages are marked as controversial, these breeze by with comments that start with "unlike the roman catholic church" and go on to criticize the Catholic Church, which is fine by me but not objective enough. I don't know anything about Eastern Orthodoxy, I'm not the one to edit this stuff, but the tone needs to be toned down!

You are not the first one to point this out. It was discussed in a part of this page that is now archived. The article is being worked on to correct this issue, if I'm not mistaken but the problems IMO run fairly deep and will take a while to fix.
I'm not sure why you're having trouble with the "Edit" links. They work just fine for me. Are you sure you're clicking on the right ones? Csernica 22:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

NPOV?

Am I the only one who sences POV probles with the first part of the "The Eastern Orthodox approach" section? user:notthe9 67.22.150.205 04:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Don't get me started. Csernica 05:54, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
No kidding. Feel free to get started on it. --Xiaopo ℑ 08:51, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
I lost patience with it a long time ago. It had become functionally impossible to add NPOV information to this article with the expectation that it would stay that way for any length of time. Csernica


Reverted edit by Preost

The article had been copied and pasted into the middle of itself and was a real mess. I have reverted to previous edit by Preost. --Etimbo | Talk 16:27, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the fixing of the problem edit. I didn't cut-and-paste, though—the database seemed to have a nasty bit of lag right at the wrong moment. --—Preost talk contribs 18:43, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Salvation and the Afterlife

The following lines were added at the end of this section and are notably not Orthodox in their content and for this reason have been changed:

The same fire that purifies the saints will be a torment for the damned. It is the state of the soul that determines how it will experience the presence of God.::

First of all, the fire that purifies the saints is far too close to a reference to purgatory to be comfortable. Orthodox Christians do not believe in purgatory.

Second, we have established that Gods mercy alone is what determines the souls ultimate experience, not the other way around.

Phiddipus 18:56, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is definitely a disputable point. There are explicit patristic references to the divine presence of God purifying the saints in the afterlife, and the idea of the state of the soul determining how it will experience God's energies is well-established in Orthodoxy. The essential objection to purgatory is that it involves a created fire, and is needed to obtain some sort of satisfaction for sins already forgiven, which is unlike the Orthodox conception of the presence of God purging any impurity from the soul. I would recommend re-adding the text with some additional explanation as to how it differs from Catholic conceptions of the afterlife. YBeayf 23:52, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the lines should be re-added with some clarification. I believe Fr. Thomas Hopko for instance has described the love of God as a fire that torments those who reject God's love. He is a former dean of St. Vladimir's Seminary and noted author and speaker. Isaiah 6 also gives us the image of a burning coal being used to purify Isaiah's tongue, and various church fathers have talked about a "river of fire" proceeding from God's throne. But yes, all this should certainly be distinguished from Purgatory. Wesley 16:25, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What we understand, in as far as we can understand it, the river of fire is the Love of God. While it is true that a number of church fathers, indeed saints, have referred to some sort of a purification process that occurs after death, the reality of this process is absolutely rejected by Orthodox. St Augustine, Saint though he be, misunderstood this point. Saints are not flawless and it is occasionally true that a particular saints writings are regarded as heretical even if the writer himself is a saint. When studying Patristics it is the art of finding the golden thread of Truth that runs throughout and taking everything else with a grain of salt. In any case my guess is that the original addition to the text above was intended to wax poetic and not make a point of it. Never-the-less I thought the point confusing and for this reason removed it. Perhaps a simple reworking of the phrase is in order, but as it was written, anyone familiar with the concept of purgatory will identify with it. Phiddipus 18:57, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Edit made by Fr Gregory Hallam 9th June 2005

.... concerning "Christocentricity", the Holy Spirit and the Old Testament.

Orthodox Christianity is thoroughly Trinitarian in all its aspects but its ecclesiology may be said to be Christocentric in the sense of the unedited first sentence. I added the comment about the Holy Spirit as the Orthodox have no magisterium above the faithful.

My main objection concerned the relative de-emphasising of the Old Testament which I do not recognise at all in Orthodoxy. Indeed the Old Testament righteous are considered to be saints in their own right and the Church's existence predates Pentecost.

I am a priest of the Orthodox Church (Patriarchate of Antioch), UK.

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 15:08 (UTC)

"Eastern Orthodox Approach" - a little off?

Nothing in this is drastically incorrect, but the whole passage comes across (to me) as saying the Orthodox Church is relativistic, with regards to doctrine and morals and in general. For example, that the Orthodox do not require the Old Testament to be taken literally: If I'm not mistaken, this is a misleading statement based on some Church fathers' speculations that the "days" of Creation were perhaps not 24-hour days as we know them, but instead eras. This is not a case of literal vs. allegorical, however; I believe the Hebrew word used in Genesis for "day" can mean either day or period, both literal renditions. Orthodox are to take the Old Testament literally where it is meant to be read literally, and allegorically when the author intended allegory.

Also, "The Orthodox Church does not seek any conflict with science" is vague, and perhaps misleading as well. While of course Orthodoxy does not seek conflict, it also does not-should not-accept something just because scientists say it is true. The revelation of God (the creator of all truth and all things studied through science) generally takes precedence over second-hand scientific interpretations of often imperfect evidence. I understand that much of the tone in this passage is meant to contrast the East with the West to some extent. However, this should not be done to the point of twisting the facts. Tix 8 July 2005 19:59 (UTC)

That is not exactly what is being said here. First of all, it is always a mistake to refer to the entire Old Testament as if it were a single book the actual text in question reads:
While many parts of the Old Testament are considered edifying (teaching moral lessons about hospitality and the result of sin) it is not a requirement that everything be taken literally.
This is in opposition to Christian denominations who hold the bible to be the center of all their teaching and insist on absolute literal interpretation. The Orthodox Church does not require such a literal acceptance of the texts especially the earliest ones. This does not mean that Miracles do not occur, but if one were to do a survey of the various miraculous events in the bible one would find that from Moses onward, they seem much more plausible. God merely uses the laws of physics to his advantage, sometimes in a spectacular way (the parting of the red Sea, Elias calling down fire from heaven, etc.) But one has only to consider the book of Genesis and one is faced with some rather implausible stories (Creation, Noah and the Ark). If one were to accept as literal the creation “Poem” then one must believe:
A. that the earth and water existed before anything else;
B. that grass existed before the Sun, Moon, and Stars which themselves weren’t created till the 4th day.
C. that birds and fish existed before land animals, etc.
If that were the case then science would support it. If one were to accept as literal the Noah story one would have to Account for Billions of cubic kilometers of water that simply do not exist on earth (To cover even the highest mountain – Everest – 23,000 feet), How plant life survived submergence under 1000’s of feet of water and tons of pressure for nearly a year, and how Noah could have saved the millions of species of animals (Do the math, he could have only fit a few hundred species on that ship – The dimensions are given) and the ones he did save, where did he keep the food?
What this amounts to is simple, the Orthodox, as is stated, are NOT bibliocentric, and it is not important that we take everything literally. text of scripture is filled with Moral storytelling and Poetry. This does not in any way diminish its Truth.Phiddipus 8 July 2005 22:45 (UTC)
To be fair (but off topic), Protestants like me don't force an "absolute literal interpretation" on the Bible. It's not really possible to do so. There's only, more or less literal - but even this doesn't quite get to it, does it.
As some of us say, a Christian reads and understands the Bible according to "the analogy of faith". For some, whose sense of the faith is no deeper than a few hundred years at the most, and encompassing the experience of no more than a few Western European peoples, the Bible tends to be read in light of a very narrow example. But for others (like the Orthodox, if I may say so) there is a long and richly diverse Tradition.
Wouldn't it be wrong to say that those Orthodox who believe in a young earth, and creation in 6 24hour days, are not Orthodox? (Fr Seraphim Rose ?) Aren't some more aware of the breadth, and immersed into the depth, of the Church's mind than others are? (Florovsky maybe, compared to ... I hesitate to say.) Aren't others so broad that it's hard to find their edges? (Alexander Men ?) Which is Orthodoxy? None? All? In other words, different belief isn't the same as different unbelief, as someone told me once: Belief is all the same in different ways. Unbelief is not belief. Mkmcconn (Talk) 8 July 2005 23:22 (UTC)

My use of protestant was incorrect and by far too general. Of course I was referring to those groups of Christians which do rely on scripture alone and insist on its literal interpretation. My apologies. As to the last paragraph you wrote: While it would not be proper to say that an Orthodox Christian who believes in a young earth and a literal 6 day creation is not Orthodox, it would be proper to say that his belief (naïve or not) is completely unimportant to his salvation.

We, you and I, and indeed everyone here is guilty of wasting time. I, in particular, am addicted to arguing over minutia and hoping to sound like I know something, but the fact is none of this is important. I happen to have a little knowledge both in theology and in the sciences and find that in order to function, these fields must reconcile. I cannot dispute the wisdom of a man such as Fr. Seraphim in such matters as Faith and I therefore attribute his possible belief in a literal Genesis as perhaps due to a lack of knowledge in scientific fields, this does not lesson his brilliant incite into the field he was an expert in. On the other hand, Fr Florovsky was a scientist and this is evident in the brilliant streams of logic in his writings. But in the end, all this is academia and unimportant to our salvation. And so my original point remains, the bible is not central to Orthodoxy, Christ is.Phiddipus 05:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Allow me to add one thing more to clarify my point. The only text that an Orthodox Christian is bound to agree with and which defines him and to which no variation is allowed is the Symbol of Faith (Nicene Creed). Anyone who does not agree to the text of the Symbol of Faith cannot rightly define himself or herself as Eastern Orthodox. Phiddipus 15:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I didn't mean to pretend to know something; but thank you for clarifying. It is relevant to the article. Mkmcconn (Talk) 22:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Added Moldovan Metropolitan Church and Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia

This two churches are both officialy recognized in Moldova. Moldovan Metropolitan Church is under the Patriarchiate of Moscow. Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia is under the Patriarchiate of Romania. Accroding to a 2000 survey (http://www.azi.md/news?ID=8910), 73% of Moldovans declared their affiliation to a church. Of those 73% (3,200,000 people), 60% declared they belong to the Moldovan Metropolitan Church (1,900,000 people), and 23% declared they belong to the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia (750,000 people). The survey was conducted in 2000, only on the right bank of Dniester. --Danutz

Introduction

Let's be clear: it's not for us to say that the Orthodox Church does follow Christian tradition more closely than other churches. We can say that it claims to, and then we need to note that this claim is disputed by other Churches. The articles on Protestantism and Roman Catholicism work the same way. It's disappointing to see the lack of objectivity present in this article compared to the coverage of other denominations. In terms of factual accuracy, I genuinely view the earlier view of the introduction as more accurate. In particular, the "largest body of Christians" claim would need a source to remain. With that in mind, I will put the intro back to the earlier version. Slac speak up! 23:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Obviously clarity is not what is desired here. The Orthodox Church DOES follow early Christian tradition more closely than other denomination. First of all, those practices and traditions are described in numerous texts dating all the way back to the 1st centuries. The study of these texts is called Patristics. That the Orthodox continue these traditions is obvious since the traditions described are the same that are still practiced. Second, Protestants do not even figure in the mix since they didn’t show up until Martin Luther in the 16th Century. Their POV cannot even be considered when dealing with the early church. Third, Roman Catholics make a point of changing with the times; we wouldn’t have Vatican 1 and 2 if this were not true. Fourth, if one if to consider that up until 1917 Empyreal Russia was Orthodox and that the Russian Empire covered a land mass equal to 1/5 the worlds landmass, That the Byzantine Empire encompassed most of the “Civilized World”, and that Rome represented a small fraction of Europe, then it is justifiable to claim the Orthodox Church was larger. When one makes a “Claim” and history backs it up, then it is not a POV, it is the truth.Phiddipus 14:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Frankly, it is sorely lacking in NPOV to say that "history backs up" the claim made by the Orthodox Church. It is not permissable for this article to take an attitude towards Orthodoxy that is other than dispassionate. Let me be unambiguous: any edit of any kind that seeks to hide or diminish the fact that other ecclesial bodies dispute the Orthodox Church's position to be the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church will be reverted. I will file an RFC if this behaviour is continued because it is simply inexcusable for the article to argue in favour of Orthodoxy's position and dismiss all other positions as erroneous.
Refutation of a few individual points:
  • The existence of patristics as a study does nothing to prove or disprove the claim of any given body to the title of the Original Church, any more than the existence of linguistics as a science is able to verify (eg.) the claim that French is a language of superior expressive power. Even if patristic studies could be said to validate the EOC's claim to be a follower of the original Christian tradition, this would have to put in the article in the form of a specific, reputable, academic citation, which for extra thoroughness should also include any scholarly refutations of the analysis.
  • Your attitude is that the article on the RCC, as it currently stands, should mention that the Orthodox Church contests the mantle of being the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, while the article on the Orthodox Church should make no similar mention of the RCC. That is prima facie an indefensible violation of NPOV.
  • Regardless of whether Vatican II changed the RCC, and regardless of whether it is in fact, the Roman Catholic Church still claims to be the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. There is nothing that counters the need for presentation of this material fact.
  • I don't see any argument that "amount of territory covered" is a valid criterion for a religion's "size". As soon as the argument starts getting stuck in what constitutes the "Civilised World", and whether in fact "Rome represents a small fraction of Europe", it's a good indication to me that it has become ridiculous.

Apologies for the strong words, but I simply think that this is plainly and simply a biaised reading of facts. As a Catholic, I might make edits to the Roman Catholic Church article that could be seen as supporting its claim to be the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, but these would be in violation of NPOV. Similarly, approaching the article from your perspective, and making universally favourable edits to the content of the article is a good indication that you are in violation of NPOV. Slac speak up! 00:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

As a Catholic, are you willing to be NPOV enough to alter the Roman Catholic Church intro to mirror that of this article? You are insisting on defining Eastern Orthodoxy in terms of its relations with Roman Catholicism. Not so much the RCC in terms of its relations with the EO. There is a much less thorough discussion in the RC intro about the Schism, as if whoever last touched that section was more willing to allow that church to be defined on its own terms. Where in the RC intro, for example, do we see the bald fact that the RC claims are rejected by other Christian groups as we do here abou EO claims? (Incidentally, EO claims are not rejected by all other Christian groups as is currently implied. The Anglicans generally accept them, if no one else.)
A fair question, and yes my intent is that the two articles should present the claims similarly, if not completely identically. There is a potential inconsistency about the contestedness being mentioned in the opening para - I'd be quite happy to have that inserted in the RC article.
If an implication of the intro is that *all* other Christian groups reject the claim, then of course that should be removed as inaccurate. To be honest, I can't be certain whether that particular phrasing implies that or not (since the exact wording is "other" rather than "all other") - but that in itself is probably grounds for an appropriate reformulation. Slac speak up! 03:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes, Phidippus ought to allow more NPOV phrasing here, but you are being disingenuous if you're seriously trying to get us to believe that the RC article is written as you're advocating this article should be. It simply isn't. I don't think you're being entirely unbiased here yourself.
And incidentally, if I see "it should be noted" in one more Wikipedia article, I think I'll puke. It has to be the single most overused phrase in this encyclopedia. I challenge you to show me another encyclopedia that uses it so much. It's inelegant and argumentative. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
As far as "it should be noted" goes, well it's difficult to know what to say. I can't really say for certain whether or not it appears more frequently in Wikipedia than in other encyclopedias, and what difference that makes. Every encyclopedia has its own quirks of phraseology and style. If there is a better formulation of the offending sentence, then by all means it should be reworded.
To elaborate a bit further on my reasoning here, I should say that the reason the RCC should be mentioned is because the aspect of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is central to any valid definition of the EOC. Having brought it up, we should give a (very brief) indication that the exact status and composition of said One Church is complex and disputed. Slac speak up! 03:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
I can't disagree with your response as far as it goes, except that there was some discussion here earlier about how the EOC should not be described in terms of its relations with the RCC, at least not from the "get-go". This was a problem in earlier versions of the article. I have no problem with the RCC being treated similarly in its own article of course. However, I really think that articles about any such group should begin by defining it on its own terms and leave descriptions of controversies over these definitions for some prominent place later on. (If a group tends to define itself in terms of some controversy or contrast with another group, that would be a different matter.)
Re "it should be noted": I'm more accustomed to seeing it in essays rather than encyclopedia articles. It's a sign of a writer trying to make a point against a possible counterargument, not of a presentation of NPOV information. I suspect it originates with writers accustomed to making arguments on message boards, but it's unsuitable in an encyclopedic context. This isn't the only unpleasant stylistic quirk to be found here. Wikipedia writers tend to overuse the semicolon too, for instance. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Stylistically, I completely agree. "It should be noted that water is wet" is something that is perfectly appropriate on a Talk page. If the editors generally agree "it" should be noted, than the article should note the fact and move on with a simple "Water is wet." The word "should" implies an opinion, and passive voice opinions are bad form in a wikipedia article. Semicolons and generally overlong sentences are also a consistent problem.
As far as describing the EOC in terms of the RCC, shall we also describe the EOC in terms of the Coptic Orthodox Church or the Assyrian Church of the East? Wouldn't it be POV to mention the RCC in the opening without also mentioning all the other schisms and resulting groups? Wesley 17:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Internal differences in Eastern Orthodoxy

It is not at all correct that Orthodox Christians are normally free to cut themselves off from bishops who, in their private opinions, are teaching incorrectly. This is nothing more than veiled Protestantism. Those who claim this is the correct mindset love to cite certain historical examples. Even a cursory examination of the history of the Orthodox Church reveals that these instances are extraordinarily rare. I can think of exactly three examples over the past 2,000 years where this kind of action was justified, and there are no such modern issues. It does not deserve a mention as if it were normative ecclesiology. My recently eradicated change to this section reflected the actual Orthodox teaching on the subject.

I am aware that some do feel that there are modern issues that can justify this kind of action, as the article now reflects and as it reflected prior to my edit. I think the repeated use of the word "jurisdiction" is revealing here. It's something that only takes on a meaning seperate from a geographically local church in modern America, and was not commonly used until the modern uncanonical American situation arose. It requires a modern American Protestant mindset for an Orthodox Christian to constantly sit in judgement of his bishops. I suggest a re-reading of Sts. Ignatios of Antioch and Irenaeus of Lyons.

But this kind of thing is why I generally don't contribute to this article. I hate to put it so strongly, but it's so slanted in favor of this strange ecclesiology, and keeps getting dragged back to it no matter what else is done, that it's practically useless. I'd be embarrassed to send anyone to it for unbiased information on the Orthodox Church. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:36, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Ditto on all of this. The Internet unfortunately seems to magnify what, in reality, are isolated and relatively rare phenomena. I'm very much in favor of making primary the traditional ecclesiology that Csernica represented in his edits. What St. Maximos did was certainly correct and good at the time, but his example is by no means the norm.
This magnification of the phenomenon of "perpetual dissent" as though it were normal is not warranted by the actual reality, history and tradition of the Orthodox Church. It would be rather like writing a detailed article on the current US Congress by making major portions of it on the Libertarian Party. ——Preost talk contribs 21:47, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
My dear Csernica,
We all value your contributions, but you may not understand the reasons for our use of certain words. And although I discourse in English, I have never been protestant nor have I even been interested in their points of view. At the moment I don’t have much time to order this response in a way I would like it, so if it seems I jump around a bit, forgive me. I like the term “jurisdiction” only because I seek to avoid the idea that there are more than one Orthodox Church. To use terminology like Greek Church, American Church, Russian Church implies that they are separate, which in fact we are not…we are Katholikos, Universal.
St John Chrysostomos calls us, the common man, to be learned in the teachings and traditions of the church; ignorance is no excuse. Bishops do not guide our church, The Holy Spirit does. It is hoped that if the majority of bishops in a synod decide on some theological point that the Holy Spirit will have inspired it, however, if the church as a whole does not accept such a point then it is not considered Truth. There have been few points in history when some point has not been on the table and hotly debated by the hierarchs of the church; this is in fact how truth is revealed to us; and it is rarely brought to light in a single generation.
Finally, what you said in your re-write did not make sense (I apologize if this sounds harsh). To “Rightly Divide the Word of Truth” has nothing to do with who you are in communion with but rather who teaches the Word of Truth Correctly. Simply being a Bishop does not guarantee that his teaching is Orthodox, but teaching and upholding the traditions of the church DOES guarantee that the Bishop is legitimate. And who can recognize the truth unless we study, ignorance is no excuse. You say this is on the fringes of even being worth mentioning, but it is in reality, one of the most essential components of the Church; without it, we would be papists. Phiddipus 22:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
The traditional name for the so-called "jurisdictions" is "Local Churches". Strictly speaking this is the diocese or eparchy, but it has come to apply to the patriarchates and autocephalous churches. The Great Ectennia prayed at the beginning of every service mentions the "holy Churches of God", in the plural. An article on the Orthodox Church ought to, in my opinion, inform the reader of Orthodox terminology as well as other basic information.
Bishops are very much called to guide the Church. It is for this reason they are called "archpastors". Yes, the Holy Spirit is the guiding force, but the bishops are the main (although admittedly by no means the only) tool he uses to accomplish this by virtue of the Apostolic grace given them at their ordinations.
I don't know your personal history and I don't really consider it relevant. But if you evince a Protestant mindset no matter what your background, I can't help that. You offer no standard for judging truth except by the private opinion of the individual. This is Protestantism through and through, where private interpretation of Scripture is simply what is done.
Do you think that the interrelations among bishops signifies nothing? Why do you suppose such a great occasion is made of reading the Diptychs in a primatial Liturgy? No matter how correct his faith, a bishop is simply not an Orthodox Catholic bishop unless he is in communion with other Orthodox Catholic bishops. If he is a heretic he will be cast out of that company. Yes, there have been rare occasions in history where this did not happen and other steps had to be taken. Even now there may be bishops who have publicly taught erroneous opinions who have yet to be corrected by their Synods. But to make what ought to be the last resort in preserving the Faith into the normative method is to work contrary to the good order in the Church ordered by the Apostle. The resulting disorder is a scandal. It is good to be educated in the faith: in this you are quite correct. One should not therefore be ignorant of these basic facts about the bishops and their place in the Divine Economy.
References for this are not hard to find, but what refrences would you accept if the Fathers I mentioned aren't good enough for you? They have much to say about the honor and obedience due the bishop, and not a single thing about breaking away from him because you have judged him a heretic by your own private measure. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
You astonish me. The only bishops that we must obey and honor are those hierarchs who teach the truth and preserve the traditions of the church. My own bishop has many times told me that if he were to adopt a position different from the traditional and canonical Orthodox position that I should flee from him and find another more worthy bishop. Let me be clear, I am not a radical. I do not run around judging bishops, but I do know when a bishop has overstepped his authority (I am not talking about Economia). I can also stand in an Orthodox Church and tell whether the priest has been properly trained (I am not talking about differences in Typica, but priests who alter, add to, delete, truncate, or make up part of the Divine Liturgy) – and this is direct evidence that his bishop is not doing his job. Even a local synod does not have the authority to alter such things, certainly not on a permanent basis. Unfortunately, some do; and they allow their priests to throw tradition to the wind, and make up what they don’t know. And their congregations get use to the changes; and after a while think they are the correct things to do (Because they blindly obey and never question (like papists)), and in one generation, 2000 years of church approved practices are lost. And yet those same “Changers” will proudly claim to be the preserves of tradition. All this is their bishops’ fault, their synods fault. And just because an Orthodox synod says its OK, doesn’t mean its OK. It means that someone has overstepped their authority and made permanent changes and compromised the church. Perhaps you don’t think this could happen. Perhaps your loyalty to the church (which you should have) makes it a terrifying proposition to oppose what you see going on TODAY. It’s so easy to just follow. But what you should be concerned with is what you may be loosing, what may be slipping away – the very church you love. Phiddipus 14:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
You wish to teach your teachers, and I astonish you? By whose judgement are we to determine who is teaching the truth and who is not? That is the crucial question here, and one which you are not answering.
What issues are you so afraid of? What changes are happening that are threatening the Faith? You're not answering those questions either. None of the changes you mention here (alarming as they might sometimes seem) are so important as to justify breaking away from the bishop under whose care God has placed you. The Liturgy changes: this is demonstrably true. Do you really and honestly think it's been unchanged for 2000 years? I tell you that you would hardly recognize the Liturgy from even 600 years ago. There are also ethnic and local variations, so what you see may not be what you're used to. There are poorly trained priests, but there has always been the occasional (and sometimes not so occasional) poorly trained priest. And yes, a local Synod does indeed have the right to regulate liturgy and make necessary changes. If it did not, we could not even adopt new entries in the menaion for newly glorified saints!
You seem to want a church set in amber, changeless and fossilized. The church has never been like that and never will be. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
"I tell you that you would hardly recognize the Liturgy from even 600 years ago." Why not? Where can I read about changes in the liturgy from then? 24.7.119.2 23:57, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
I was answering Phiddipus specifically, that with all the cumulative changes since St. Gregory Palamas' day he probably would not regard the liturgy of that time as correct by the standards he now uses. (That is, it was not a generalized "you" there, but a personal one.) Consider his statement below, that the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is essentially unchanged since the 4th century. When we discuss any of the Liturgies historically, we're really discussing the Anaphora, not the entire Liturgy in all its parts, and it's indeed true that the anaphora has been relatively stable. That is, the "Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom" is mainly his anaphora. The other parts of the service predate him, and they can and do change. (I exclude for the purposes of this discussion the Liturgy of St. James, which is not strictly speaking a Byzantine Liturgy anyway.)
At this point I don't have a handy reference on the Liturgy as celebrated by St. Gregory -- I could swear I had one at one time, but all my books are in disarray. A contemporary, St. Nicholas' Cabasilas' famous commentary is on the Liturgy as celebrated in Constantinople, where it had essentially reached the modern form, more or less, but even as nearby as Thessaloniki where St. Gregory was bishop the rite was significantly different, IIRC, and I admit I may not. Rather different too is the Liturgy as celebrated by the Old Believers -- indeed, I'm afraid they'd find you and me (as well as Phiddipus) very deficient in our behavior were we to attend the Liturgy at one of their churches. (See here, for example.) Their rite fell into general disuse in the mainstream Russian church 300 years ago when the service books were reformed to bring them into conformity with Greek usage of the time. (Which has since diverged again!)
If we were to go even further back to the time of St. Germanus' commentary on the Liturgy, the 7th century, we find it very different indeed. There's no service associated with the Prothesis, which takes place in an adjoining building. The antiphons are sung stationally, at various locations in the city as the people process to the church. The bishop doesn't enter the church until the point at which we now observe the Little Entrance -- this is echoed in the present Hierarchical Liturgy where the bishop remains outside the altar until that point. All readings are done from the high ambo in the center of the church. The Great Entrance occupied the Cherubicon without making any interruptions in it at all. There's no antimension, just the eiliton. Many of the litanies and other prayers we now know are either different or missing.
Sometimes these changes happened gradually, other times not. The Nikonian reforms to the Russian service books was very abrupt. There was considerable controversy over the substitution of "All creation rejoices" for "It is truly meet" in the Liturgy of St. Basil that was only settled by a vision from the Theotokos herself. "Only begotten Son" was inserted into the Liturgy by Imperial decree. There are other examples of sudden changes, not all of them wrenching.
As to where you find out about all this, St. Germanus' commentary in the edition from SVS press has a nice summary of the liturgy of that time in the introductory material. There are several other books on the development of the Liturgy; those by Robert F. Taft are probably the most reliable. When he says below that the Liturgies do not (and cannot) change he's simply wrong. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Concerning this new entry, it is utter nonsense. Within the fold of the Orthodox Church, the Divine Liturgy, composed by Saint John Chrysostomos has remained virtually changeless since the 4th century AD. Slight variations in style have always been part of its regional practice as is described by Typica. There are numerous extent texts for comparison. While it is true that the church slowly, slowly evolves and grows, services such as the Divine Liturgy which are served by millions of people daily do not change. Indeed, there is no vehicle for them to change. Phiddipus 01:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

My statements above are a reaction to the phrase: "you would hardly recognize the Liturgy from even 600 years ago" which is, of course, not true. Csernica has very carefully pointed out that growth and evolution does occur, and I will admit, sometimes abruptly (though that abruptness is localized and often takes many years to filter out to effect the entire church). Understanding the term "Typica" and how it relates to the services is very important. Differences such as the ones described above may still be found in certain areas especially localized in some of the more ancient monasteries.
Now, on a more interesting note: I followed that link Csernica provided concerning the practices of the Old Believers. I consider myself to be aligned with the Moderate Greek Old Calendarists who are described at the end of the main article. Many of the “Old Believer” practices are similar if not identical to what we do with a few exceptions. We do not Prostrate ourselves on Saturdays or Sundays or during The period following Lent. We do not use podruchnik simply because the Floor, walls, and every part of the church is Holy and sacred; but to add to that we do not wear shoes in church (A practice the Muslims stole from us). We also stand very still but with our hands at our sides, folding the arms is considered rude. We dress modestly; women do not wear jewelry or makeup, and the also keep their heads covered. Women stand of the Left, men of the right. Our children are expected to stand and pay attention even through very long services. We do not commune unless we have fasted from Wednesday on and added all the appropriate prayers to our nightly prayers. After communing, anything that comes out of our mouth during a meal (Olive pit, grape seeds, etc) must be burned as well as the napkin for fear that any residue from communing might remain. All of these practices spring from a deep concept of sacred space and of a realistic reaction to it. And it is the changes to these (Traditions) or worse, the loosing of these “Ways of thinking” that are the very essence of why we are in resistance. It is not that we resist change, but that we resist changes in attitude that make people less aware of the seriousness of what the church teaches. I have seen people receive the holy bread (Andideron) at the end of services, pop it in their mouth, then brush the crumbs onto the floor and walk on it. This demonstrates a complete lack of awareness on their part of the Reality of what they have just done. One questions, at such points, whether such a person believes anything at all. Sorry, I am getting a little preachy. I deeply respect what the “Old Believers” do because of their awareness that the church is not simply a social club and I would find nothing wrong with adopting many of their practices, those we do not already practice. To add to this, I have seen the devotion of the Ethiopian people surpass even our own in church. They have special clothes, all white, only worn in church. Their sense of sacred space is such that they kiss the floor itself which is Holy ground. We, as Americans, need to grasp the reality of the Orthodox Church. We need to develop a sense of Sacred Space in order to experience the Truth. Oops, there I go again preaching. Phiddipus 15:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


We determine who is teaching the truth by comparing what they say to those saints who came before them. We determine if they are upholding the traditions of the church and teaching them, or compromising and ignoring them for the sake of convenience. It is one thing for a bishop to exercise Ekonomia and allow a newly converted Orthodox Christian to eat cheese and eggs during his first fast, It is another to make it a general rule for everyone. It is one thing to allow one priest to dress in layman’s clothing because he also holds a secular job, and another to allow all his priests to dress like Roman Catholics with clean-shaven faces. It is one thing for a bishop to allow a service to be reduced (for the sake of an emergency) and another to allow the services to be shortened because the people just don’t want to be in church that long. And I haven’t even mentioned the half of it. When we allow such things as: Changing the calendar, sitting in church, moving feasts cause people don’t want to come to church on a week night, collecting money during services, not doing services (an Antiochian church I attended never did vespers or matins), Adding protestant hymns to the divine liturgy, baptizing by sprinkling; when we approach such things as trivial we are denying the TRUTH of them. These mysteries are not make-believe, they are ontological reality. Changes such as these are made, not for the glory of the church, but for the convenience of the complainers. Now understand, a bishop has the power of ekonomia; on an individual basis he can bend the rules; but what we are talking about are huge general changes that have nothing to do with ekonomia.

The liturgy has changed. It has been expanded and beautified. It has been clarified and been made to reflect more closely the reality of the heavenly liturgy through divine inspiration. You will not find that some Holy Saint ever said, “I can’t stand being in church for 4 hours, lets cut out all those petitions, and skip all those long prayers in the altar.” For 2000 years the church has grown and expanded and become more beautiful, her fruits are the Saints and her flowers are magnificent. This growth is not CHANGE, it is growth and clarification and revelation. But the change I am talking about is sudden, damaging, destruction of parts of the traditions of the church that have developed (not for convenience, but for glorification) but which are being chopped off because people cant be bothered to discipline themselves or because people place their own comfort before their spiritual health. Phiddipus 15:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, this discussion is certainly highlighting some of the internal differences in Eastern Orthodoxy, particularly differences in eccesiology and the responsibility of the laity to judge or obey their bishops. As valuable as the discussion is, we need to work out how to improve the article, rather than try to convince each other that we're more orthodox than the next guy. I think that Phidippus and Csernica both represent some broadly held viewpoints; is there any way to incorporate both... "approaches" or "attitudes"? Wesley 17:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Well said Wesley, Unfortunately Csernica and I approach our views of the church in different ways, both of which are valid in this wikipedia venue. I see the church in a pristine overview from beginning to end and present an idealistic view of what the church is supposed to be, what it may be on a higher level. Csernica sees the church in a realistic way as it presents itself to the world. Both are valid and legitimate ways of looking at the church, but it is difficult to reconcile the two into one presentation here. I think we both get tired of rewriting this article and yet we seem compelled to continue. But then, this is the nature of the theory behind the wikipedia. I think it works for many subjects, but not one as intricate and filled with POV's as Religion. I do think that in any discourse one needs to be exceptionally careful which words one uses so as to reduce misunderstandings from the non involved. Wikipedia is written by those who know, for those who do not know. I do think our entire article needs reorganization into a more logical construct systematically defining the Orthodox POV. I also think we need to avoid all the comparisons to the Roman Catholics except where absolutely necessary.
Phiddipus: Please don't presume to speak where you don't know what you're talking about. You clearly do not understand me. Part of my point is that your idea of how the Church should work is very far from some heavenly ideal.
Wesley, your point is well taken. This is how the argument got started, when Phiddipus here reverted a change I made to represent a totally un-Orthodox ecclesiology. [Edit: Let me be clearer. The argument is not about who is more orthodox, it's about which ecclesiology is more Orthodox. And I absolutely do not agree that Phiddipus' viewpoint is broadly held. I would scarcely argue with him if it were. I assert that it's one held only by a very small number, and those mainly in schismatic groups.] I will [therefore] not agree to any compromise here; he's simply wrong. But there's nothing I can do about it since P obviously has far more time on his hands than I do and will instantly revert everything to his peculiar POV. I shouldn't have given in to the temptation to touch this article in the first place. Improving it has become next to impossible.
[Edit: However, having said that, I think Phiddipus's proposal for reorganizing the article is in principle a very good one and ought to be adopted. But since I'm probably not going to be involved, my opinion counts for very little.

TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Reorganizing the Article

I might suggest the following structure in order to better express What an Orthodox Christian is and what he believes. I would also like to avoid comparisons to other Christians if at all possible.

Introduction

1) What the Orthodox Believe

a) The Trinity
b) Salvation
c) Sin and Redemption
d) Saints, relics, and those who have passed on.
e) The Last Things

2) How the Orthodox Act

a) Church Buildings
b) Icons
c) Services
i) Chanting
ii) Incense
d) Monasteries
e) The Priesthood
f) The Mysteries
g) Hospitality

3) Who the Orthodox Are Historically

a) The Early Church
b) The Roman/Byzantine Empire
c) The Seven Ecumenical Councils
d) The Rise of Islam
e) The Great Schism
f) The Holy Russian Empire
g) The Fall of Byzantium
h) The Fall of Russia
i) The Church Today

4) Current Issues

a) The Calendar
b) Ecumenism
c) Reunification with Rome

Phiddipus 14:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


This looks good to me. The article as it now stands is somewhat bloated and unfocused. ——Preost talk contribs 01:09, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Incense

I believe this to be incorrect: "Incense is burned during all services in the Eastern Orthodox Church except during seasons of Lenten abstinence." First, it's not used at all services -- not at the Hours, for example; nor, I believe, at Little Vespers. Second, I just looked through Bp. Kallistos' Triodion, Apb. Dmitri's Sluzhebnik, the Order of Divine Services book from St. John of Kronstadt Press, the Horologion from Holy Trinity Monastery, and the old Abridged Typikon and can find no support for the idea that incense is not offered during Lenten services. Certainly lots of incense is offered at the Presanctified Liturgy in any event, but even when there's no Entrance at Vespers as in Daily Vespers the church is censed at "Lord I have cried". So unless you can come up with a cite, I'm going to be fixing this bit. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Icons and Famous Painters

While many people may agree that the pinnacle of “Russian” iconography may be “the Trinity” (really, “The Hospitality of Abraham”) by Andrei Rublev, I find it a bit disturbing (and he probably does too) that he acquired such fame, considering that he was a monk. I wonder on what they base his recognition as a saint. Phiddipus 15:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Most widely venerated saints are also famous, monastic or otherwise. Why should St. Andrei the Iconographer be any less famous than any well-known preacher? for what are icons but sermons in paint or tile? But perhaps this will answer your question. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

The Bible

How can it be said that the OT isn't used extensively in the services? At Vespers there are often three Old Testament reading called for, mostly from the Wisdom literature, and other books of the OT are read during Great Lent. The comparison to Protestantism here is misleading, since there is always an OT reading during the RC mass as well.

It is also not true that the Apocalypse is not used at all; it's read in its entirely in monasteries during Great Lent. (It's not part of the regular parish lectionary because it was a relatively late that its canonicity was universally agreed upon and by that time the lectionary was already set.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe the Key word here is Extensively. Being a Psaltist myself I am aware of the few times I use the OT. On the other hand, most Protestants use the OT continually and somewhat (from an Orthodox point of View) inappropriately. As the Orthodox understand it, the OT was a Testament for the Jews and was part of that covenant between God and the Jews to which we Christians do not participate. We have a new covenant with Christ. Therefore the OT is simply not as important as the NT which has very much more bearing on our lives. While it is true the RC do have a few OT readings, most would agree with my assessment as compared to Protestants. As to the Apocalypse, it is only read in monasteries during meals, not services. There are simply no readings from it in any service I ever have seen or heard of, in or out of a monastery. Phiddipus 21:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm a former Protestant having been raised in the Reformed tradition, and I tell you that use of the OT in Protestant services is no more "extensive" than it is for the Latins. I'm sorry, but what you have said here is simply incorrect. I also wonder if you understand the importance of the OT in Orthodoxy. St. Paul certainly seemed to think it was important. (It's the OT he talks about when he says "Scripture": the NT largely hadn't been written yet.) The reason we know Jesus is Christ is because of how the OT points to him, and not only in those prophecies that clearly do so but even in the figures given in the Law. To this extent it is very much for Christians, and can't be dismissed out of hand like this.

You're right about the Apocalypse here, but it's not clear in the article that you're talking strictly about the services. If that's what you're doing in the entire "Bible" section then I suggest that you not. Private study of the Scriptures is equally important and nowhere discouraged by the Fathers so long as one submits to the will of the Church in interpretation.

By the way, the dieresis is not commonly used in modern English orthography for doubled independent vowels. You find it more in British than American English, but even in British English you more often see the hyphen these days instead. Sometimes there's no indication at all of the syllable break, but rather the reader must determine it from context (as in "naive", formerly "naïve". TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Saints and Canonization

I edited this page to reflect the fact that there is no formal process of canonization in the Orthodox Church. I removed all references to the canonization where glorification was the proper term. I have referenced the sources on these changes. Argos'Dad

There certainly is a formal process. A bishop has to have some method of determining whether he will allow a saint to be celebrated liturgically in his parishes, so most synods will establish formal glorification/canonization committees to investigate a person's life and the nature of existing veneration.
The insistence on the use of glorification over canonization really is a distinction without a difference. Certainly, the process is much less defined and formal than it is in the RCC, but it's still a process, and canonization is the generally used English term for it. ——Preost talk contribs 20:27, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
I guess what really being said here is an attept to clarify a certain distinction between RCC and OC. In the RCC a saint is not a saint until he is cannionized. For the RCC the average person in heaven is not a saint, the saints are something special and therefore the RCC requires canonization. For the OC, anyone in heaven is a saint. There is no requirement for canonization for a person to be a saint. Anytime a body is exumed and the body is incorrupt, any time there is a fragrence of flowers, even something as simple as the bones apearing white and clean can be taken as a sign that the person is a saint and a local following can begin. There are many cases where no investigation is possible since the person who died was completely unknown. The OC does have a kind of process and it does occasionally universally recognise a saint, but the person was a saint before he was recognized, and even if the church never recognizes him, he is still a saint. As to celebrating a saint liturgically there is nothing to hinder even a local priest from beginning to celebrate a local saint...we do, if you recall, have services commemorating our dead family members all the time. So all I am saying is that any kind of a formal service is an EXTRA, but it is not required. I also realize that some jurisdictions follow different procedures, but the logic and beliefs behind the nature of sainthood is still the same. Sometimes we do unnecessary things because our jurisdicition has adopted "slightly western" ideas. An example of this might be blessing Icons or Crosses before using them, This is seen by the traditionalists as a completely redundant concept since the Icon and cross are holy just by being what they are, they need no additional blessing, such ideas almost smack of "Magic" Phiddipus 21:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
What you're saying here about the RC teachings on sainthood is simply not true, as any educated RC could tell you. They have exactly the same teaching as we do. The main differences are that they have a very formal and detailed process they must go through every time, only the Pope of Rome may recognize a saint and not local synods, and until a certain stage in this process is reached the veneration of the saint is suppressed. Even in Orthodoxy we do not celebrate a saint in services composed for him until after the formal glorification. Before then we might venerate his relics, but to honor him we still offer panakhidas/trisagions just as we do for the other departed. And there very much is a formal, official process for glorification in nearly all Churches; it's just that they're not uniform.
Who taught you that the blessing of icons and crosses is due to a Westernizing influence? Of course these things are worthy of respect even before they're blessed! But a blessing is just the setting aside of such things for sacred use, and as such it is perfectly proper to bless them. "Magic"! What an idea! TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
The moment the intention was made to create a cross or paint an Icon the material was set-aside for special purpose. The materiality of the object remains forever mundane; it is the purpose that makes it holy and blessed. The cross is holy, the Icon of Christ is holy, the paint and wood are just a medium of conveyance. There is therefore absolutely no need to "Bless" these items. What you are implying is that they are not "true" or "Complete" until they are blessed, but if that were correct then would it be OK to draw a mustache on the Virgin Mary as long as the Icon wasn't blessed, or stomp on an unblessed cross without incurring spiritual damage to the soul. One of the most offensive faux pas of recent history was the depiction of an Icon of the Virgin Mary on a postage stamp – whether blessed or not simply to treat a sacred object in a way that disrespects it, to lick it, stick it, the throw it into the garbage is completely unacceptable and horrifying behavior. These kind of illogical practices have crept into the church through ignorance and the influence of ideas born outside the confines of the church. They do resemble an attitude toward the church and priesthood that more resembles magic than True logical Orthodoxy. One of the worst offences that caused the Iconoclast argument was in the treating of the substance of Icons as if it were holy, some went as far as scraping a little of the paint into the communion cup – the resemblance to magic in such cases cannot be denied, and according to the church, must be avoided at all costs. Phiddipus 14:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
"There is therefore absolutely no need to 'Bless' these items." The holy men who over the centuries compiled the service books of the Church appear to disagree with you. Or do you go around and rip out the services for the blessings of crosses and icons everywhere you find them? Those services are there for a reason, and I suggest you find out what that might be before you go opining in public. TCC (talk) (contribs) 17:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Your logic is specious. There are many things in the Orthodox Church that are blessed; The Church blesses objects such as flowers, fields, animals, and food; things that are sanctified by the blessing; But I will restate that Crosses and Icons are already sanctified by their purpose. Flowers and food that is unblessed can be thrown in the garbage, food and flowers blessed and used for special purpose must be burned and their ashes buried where no one can step on them. An "unblessed" cross or Icon cannot be disgraced in this manner, one cannot trample on an "unblessed" icon of Christ or throw it in the garbage without spiritual damage, it is already filled with special purpose. I did a little research and found only one Orthodox "Service book" containing a blessing for Icons, unfortunately it is suspect since the same service book contained the "Prayer of St Francis of Assisi", not an Orthodox Saint. To quote a couple of Saints:
Holy Icons are sacred by nature. No where in the tradition of the Orthodox Church, whether by the Holy Father's or Canons is there to be found a requirement to bless icons. It would be redundant. They are holy unto themselves simply because of what they are. The Spirit of the Saints live in them and they are a dwelling place for the persons represented. Only through the Spirit-guided hands of an iconographer can this be so. Iconography is a mystery of the Church, for which reason, also, the iconographer is expected to be a member of the Church, to hold the true Faith, and, while painting, to pray and fast. – "Saint" Photios Kontoglou
During their life, the Saints are full of the Holy Spirit. After their death, the Grace of the Holy Spirit continues to dwell inseparable in their souls, in their bodies, in their sepulchers, in their images and holy Icons, and this is not by essence, but by grace and energy. – St John Damaskinos Phiddipus 17:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Please don't presume to lecture me on facts I am perfectly well acquainted with. I don't know what books you've been looking through, but the prayer for blessing icons is found in the Trebnik, the "Book of Needs" -- which is, indeed the only book in which we would expect to find it. If the book you found contains a prayer of Francis as well, you're looking in the wrong place. I think you need to do a little more than the "little" research here. Of course, unless you're a priest you have no reason to own a Trebnik under ordinary circumstances. If you only have access to Greek books, try the Euchologion. (Great or Little, I couldn't tell you.)
The Fathers and the canons are not good references for specific praxis like this. The only service they regularly comment on is the Liturgy -- albeit not exclusively, so please don't come back to me with references to commentary in the Fathers about marriage, funerals and so forth. I know well they wrote on them. But if we were to summarize that which they did write about concerning Church services, it would be the Liturgy that predominates. A little prayer like that for blessing icons? I'd be surprised if any of them thought it worth a mention.
It may not be absolutely necessary but we do it anyway. That's the Tradition. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Traditions that go back 1000 years are traditions, modern innovations, albeit 100 years or less, are not traditions. I contend that because of Modern Western influence the blessing of Icons and crosses, a Roman Catholic practice, has crept into modern liberal Orthodox prayer books. The Great Euchologion (Bolshoi Potrebnik) printed in 1625 and reprinted by the Edinovertsy in Moscow, 1904 is extremely thorough and yet has no “Blessing” for Icons. You can see its entire contents here: [1]
For things to be blessed it lists services for blessing: grapes, wheat, new construction sites, new houses, the digging of wells, vessels, flour, food and drink, someone poisoned, someone gluttonous, things previously defiled by animals (dogs) or demons, children learning grammar, houses possessed, journeys, military, sea voyages, for those going to war, beer, wine, first fruits, vegetables, salt, the harvest, and journeying bishops.
I find it completely amazing that they could forget Icons and Crosses unless such things need no blessing. Phiddipus 22:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
From the introductory paragraph: "It should be noted, however, that there is a considerable amount of variation in the contents of all the various editions of the Potrebnik prior to Patriarch Nikon's reforms, and Old Believers are quick to admit that there is no one definitive edition which is without its textual problems or is complete in content." IOW, this is not definitive and ought not be taken as comprehensive, contra your "extremely thorough". It proves nothing. But this is an Old Believer text. Let's suppose the prayers in question only dated from the Nikonian reforms. They're still over 300 years old, and they were in the Greek books before that.
Your phrase "modern liberal Orthodox prayer books" is a good example of what's wrong with this entire approach. Even if I were to concede (which I do not) that the blessing of icons and crosses was some kind of innovation, there would still be nothing wrong with it. The Church is changeless in the truth it preaches, but not in matters like the services which change far more often than many like to admit. Resisting all change is an error that can and has led to schism. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Phiddipus, it is a fact that services for the blessing of icons and crosses exists in the service books, both of the Greek and Russian rescensions. Thus, it is evident that this practice is considered acceptable by the Church at large. It is, therefore, up to *you* to provide evidence for your claim that this practice is unacceptable, as you are the one who is making an assertion that contradicts the status quo. YBeayf 01:10, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Actually this argument is interesting for a number of reasons. 1. Do we believe that no error exists within the Orthodox Church? 2. Do we believe that because something is done that it has always been done? 3. Do we believe that there must be documented evidence of the error or can we simply deduce the error logically? 4. Do we seek for truth with our minds or do we rely solely on what others have written. 5. If something is done but there is no reason to do it, or the reason has been lost, do we continue to do it, especially when there is a reason to the contrary? 6. When we see something that makes no sense, or worse, by its practice it denies a fundamental Truth that we Do believe, should we not point it out and correct what may be an error. 7. Is it arrogance or is it duty. 8. Even if we feel in our hearts that it is arrogance, can this overcome our duty?
In this case I have seen a number of illogical practices – Kissing the chalice after communing (One has just received Christ directly within oneself, why kiss the chalice?), Kneeling on Sundays (Strictly forbidden by cannon law), The priest blessing the people with the communion cloth, Adding the words “Come Holy Spirit” to the Liturgy, Weekly communing without preparation (Spiritually damaging), and, as stated above, Blessing things that are already sacred and holy (This denies their inherent holiness, for the very clear reasons stated above). It is our duty never to allow anything we do become a mechanical practice or as St Paul says “An Empty Symbol”. We must recall Why we do what we do at all times and it must be logical within the framework of what we believe – Real Traditions lie fully within this realm, the ones stated above do not. Phiddipus 15:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Interestingly, two of the "illogical" practices you mentioned -- kissing the chalice and kneeling on Sundays -- are both practiced by the Old Believers, and date back to at least before the Nikonian reforms, and possibly much further, so they would seem to have even more claim to being valid practices than blessing icons and crosses.
In any case, you still have not provided any evidence that blessing icons and crosses is incorrect. Where are the saints and fathers speaking against this practice? Where is the bishop who forbids his clergy from perfoming this service? You are the first person I've ever heard say blessing these objects is not right. No offense, but you're just a random schmoe on a discussion page, and given the choice of your lone argumentation and what my bishop permits, I'm going to go with my bishop. YBeayf 19:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


I don't want to disagree just to disagree, but AS Damick's entire approach reflects a "top-down" approach that is not consistent with Orthodox perspective and practice. S/he states that a Bishop must have some process for determining whether to allow the veneration of a saint in his diocese. A Bishop has no more authority over whether a saint is venerated in his diocese than anyone else. There is no prohibition on praying to or venerating any holy person as a saint. Orthodoxy is much more 'democratic' than Roman Catholicism and when the people begin venerating a holy person that person can be recognized as a saint. Obviously, if the Church hierarchy opposes the veneration of a person who is, say, heretical, many people will follow the hierarchy's lead. But this focus on rules and process is not the Orthodox practice or history. FInally, I think there is a significance between "canonization" and "glorification" which reflects the fundamental difference in approach to sainthood between the Eastern and Western churches. Please forgive me in advance if any of these points are inappropriate or offensive; I am relatively new to wikipedia and have waited some months before posting. Argos'Dad
The only thing I'd suggest is to read the discussion more carefully. No one said anything about bishops allowing or forbidding "veneration" of saints. "Celebrated liturgically" is the phrase ASDamick used, "existing veneration" was among the things he said were investigated along the way, and in both of these he's perfectly correct. Whether or not a saint is added to the calendar, on what day, and the what rank his feast should be -- which is to say, what hymnography is required to observe the feast -- are decisions the hierarchy very well must make. There really isn't a focus on the "process" -- only opposition to the claim that there is none, which is incorrect everywhere I know about. I've seen the quote from the EP that they have no process there, but I can only think either that they're nearly alone in this or there was something lost in translation. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:48, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Comparisons with Western Christianity

Please allow me, though an outsider, to make a general observation about this article. I can see why an article on Protestantism, which arose as a "protest" against Catholic practice and belief, should contain comparisons with the Roman Catholic Church. But surely the venerable Eastern Orthodox Church does not need to have recourse to comparisons with Western Christian tradition (either as preserved in the Catholic Church or as revised/reformed in the Protestant communities), in order to define itself, its doctrine and its practice. In other words, should not the article describe the Eastern Orthodox Church by what it is, not by what it is not? The "Roman Catholic Church" article seems to have needed no such comparisons. I hope no one is offended by this observation, which, though occasioned by a misrepresentation (now removed from the article) of one point of Western belief, is meant essentially as an expression of sincere respect and of the wish that nothing in the article should seem to diminish the greatness of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Lima 11:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct about this. There was actually some discussion about that here a few months ago, and it was generally agreed that such comparisons are best left aside. There had been a small-scale program to eliminate them before a wholesale rewrite of the article was undertaken, and since the principal rewriter was among those who thought that comparisons should be eschewed I was very surprised to see them reappear here. I suppose they were added by editors other than himself though.
A digression on the topic of Original Sin: The article was wrong two ways. First, it stated that Orthodoxy has no teaching on Original Sin: that's plainly false. Second, the position often refuted is a from an arguably valid reading of certain passages of St. Augustine's writings, particularly agains the Pelagians. Perhaps he over-corrected somewhat, but in any event, it's clear that the standard description of Rome's teaching on Original Sin as it now stands is a caricature. There are still differences of course, but they're more nuanced. Might it be more accurate to say that we don't have the same teaching on original justice, and that any differences we have on Original Sin follow naturally from that? TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:03, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

The Unfixable Problem - I am not Don Quiote

It is my hope and realization that those of us who spend our little bits of free time here correcting errors realize that our work is useless and fruitless. The concept of the wikipedia may work for some subjects but not one that has “enemies”. Since there is no scholarly review, since there is no need to back anything up with hard data, since anyone can express his opinion, this particular subject, The Eastern Orthodox Church, should be considered by those who read it to be a mixture of truth and falsehood, unreliable as an information source. There have always been those who express their POV about certain aspects of the EOC in radical and innovative terms, and this has become their forum for a continual attack on what the Orthodox Church truly and traditionally believes. I have had numerous discussion here with highly intellectual members of the church who themselves see clearly the problems that occur when the less knowledgeable manage to undo all the work we have done with a simple edit. The current state of this subjects listing is appalling. What we have carefully stated to the wikipedia audience in order to be very clear, in order to be precise in what we say, in order not to invoke a theological error in the mind of the reader has been undone and rewritten by wishy-washy dilatants who have, at best, a new converts impression of things. I believe I have had done with it. It was a foolish venture to try and add to this base of knowledge. This wikipedia should be considered in the minds eye to be nothing more than a chalkboard of nonsense, at least in subjects such as this. Adieu, adieu. Phiddipus 22:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


Queries

Two questions:

Would the Orthodox church accept women priests (apart from Mount Athos?

No. I know that some have raised the issue in more progressive academic theological circles, but no Orthodox church anywhere is seriously considering this. (Mt. Athos is neither here nor there, really. They're a monastic community, not a priestly organization, or even a local church as they're under the Ecumenical Patriarch.)

Mentioned mainly because they exclude females (apart, I think from cats and cows) and so would be excluded from this discussion.

First of all let us clarify that being a priest is not position of "power" or "Prestige" but rather a servant to the community. Married men cannot become priests without their wife’s consent. The main reason that women cannot hold priestly office is simple, The priest, when vested and serving becomes an Icon of Christ, he is clothed with symbols representing the Son of God, the High Priest. Since Christ chose to be male, a male is used. This does not lesson or subordinate women’s position in the church. The greatest of all humans ever to have lives was a woman, the Theotokos. The Orthodox Church has a married priesthood and the wife of a priest holds the title of Presbytera or Priestess and is often as active in the church community as her husband, they function together as they are One in Christ. And so, women do already hold a position of servitude as Presbyteras similar to their husbands.Phiddipus 18:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I was asking out of curiousity: perhaps there should be a wider article "Women and the priesthood" stating the positions of the various religions.

How do the several different Orthodox churches differ? That is: if one went to (for example) a Russian Orthodox service and a Greek Orthodox one, would the differences be merely in the language used and the particular saints venerated, or would there be other differences?

Within the Orthodox Church there is a concept called "Typica". It refers to the minor style differences between different root traditions within the body of the church. All are acceptable. Language really isnt one since its not really an important factor. Nor is the Saint of the day since there are hundreds to choose from. Typicon differenes might take the form of whether the Pascha service is performed "Agripnia" (All through the night as one long service) or whether the Liturgy for pascha is performed Sunday morning as usual. Typica might, as in the case of the patriarchate of Jerusalem, of performing the Liturgy of St. James instead of St. John Chrysostom. There may be services such as exorsisms performed regularly on Wednesdays for one church in a region while none of the others do. Or whether the priest serves daily or only Sunday. But as you might guess, none of these things are really differences as they end up covering the same ground, just in slightly different ways. You see these differences even more pronounced in major monasteries, especially old ones, where the differences have had hundreds of years to develope.Phiddipus 18:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Pretty much just the differences you mention, with maybe some minor details of the vestments and services.

A sentence or two on the latter might be useful for those wishing to know more about the subject (eg "The only difference between the various Orthodox churches are languages and local saints" or "The X Orthodox church is distinguished from others by...").

The article is undergoing some heavier than usual revision at the moment, so I think we can expect this to be added at some point TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Use whatever variant/development of my comment(s) are appropriate (as other non-Orthodoxes will presumably be interested).

As additions have been made variously since the immediately previous sentence was added here, it still stands. Sometimes pointing out what is required (from someone more knowledgeable) is as useful as doing it oneself (g).

Women and the Church, part 2

Are there equivalents of Hildegard von Bingham and Julian of Norwich - ie women who have a significant place in Orthodox theological activity?

I raised the point out of curiosity/seeing a gap.

There might well be room for a general article on "Women as theological figures" (there must be more than the above two, Elizabeth Fry, and the founder of the Shaker movement), Ann Wardley.

208.199.85.30's Marriage edits

While I think this information is of considerable value, I question whether describing the rite in such detail belongs in an article that should really be an overview, as it takes a disproportionate amount of space. I suggest it be moved to a seperate article, with perhaps a "See also" link on the present page. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

PS - That's assuming it renders as apparently intended, which it does not. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Outside perspectives

At the risk of appearing self-serving -- I recently clashed with this editor at Quartodecimanism and the process there is not yet complete -- I fail to understand why this link was not only restored and retained, but given the prominence of its own section. I have no problem with "outside perspectives" as such (a well-balanced Wikipedia article should be one of them) but since when do we tolerate vanity links in articles? The link was added by the webmaster of the site to which it points. The target page adds no real information; rather, it appears to serve no purpose but to allow the writer a forum for his own POV. How can this be justified? TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I submit that this perspective isn't really even "notable." The link doesn't seem to be either very well written or represent the official stance of any major group. I'm removing it. ——Preost talk contribs 20:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The Incarnation

Wow, all I can say is whoever wrote this either has very little grasp of Orthodox Theology, or very little understanding of the words he uses to express himself. He/She states:

”Man will never become a god nor should he seek to become a god. This was the cause of the fall of Satan.”

Theosis is our Goal. St Basil states: We are to strive to become little gods, within God, Little Jesus Christs within Jesus Christ”. In other words we must seek perfection in all things in our lives, We must strive to acquire Godly Virtue. God through participation in mankind makes it possible for man to participate in Divinity. While it is true that we will not become “separate” gods in the pagan sense we will participate in the divine energies of God (which are not separate from God) and still retain our individuality.

Also He/She/ states:

“that Jesus Christ, the Word of God, fully became a man through the complete submission of the Mary the Mother of Jesus while she was still a virgin.”

This phrase alone is so badly constructed that it both implies that The Theotokos, was nothing more than the mother of Jesus (Nestorianism) and that she did not retain her virginity. Pretty much, the rest of what is written shows a very dim and clouded understanding of the process of salvation even while it claims to be at the very core of Orthodox Faith. Phiddipus 21:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree completely; Theosis should be affirmed in the article, though qualified, in that man cannot attain the Essence of God, and he cannot become equal to God. Athanasius' statement is not as misconstrued as the article currently says it is.

Tix 02:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedians category

For those who are interested, there has been created Category:Eastern Orthodox Wikipedians. To include yourself in that category, edit your user page to include: [[Category:Eastern Orthodox Wikipedians]]. ——Preost talk contribs 17:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

The Eastern Orthodox Church and Women

Could someone please add a sentence or two on the subject to Women as theological figures (and any other religious viewpoints etc). Jackiespeel 23:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

The King of Glory

I am from a traditional branch of the Greek Church. I have done a lot of traveling in Greece, the Holy Mountain, and abroad. I do find it is common that the inscription on the crossbar above Christ is not INBI but rather INBD. It was explained to me that this phrase (Jesus Christ the King of Glory) was to counter Pontius Pilates mocking, King of the Jews. This is not to say that there is anything wrong with the title King of the Jews, but when Pilate asks Christ about his kingdom he tells Pilate "My Kingdom is not of this world" and, of course, Christ kingdom does encompass all mankind, not just the Jews. So it seems wholly appropriate to replace INBI or INRI with INBD. Phiddipus 21:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Can you show an image including this? Every Orthodox cross I have seen includes INBI or the appropriate equivalent. —Preost talk contribs 04:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I have a number of photos showing this from the internet, can I email them to you. I can see if I can take a some next time I am in Greece. I also found a Russian cross. I don't read russian but it doesn't look like the Russian equiv of INBI, looks like it might say "The King of Glory". Of Course, I also do see INBI used frequently, but there doesnt seem to be a reason to state the obvious in the article, but the unusual difference. Phiddipus 16:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Some things are not really that obvious. In any event, I would be willing to warrant that most Orthodox crosses, if including any text at the top, include the INBI. I have seen "the King of Glory" sometimes, but never as initials, and usually in addition to the INBI. The article, as it was, stated that "the King of Glory" was being used instead of INBI, which is simply factually not the case. That is, it was setting up an artificial contrast with the Western INRI usage (which, BTW, is to be found on Romanian Orthodox crosses).
As for the pictures, there's no need to email them if they are online. Simply provide links. —Preost talk contribs 16:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Russian crosses when they are labelled in this way almost invariably have "INЦI", the "Ц" being the first letter in the word for "King". (This is Slavonic; it would look different in Russian.) It means the same thing as "INBI". See for example [2] TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I cannot find on Internet a picture clear enough to show INBD but I have seen this numerous times. Following are some examples I did find on the Internet showing the replacement inscription instead of “King of the Jews”

Icon – King of Glory [3]

Cross – King of Glory [4]

Cross – King of Glory [5]

Cross – King of glory [6]

Slavonic…I cant read but it might say King of Glory [7], [8]

Obviously any kind of abbreviation is acceptable if there is not enough room to spell it out. Phiddipus 22:33, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Your Slavonic examples do indeed say "King of Glory" -- as does my own, which is an "Old Believer" type similar to your second one (although too worn to read easily). I was about to complain that both of these are obsolete types, but now that I think about it they both seem to be gaining in popularity somewhat. I think you have provided sufficient support what you want to say here. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

OrthodoxWiki

I thought it was worth mentioning again that OrthodoxWiki exists, a wiki dedicated explicitly to Orthodox Christianity. You are all welcome to come and contribute. We're now up to almost 1300 articles. —Preost talk contribs 02:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The Eucharist: just a "practice"?

The recent edits by Soakologist[9] stating that the Eucharist is not at the center of Orthodox Christianity, but is rather at the center of its "practice" and not its "beliefs" is fundamentally an error. It is certainly the case that partaking of the Eucharist is a "practice," which is clear from the section as it now stands. However, to suggest that the Eucharist is somehow only a practice and not a matter of belief is to go against the very Scripture itself: "Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him" (John 6:53-56). This is quite clearly a matter of belief and not merely of practice.

Further, to separate a central practice such as any of the holy mysteries out from Orthodox belief is to create an opposition where none exists. Orthodoxy is fundamentally not a set of beliefs and a set of practices. Rather, it is a way of life whose beliefs and practices are bound up in one another. Put simply, one cannot be a believer in Orthodox Christianity and not partake of the Eucharist. That the Eucharist is the food of immortality is very much a central belief of Orthodoxy. ——Preost talk contribs 13:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

There are numerous Orthodox Saints who converted to Orthodoxy and were subsequently martyred without ever having received communion. On great Friday we read the Life of St Mary of Egypt who only communed twice in her life. Monks living in Greece on the cliffs of Karoulia do not receive communion (Of course they did before). Saints such as the earliest desert fathers went without communion for great lengths of time. We must also consider the salvation of all those who came before Christ as never having communed yet obtained salvation. While communion is our most profound and spiritually enabling mystery, there are enough examples to suggest it is not essential to salvation. Granted, these are extreme exceptions, and they are not meant to lessen the importance of Communion, yet they do suggest that the Center of Orthodoxy lies outside the visible attributes of the Mysteries and lies somewhere in ontological reality. Phiddipus 02:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Um -- I think all reality is ontological by definition. And although it's true that Mary of Egypt only mentions receiving communion on two occasions, she must have communed at least every so often as a child before she rebelled against her parents.
But mainly I'm not comfortable with discussions of what is "essential to salvation". It sounds too much like Roman Catholic mimimalism, where the point of the questions are to determine the minimum one can get away with doing in this life in order to avoid hellfire. I'm sure you don't intend it that way, but I think all such discussions tend in that direction unless you're very careful. Taking your examples of some of the martyrs, you could even say that baptism isn't essential -- yet I don't think you'd ever recommend to someone seeking his salvation not to get baptized!
Of course there are (as you rightly call them) "extreme" situations where the Eucharist is not central. But it is central for the 99.9999% of us who are not Mary of Egypt or hermits of Karoulia. No hermit can be taken as a general example anyway; it's a rare calling. The life of the Church is corporate, not individualistic, and the Eucharist is the heart of our corporate existence which is the Body of Christ. You cannot cut out your heart and live. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:09, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Mary of Egypt clearly recognized the importance of the Eucharist, although she apparently communed infrequently. Theologically, Eucharistic theology is at the center of Orthodoxy, and informs many other ideas and practices, notably the whole area of church governance. So theologically, practically, and in practice for the greatest number of Orthodox Christians, the Eucharist really is at the center of Orthodoxy. Wesley 17:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Candidate for FA?

I was just reading the reasons why the article failed when it was nominated. It was so long ago and so many edits have been made since then, that it seems a certainty that issues have been sorted out. Could it be time to consider this article again as candidate for FA? Anagnorisis 03:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


I second that motion. Miha sinkovec 20:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

It's nowhere near ready. There are no references, the organization and subject headings are sometime questionable, there are POV issues, and it needs a thorough copyedit. And that's without looking at the old nomination to see if the problems raised then really have been addressed. TCC (talk) (contribs) 18:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Ditto what Csernica said. —Preost talk contribs 21:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

New user template

There's a new template for Eastern Orthodox Wikipedians. Just add this code to your userpage: {{User eastortho}}

—Preost talk contribs 14:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


I've added that template to the user box list at Wikipedia:Userboxes, in the section "Religion". --Aquarius Rising 01:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

There's now another new template created by a user for Eastern Orthodox Wikipedians. Just add this code to your userpage: {{User Orthodox Christian}}. --Aquarius Rising 21:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject?

Given the idiosyncrasies which seem to keep creeping into this article and the general mess that other articles pertaining to Eastern Orthodoxy are in on Wikipedia, what would everyone think of putting together a WikiProject titled WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy? —Preost talk contribs 20:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Help a new user?

A new article is titled Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church in America. It used some inappropriate first-person language, some of which I've fixed. It is deficient in other articles linking to it and probably could still use some cleanup. It seems to have been created by a new Wikipedian who hasn't yet done anything else. Perhaps readers of this page can help. Michael Hardy 00:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks like yet another article on a start-up "uses Orthodox in its name" denomination. Most such groups get their articles deleted due to non-notability. Most of the links have nothing to do with the group in question. —Preost talk contribs 03:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Clean Up

No offense, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why this article isn't a featured article. Right now I'm trying to clean it up, and I hope people will cooperate and help, and let me know if I do something wrong. Tix 02:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Well done! Looking over your edits, they're all essentially things I myself would do, had I world enough and time (and lack of sloth). —Preost talk contribs 13:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Macedonia in the intro paragraph

The FYROM/Macedonia keeps getting added to and removed from the intro paragraph listing the countries where Orthodoxy is the strongest. Certainly, some of the population there is Orthodox, but church there is not recognized by any of the mainstream churches which are generally held to make up the Eastern Orthodox Church. Any solution to this? My own view is that Macedonia shouldn't be listed there, because only a little over half of the population self-identifies as Orthodox, as that identification isn't affirmed at this point by the rest of Orthodoxy in any normal way.

What say you? —Preost talk contribs 23:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

These days if a little over half the population of a country self-identifies as any single kind of Christian I'd call that a strong influence. On the other hand, the church there claiming autocephaly is of a highly irregular status. So I'm of two minds about it. I suppose from a strictly NPOV consideration it ought to be there since it's a historically Orthodox country and the Church is clearly influential there regardless of its administrative status.
Actually, that's something I don't know about. Is this merely a case of an autocephalous claim not being recognized, or is it a case where the church itself is canonically questionable? In the former case, as a member of the OCA, it would be hypocritical for me to say it shouldn't appear. In the latter case it would be a harder call for me. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
The Macedonian Orthodox Church represents a schism from the Serbian Orthodox Church and is completely out of communion with the rest of Orthodoxy. The remnant which is still loyal to the Serbian church in the FYROM is persecuted by the state, including the now many-month imprisonment of its bishop. —Preost talk contribs 23:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

In terms of NPOV, I think some mention should still be made of Macedonia. I would suggest that mention be made that it is not included in the relevant paragraph but that, notwithstanding thiat, what is now the Republic of Macedonia is traditional home to many Orthodox; that because of issues with the Serbian church, the Macedonian church declared itself autocephalous; and that the said autocephaly is not recognized by the rest of Orthodoxy. It would be a shame to exclude some mention of Macedonia, as I'm sure that a large number of the autocephaleous Macedonian parishioners are faithful Orthodox despite the canonical/jurisdictional issues. --Aquarius Rising 23:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Clearly it ought to be mentioned; the question is whether it should be mentioned in the intro which receives a special emphasis because of its position. I can't imagine what kind of action of the Serbian church short of heresy could justify something like this.
But that makes it a tough call for me. Giving it so prominent a mention feels too much like airing our dirty laundry in public, but that shouldn't be a consideration in NPOV terms. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Csernica or ASDamick ... From a NPOV viewpoint, we need mention of Macedonia if the article. Either of you care to make a first stab at it? In terms of efficiency, I'm suggesting that either of you two do it, as you have stronger feelings/opinions on the issue than I do. Otherwise, I'll take the first stab. --Aquarius Rising 00:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Csernia or ASDamick ... Since I didn't hear from either of you, I've just now edited the article to address Republic of Macedonia, which is important for NPOV. As you will see from my edit, my suggested solution is to add reference to Republic of Macedonia in the second paragraph of the article (where I had placed it previously but was deleted by ASDamick) but I've now included a footnote for the Footnotes section which reads: A significant portion of the Republic of Macedonia's population is Eastern Orthodox and previously was in the Serbian Orthodox Church. However, following the breakup of Yugoslavia, Orthodox Macedonians are now generally members of the Macedonian Orthodox Church, an Eastern Orthodox Church that presently is not in communion with other Eastern Orthodox churches. This should hopefully achieve consensus. ASDamick was concerned about readers of the article knowing that the Macedonian Church isn't in communion with other Eastern Orthodox Churches. As well, the footnote method should address Csernia's concern about Orthodox-side optics, about not airing "dirty laundry". --Aquarius Rising 02:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

ROCOR

Rather than me doing a revert at this moment, can someone cogently justify the view that ROCOR is a non-mainstream church? As far as I know, it is mainstream. --Aquarius Rising 00:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

P.S.: By the same token, wouldn't OCA therefore also be non-mainstream? And what does "mainstream" mean? --Aquarius Rising 00:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

With the ROCOR, there are intercommunion and concelebration issues which are as yet unresolved (though they're being worked on). The OCA's irregularity is simply in terms of who's responsible for governing it (Moscow or itself), but intercommunion and concelebration with the OCA continue with all the autocephalous and autonomous churches of the Orthodox communion (e.g. Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, etc.).
Mainstream itself can be slippery, but I at least would define it as those churches of the above that are all in communion and concelebration with one another, usually listed as those found in the labelled section in the external links. —Preost talk contribs 00:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Or at least normally so, with a significant proportion of the others. Temporary disruptions in relations between individual churches isn't all that uncommon. For example, in the controversy over Estonia where Russia temporarily suspended communion with Constantinople, neither became "non-mainstream" because of it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Understanding Original Sin

To place the term Original sin in context: God created man perfect with free will and gave man a direction to follow. Man chose rather to disobey God thus changing the perfect nature of man to the flawed nature of man. Therefore this flawed nature and all that has come from it it a result of that Original Sin. Because we participate in humanity, we share in the sin of Adam as we are human as he was human. This change of Nature in humanity is the reason Christ God united his divine nature to man, to alter that nature and thus save man from Hell. All humans participate in human nature including the Virgin mary (Why we reject the immaculate conception) That Original sin is cleansed in humans through baptism or, in the case of the Theotokos, the moment Christ took form within her.--Phiddipus 03:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Protestantism

The following language was inserted in the article and changed:

Based on numbers of adherents, Eastern Orthodoxy is the third largest grouping of Christians in the world, after the Roman Catholic Church and Protestantism.

with the edit summary that Protestantism is not a grouping in the relevant sense. This is strongly debatable; more seriously, the changed language will mislead many English-speakers, who will see an implication that Protestantism has fewer adherents than Orthodoxy.

Another sentence may be warranted, saying that there are fewer Orthodox than Protestants as a whole, but more than Lutherans or Calvinists or any other variety - but that may be an unnecessary lengthening. Septentrionalis 04:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

S'okay, I fix. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that you are using "Protestntism" which is an artificial construct (there is no Protestant Church) to encompass all those religions who reacted in protest to Papism as if they were in agreement with one another, which they aren't. Also, most of those classified as "Protestant" are not in fact protesting the Roman Catholic Church at all, albeit the major groups thatwere formed in this manner are, Lutherns, Anglicans, Calvanists, and a few others. My guess is, since it is such an ambiguous grouping, those who count their numbers as greater than the number of Eastern Orthodox are simply including the majority of the 30,000 or so Non-Orthodox and Non-Roman Catholics churches to suit their needs. What it remains is a rather silly thing to say, you might as well say there are more Non-Orthodox Christians than Orthodox. Roman Catholics are in communion with one another and do not include Non-RC, it is one church. The Orthodox, likewise, is a single body that does not commune outsiders, it is one church. this cannot be said of the "Protestants" therefore they cannot be counted as one church.--Phiddipus 15:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Catholic 1,050,000,000 - Orthodox/Eastern Christian 240,000,000 - Pentecostal 105,000,000 - Reformed/Presbyterian/Congregational/United 75,000,000 - Anglican 73,000,000 - Baptist 70,000,000 - Methodist 70,000,000 - Lutheran 64,000,000 - Jehovah's Witnesses 14,800,000 - Adventist 12,000,000 - Latter Day Saints 12,500,000 - Apostolic/New Apostolic 10,000,000 - Stone-Campbell ("Restoration Movement") 5,400,000 - New Thought (Unity, Christian Science, etc.) 1,500,000 - Brethren (incl. Plymouth) 1,500,000 - Mennonite 1,250,000 - Friends (Quakers) 300,000

I am still having a problem with with the way this sentence is written. OK lets use communion. Eastern Orthodoxy is the largest communion after Roman Catholosism - this is true. What is incorrect is to compare it to an amorphous grouping such as protestantism since this is not a single communion and Orthodoxy is not a group. You can compare the number of apples produced each year to oranges, but its misleading to compare the number of apples to the number of all varieties of other citrus fruit in the world. --Phiddipus 06:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

You're not wrong when you characterize Protestantism in my opinion, but others will see it differently which is why it's presented the way it is. And "group" is a very general term, that applies just as well to the assembly of local Orthodox Churches as it does to the Protestant miscellany. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Relocating full text of Marriage section

This article is VERY long. I have moved the full text of the marriage section to a new article - Marriage in the Eastern Orthodox Church - and put a cut down version in this article. Both the new summary here, and the new article, of course, still need a bit of tidying up. --DogsBreakfast 16:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The term "Eastern" vs "Greek" Orthodoxy

"even in 1054, there was more than just Constantinople in the EO world"

Like what else? Miskin 17:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The Churches of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Cyprus, and Georgia, at the very least. The link which I removed was to the Orthodox Church of Constantinople, which in 1054 did not include those autocephalous churches.
The reason why using Roman Catholicism contrasted with Greek Orthodoxy in the initial paragraph doesn't work is that its point as it was written is a geographic one. Perhaps a compromise wording might be to Greek East and Latin West, with the first term unlinked, since the statement is about the whole Orthodox Church, not just about Constantinople.
I certainly do agree that the term Eastern Orthodoxy is anachronistic, but it is the title of the article and the name by which most English speakers would know the name of the Church (and thus the most appropriate name for an English encyclopedia article). —Preost talk contribs 18:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem and Cyprus, just as all "authocephalus" bodies of Greek clergy (then and today), were in practice under the guidance of the EP, and together they formed (and still do) the "Greek Orthodox Church". The first non-Greek body which acquired a real independent status was the Russian Church. All other autocephalus bodies, Greek or not, were subjects to the EP. An example of this is the Bulgarian Archbishopric of Ohrid. This is were the "first amongst equals" applies. I don't understand why the article doesn't focus at all on the history and creation of the modern Orthodox bodies and how they ended up acquiring independency from the EP. I don't understand why the article doesn't focus at all on the EP and the Greek Orthodox Church, mother of all Eastern Orthodox bodies. Miskin 08:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll have to disagree with you on this point of fact, i.e. that the EP is and was essentially the Orthodox papacy. It is not in any of the reputable histories of the Orthodox Church that I have read. Anyone else? (Just as a note, it is true that Bulgaria was canonically subject to Constantinople in 1054, by virtue of military invasion, though it had been autocephalous in the previous century from 927 to 971[10]. But the rest were not.)
The reason why this article doesn't focus on the EP in the manner you describe is because it would be a rather revisionist approach to history, one which does not square with what is known of the period. Additionally, while it is true that Antioch probably had a good number of Greek clergy in the 11th century, it was still celebrating the Syriac liturgy (not using St. Chrysostom's until the 13th c.). And regarding Antioch today, its clergy are mostly Arabic, as it has been since the de-Hellenization of the patriarchate which took place around a century ago. —Preost talk contribs 18:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Each and every time the Latin Church thought of a union between the East and the West, they aimed at a union with Constantinople, which would include the rest of the Greek patriarchates (Jerusalem, Alexandria, etc). There are Western sources from the Fourth Crusade which explicitely mention that their holy mission would guarantee a union between the West and the East, whose head resides at Constantinople (I can quote for you if you like). Furthermore the Schism itself took place between Rome and Constantinople, not between Rome and Alexandria, Jerusalem and Antioch. They were categorised as "Eastern Churches" because of their submission to the EP. As you said it yourself, the forced de-Hellenization of Antioch was recent and has therefore nothing to do with the rest. My observation relies on the article's tendency to neglect the historical importance and 2000 year-old continuity of the EP, as if it were some common Orthodox body which recently acquired an autocephalus status. The much longer and detailed Britannica article, follows a completely different route. Miskin 14:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The Crusaders' understanding of Orthodox Church polity is bound to be mistaken, Ultramontanists that they were! Just because the Crusaders thought that the whole Orthodox Church was headed by the EP doesn't mean that it was. Anyway, the question of the state of Church polity in 1054 has nothing to do with what the Crusaders thought, who post-dated the events of 1054.
Your assertion that the other patriarchates were classified as "Eastern Churches" because of their alleged submission to the EP really has no basis in either history or the canonical tradition of the Orthodox Church, which includes not a few depositions of the EP when he turned out to be a heretic (e.g. Macedonius, Nestorius, Sergius). Even a brief overview of the canons will show that Constantinople never took on anything remotely resembling an Eastern papacy until after 1453. Even when that domination came to be practically real, canonically, the patriarchates were still autocephalous and not subject to Constantinopolitan rule.
You are right that intially the schism was only between Rome and Constantinople, though the anathema was personally against the patriarch and not against the whole patriarchate. Over time, it came to be effective throughout the patriarchate and then from there to the other patriarchates, who agreed with Constantinople on the doctrinal and political issues at hand. It's odd to characterize the Orthodox Church as Phanarocentric, though, especially since domination from a single bishop was precisely the main subject of objection!
The de-Hellenization of Antioch was indeed relatively recent, but it was not after a period of 1900 years of uninterrupted Hellenization. Indeed, as I mentioned, the Syriac liturgy was standard in Antioch until the 13th century. Antioch was really only re-Hellenized in the 18th c. with the loss of many of the ethnically Arabic and Syriac clergy and faithful at the Melkite schism. What remained of the clergy were mainly Greek. The de-Hellenization in the 19th century was in fact a return to the previous stream of local control.
It is faithfulness to the historical record not to overemphasize Constantinople in this article. You are right that it is not some recently formed autocephalous body, but the article doesn't make that claim, anyway. What the Britannica article may have to say is of course somewhat relevant, but not critical to Wikipedia. That article has authors, as well, and they may also be mistaken. In any event, all we have regarding what it says is your comments about it. I'd be interested to read it, though, to see if it really does follow the Phanarocentric view that you espouse. —Preost talk contribs 15:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Women as spiritual mothers and confessors

I realize that this issue has been hashed and rehashed a few times, but the current article is still not accurate. I also realize that many of the contributors to this article may not be aware of the scope of the traditions of the Orthodox Church and may be judging based on what their local church practices or what their particular “jurisdiction” is used to. I do not mean to sound inflammatory or nit-picky, but in order to reflect the teachings and practices of the Orthodox Church and present them to the world, it is necessary to encompass, as best we can, all of the conditions possible when relating to a subject, especially when such a condition is not uncommon. Many problems arise within this article because of language, the church being fairly new to the English speaking world, and the attempt to use pre existing terminology borrowed from western Christianity. So please, bare with me and look to the meaning of what I say, not necessarily the terminology I use. I will attempt to state it simply:

God forgives sins. Within the Church, ideally, in order to receive communion one should confess and have the prayer of forgiveness read over one by a priest. Only a priest can perform this function, and the priesthood is male. But to clarify, this reading of the prayer is not the Mystery itself, but only the last step before communing. The major part of the mystery occurs when the individual seeks out his spiritual “father” and confesses his sins. The mystery is that God speaks through the spiritual guide and that the follower must take it to heart exactly what his guide tells him. It has been said that no one, not even the ecumenical patriarch can override the words of a spiritual guide since this would be to deny the mystery. While a priest is necessary to read the prayer of forgiveness, he is not necessarily the person’s spiritual guide, nor is it necessary for him to hear ones confession. In such cases the priest usually asks the communicant if he has confessed to his spiritual guide, and then simply reads the prayer. This completes the mystery as a period completes a sentence, the mystery occurs as God working through the spiritual guide.

Now to the point; as it states in the article, sin must be dealt with on an individual basis. It must be filtered through human understanding. The Orthodox Church accomplishes this by the enlistment of spiritual guides. What it needs to state is that the spiritual guides can be male or female, spiritual fathers and mothers. A spiritual mother is not an uncommon thing. Women do hear confession. God works the Mystery as easily through women as through men. And there are many, many instances where women have more authority (abbesses in their convents) than even the Patriarch of Constantinople.

The terminology: Confessor, may be itself misleading. But to redefine it in Orthodox context, a Confessor is one who hears confessions, whom God speaks through, who guides spiritually his or her charges, who's authority cannot be overridden, and does all of this before having a priest (or himself) read the prayer of forgiveness before communion. This definition can apply to men as well as women.--Phiddipus 16:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)