Talk:Oriental Orthodox Churches/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Early Discussion

OK, I sent you an email about this, but you prefer this page instead.

Which is better? This:

"A centenarian is a term that refers to a living person who is at least 100 years old."

or this:

"A centenarian is a living person who is at least 100 years old."

?

A centenarian is not a term; a centenarian is a person. (Believe it or not, the article titled centenarian actually did at one time begin by saying a "centenarian is a term that refers to ...".)

Other than that issue, I think if you want to explain what Oriental Orthodoxy is, it is better to mention the schism of AD 451 than to say the Oriental Orthodox churches are older than the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, since that is not true. -- Mike Hardy

(Occasionally, of course, it is appropriate to say a certain word is a term that refers to something. In those cases, since one is referring to the term, rather than using the term to refer to something else, one should italicize it, saying "Oriental Orthodoxy" refers to ...".)

Sorry: I didn't get any e-mails. I don't provide an e-mail to Wikipedia, so it would be better if the site didn't offer to let you reach me that way. I take your point about reference to the thing versus the term for the thing, but as you point out, I didn't add the word "term" to my choice of phrasing, so obviously it's easier for me to accommodate your reasonable point about italics. The age controversy is one I hadn't thought of. I was thinking, and I think I'm still thinking, that the problem doesn't come up with proper wording. I mean I presume the "Roman Catholic Church" does aquiesce to the name "Roman Catholic Church," even if it likes to say "the Church" in in-house documents. When did the need for such a name arise? Later than the need for "Armenian Apostolic," that is for sure. I think if we were to go all the way to accommodate your deference to the beliefs of practitioners, we might not even want to say the Armenian Church was created ever. I mean, the first Armenian christians no doubt thought of themselves as Christians, not Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Christians. Same goes for fundamentalists, I suppose. I'll look at the wording again. I suspect we can call some churches older without being inflammatory, but maybe I'll side with you and want just to talk about the time of divergence, which is what one has to do with species in biology. 168... 02:22 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I looked at my version again. I remember now I went with "refers" because there is no easy-to-describe single thing that is "Oriental Orthodoxy." Also, the earlier version misused "comprise." Although I concede your age issue, when I look at the particular phrasing I used, I don't see it as raising the problem. It's understood that all Christian traditions go back to Christ and so in that sense they're all equally old. I think it's also understood that no sect is practicing christianity like Peter or even exactly as Constantine practiced it, and that all the traditions have made changes many times. I think readers will understand that the age in question is the age of the necessity of the concept of the thing (e.g. the "Roman Catholic Church"). Of course, that's just my opinion. 168... 02:42 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I wonder if you're misunderstanding part of what I wrote. The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is a title claimed by both the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church, each denying the other's claim, but before the Great Schism in the 11th century, that title referred to all Christians who were under any of the five patriarchs, eastern or western. When I used the term, I was not referring to Roman Catholicism. AD 451 is the year of the schism in which the Oriental Orthodox churches separated from that large body. I think an accurate history and explanation would say that. The Armenian church was founded no later than AD 301, that being the year when Christianity became the state religion in that kingdom. 131.183.84.166 19:12 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I'm glad to learn of the term "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church," which I hadn't known. As I wrote above, I assumed they would each talk about themselves as "the Church." But my analysis isn't changed just because there exists a longer version of that title that they both lay claim to. I agree it complicates matters. I just don't think it makes it impossible to clearly address age. Meanwhile, I don't understand what point you are trying to argue, if you are trying to argue one, with the info about Armenia. Finally, I think it's a little problematic to write, with the particular the words you used in your last edit to the article and those in your post above, that the O.O. churches separated from the One Church in 451. If all the churches now classified as OO existed in 451 (did they?), then that language is not so misleading (i.e. provided all of the OOs had representatives at the council to return and tell them afterwards that henceforth they were on their own); but even so, isn't the situation that the churches with OO beliefs were kicked out of the Church? i.e. rather than that all parties agreed to separate? 168... 21:13 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The Armenian, Ethopian, Indian, and Assyrian Churches existed before 451, and broke communion with the Chalcedonian churches at that time. The Jacobite and Coptic Chuches were formed in 451 by those within the Church of Antioch and the Church of Alexandria who regected the Council of Chalcedon. - Efghij 22:11 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Is that all of the current OO's? Did they all hear the results of the council in a timely fashion?168... 22:43 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The Coptic and Jacobite Churches were formed in 451, and the Ethopian and Indian churches, who were subordinate to Alexandria and Antioch repectively, split that same year. The Armenian Church, however, took until 506 to formally reject the Council of Chalcedon. The Assyrian split actually took place in 431, after the Council of Ephesus, making them Nestorian rather than Monophysite. - Efghij 02:29 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

131, note that despite the concern you express about obscuring that both the Eastern and the Western churches consider themselves in some sense the "original" and the "oldest" church, nevertheless the language you chose for the current version of the article suggests that neither considers itself the One Church: "the then-still-unified vast communion that called itself the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church... separated into the "Western Church" (Roman Catholicism) and the Eastern Orthodox church." I take the fact that this didn't trouble you (and it doesn't trouble me either) as a demonstration that we can expect readers to know what we mean when we talk about the "age" of the churches and their "separation" and that we aren't in great danger of slandering a denomination. 168... 22:43 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I think the Roman Catholic church considers itself the one true church, and the Eastern Orthodox church also so considers itself, except that they grant some recognition to the pope, considering him one of the patriarchs whose presence and assent at a general council, along with the presence and assent of the Eastern Orthodox patriarchs, are necessary for its infallibility (and no council of that sort can be held unless the two churches first reunify). Michael Hardy 21:59 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

I don't see what's so unusual about the fact that "Oriental Orthodox" and "Eastern Orthodox" are different even though "Oriental" and "Eastern" are similar. After all, "catholic" means "universal", and nobody is confusing the Catholics and the Universalists. It seems to me the article should note the fact, but not make a big "infelicitous" deal of it. --FOo 22:16 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

User:168... - a reversion isn't a 'minor' edit. - David Gerard 00:32, Jan 23, 2004 (UTC)

Point taken. I guess I considered it conservative because I was just putting it back to how it had been moments before and for a long time, and yours had not seemed like a major edit, even though you didn't mark it as minor. Also, you might note that I said exactly what I was doing in the subject line, so I don't see how the big black "M" could laed anybody astray. 168... 01:00, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Because a lot of people hide minor edits when checking what edits have been done.

The intro is ok now though :-) I thought the previous one was particularly clumsily worded. - David Gerard 01:04, Jan 23, 2004 (UTC)

---

I deleted the assertion that Western writers do not distinguish between the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches, lumping them together as "Eastern churches." I think that when Western writers write, for example, that in "Eastern churches, the parish priest chrismates infants immediately after baptizing them," they mean not only Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches, but also Eastern-rite Catholic churches in full communion with the Roman Catholic church, and this is not because of any unawareness of the differences between those Eastern churches, which therefore get "lumped together." Rather, such a statement is only saying that certain traditional practices are used in Eastern churches. In other words, the statement seemed very misleading. Michael Hardy 19:17, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I am again deleting assertions added by User:137.111.13.34 according to which

1. the distinction between Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox originates in English, as it is historically unlikely, unsubstantiated, and not a central point.
2. other languages have difficulty rendering the difference, because they do not have two lexical sources to draw from. The allusion to French is misguided in that respect, as the terms Églises orthodoxes et Églises orthodoxes orientales are well-established for Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox respectively. Likewise, as Wikipedia content shows, German differentiates Östlisch-orthodoxe Kirche and Orientalisch-orthodoxe Kirche, Russian has Православные церкви and древневосточные or better восточные Церкви. Spanish and Portuguese also have different terms for both Communions : iglesias ortodoxas vs. iglesias orientales antiguas, igrejas ortodoxas orientais vs. igrejas de Leste

Philippe Magnabosco 16:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Eastern Christianity

Would it be useful to have an article titled 'Eastern Christianity'? Granted that this is a term from a western perspective, it is used by the 'Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern Christianity', and it might be able to deal with an overview of the complex relation between Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy.

Gareth Hughes 14:54, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Whoops! How silly must I look? I went back to the article and followed the link straight to the page I'm suggesting. It is not at all about lumping traditions together: their shared history already weaves them close enough. Perhaps the small article on Eastern Christianity might be expanded to make this article read a little more easily.

Gareth Hughes 15:11, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oriental "Orthodoxy"

There is already something said about the confusingness of "Oriental," but I wonder if we should discuss the confusingness of the term "Orthodoxy." Because by the standards of the Churches normally called orthodox - the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches - the Oriental Orthodox were decidedly heterodox. It seems to be a relic of the Great Schism, when the terms "Catholic" and "Orthodox" separated in meaning, with the latter term referring to the eastern variant, that leaves these monophysite (more or less) churches referred to as "Orthodox" - that is, a western idea that "Orthodox" essentially means "Eastern." Or perhaps a relic of the creation of eastern rite churches in the near East - the branch that didn't become "Syrian Catholic" or "Armenian Catholic" must, of course, be Orthodox. At any rate, the confusingness of this seems worth noting. john k 00:50, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that ist out task to worry too much about logic in article titles. According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions, two point are to be taken into account: (a) what's the most common term in englich to refer to th esubject, and (b) self-labelling. With an emphasis on (a), but trying to not use derogatory terms. So, maybe, "monophsyitic" is a more commonly used term, but would trigger the "derogatory" expection. So, IMHO, there is only the choice between "non-chalcedonian cgurches" and "oriental orthodoxy". --Pjacobi 10:47, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)

Oriental Orthodox churches often refer to Eastern Orthodox churches as Chalcedonian, but don't often refer to themselves as Non-Chalcedonian, as it is defining yourself by what you're not. The label Oriental is nore or less accepted by members if the communion. Formal cooperation and support is a relatively modern thing: particularly under Pope Shenouda and Patriach Zakka. In the past, although these churches have been united against the Byzantine traditions of the church, each has kept to itself in language, culture and worship. It is felt that a neologism is needed. --Gareth Hughes 15:04, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with using the term Oriental Orthodoxy in the title to refer to the groups, since this seems to be the standard term. When I said I wanted to discuss it, I meant that the issue ought to be brought up in the article, not that I wanted to bring it up in the talk page in order to argue that the article should be moved. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. john k 15:23, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That is to say, I think the article ought to make clear that referring to this group as "Orthodox" is kind of weird and confusing, in the same way that it makes clear that the Eastern/Oriental distinction is weird and confusing. john k 05:33, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This has to be done carefully: saying whether someone is really Orthodox or not is saying whether they are right or wrong. Therefore, even though I understand the intention — the word is confusing, being used for different communions — it sounds as if the orthodoxy of the Oriental Orthodox is being questioned. This should be avoided. This, in fact, is one of the least confusing aspects of the mosaic of Christian denominations in the Middle East. --Gareth Hughes 10:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I concur that we should not say that they are "not really Orthodox." But we should say that the Eastern Orthodox (and other Chalcedonians Christians) do not consider the Oriental Orthodox to be Orthodox, and that likewise the Oriental Orthodox view the Eastern Orthodox (and other Chalcedonians) as heterodox. We should also note that the term "Orthodox" was, until recently, applied almost exclusively to Chalcedonians specifically in order to contrast with supposedly "Heterodox" churches like those now calling themselves "Oriental Orthodox", and that the term "Oriental Orthodox" itself is of relatively recent origin, those churches having previously referred to themselves as Coptic, Armenian, Jacobite, and so forth. We should try to be careful in doing this so as not to take sides. But I do think it is important to note that the original usage of the term "Orthodox" was specifically meant to exclude the Oriental Orthodox, but to include Catholics, and that now the whole thing is reversed. Anyway, I certainly agree that this needs to be done carefully, but I think it's important to mention this stuff in some way. john k 15:03, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Correction. The Byzantine Orthodox may have traditionally regarded the Oriental Orthodox as heterodox, and vice versa. But the current situation is much more complicated than you give it credit. Probably half or so of both groups now recognize the other as orthodox, as the fruits of 50 years of ecumenical dialogue. People have gotten too caught up in the language of the "in two natures" versus exclusively "in one Incarnate nature" without realizing that the Alexandrian theologians meant something entirely different by "physis" than the Antiochian/Constantinopolitan theologians. The Alexandrians meant one nature according to hypostasis (which the Byzantines recognized), whereas the Byzantines in "in two natures" were referring to natures according to essence (ousia), and were thus simply declaring that humanity and divinity remained essentially distinct and unmixed in the Incarnation. The Alexandrians seem to have not been aware of this, and thus believed us (I'm a Chalcedonian) to be speaking of two natures according to hypostasis and thus condemned us as heterodox. The Byzantines, on the other hand, thought that the Non-Chalcedonians were rejecting the notion that humanity and divinity remained unmixed in the Incarnation, and thus condemned them as heterodox. Given the making awareness gained in the ecumenical dialogue of where both sides were coming from, we now know that neither of us were proposing anything heterodox (though certain numbers in both churches will not relent). Deusveritasest (talk) 06:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Women and Oriental churches

Can a sentence or two be added on the various areas at Women as theological figures. (Interfaith could also be updated.)

I'm just about to read Holy Women of the Syrian Orient by Susan Harvey. Off the top of my head, Ephrem the Syrian, although a man, is considered to have elevated the position of women in the Syriac churches. The prominent place of women in the church, particularly the important daughters of the covenant, seems to have developed earlier than Ephrem. The legacy of this today is that women are ordained as singers. --Gareth Hughes 21:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Assyrian Orthodox / Assyrian Church of the East

I dont think it is correct to say that this tradition "left the Catholic and Apostolic Church". First of all they use themselves the same adjectives for themselves. Then you cannot say this in view of history.

The Church in The East grew outside the Roman Empire in what was then the Sassanid Persian areas. When after Constantine church unity was influenced or forced by Roman state influence this had no bearing on the church in the east. They were different all along - I heard of only one of their Bishops toparticipate in Nicea - but they had their own synod earlier already.

They never debated in Greek - the language of all doctrinal talk in the Roman empire. Ever tried to follow the early doctrinal debate on Christology and found it difficult? It is difficult to follow this Greek debate in English -although Greek and English are both Indoeuropean languages with some similarity in structure. Imagine following this debate from a very different semitic language base like Aramaeic.

As the Eastern Church never was under any Western jurisdiction it simply could not split. --Kipala 22:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I have studied the Greek and Syriac terms involved in the Nestorian controversy. And it appears to me that even within the Syriac terms, the theologians of the Assyrian Church of the East adopted a level of Nestorianism that truly was heretical and thus they were truly severed from the Orthodox Catholic Church. However, I would say that my opinion on that matter or that of anyone else who holds this opinion should not lead us to claim in the articles that the ACE severed itself from the Catholic Church, as it would be violation of NPOV. Deusveritasest (talk) 06:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

About the term "Oriental Orthodox"

I'm interested to know where the term "Oriental Orthodoxy" comes from (i.e., who is to be blamed for it), so it would be neat if someone could add something about that to the article. Is this term a recent neologism? Who uses it? It appears to have been unknown to the authors of the Catholic Encyclopedia (who did, by the way, mention with mild dismay that the Jacobites had started to be referred to sometimes as "orthodox"). The article currently says, "The Oriental Orthodox Communion is a group of churches within Oriental Orthodoxy which are in full communion with each other", which implies but does not state that there is some kind of organisation which calls itself "the Oriental Orthodox Communion"—we should clarify that. The question of the term's provenance is of additional importance, because it's not clear to me that we should categorically state that it is incorrect to include the Assyrian Church under the rubric of "Oriental Orthodox"—if, in fact, people normally use it that way, then it's perforce not incorrect, even if it is illogical. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 17:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

INdian Orthodox church

According to the Supreme court of India, Indian orthodox church is a part of Syriac orthodox church and Patriarch of Antioch is Spiritually the head of Indian Orthodox church.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jdas07 (talk • contribs) .

^How does the Supreme Court of India determine whether one church can be part of another church? That's like saying America declares Baptists as being Catholic now. Indian Orthodox Church has been excommunicated by the Patriarch of Antioch couple of decades ago. Nat, the guy above is trying to justify the Indian Orthodox church as still being in communion with the rest of the churches but they're not. Over politically derived differences they appointed a new Catholicos (bishop of India) w/o approval from the Patriarch. They refused to comply w/ the Patriarch and they've been excommunicated since. I know because I go to a Malankara Jacobite Syriac Orthodox Church and we are definetely not in communion with the Indian Orthodox Church. 128.194.45.219 15:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)#1stunner

What does that have to do with anything? Is the Indian Supreme Court a Christian religious body now?—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 05:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

—There is no "Indian Orthodox Church" our church name is Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. Our constitution says, "The Malankara Church is a division of Orthodox Syrian Church. The primate of the Orthodox Syrian Church is the Patriarch of Antioch." It also says, "The ancient and the real name of the Malankara Church is The Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, although it is also wrongly called 'The Jacobite Church', for the same reasons for which the Orthodox Syrian Church has been also called so." The great scholar Dr. Paulose Mar Gregoriose records that we are an autonomous church. So please, stop changing our status to Indian Orthodox Church. It is not recognized by our constitution. There are two factions in Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, one who is more traditional and goes back to Mar Thomas Sleeha and the other who wants to make a new Indian Orthodox Church with no ties to anything that is not from India. So, it is not the case. If someday we do split and have one Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church and another Indian Orthodox Church then you should change the listing. Until then, please honor our church constitution and stop editing our holy autonomous status! Paulosethomas 16:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

-The person above is right is distinguishing that the "Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church" is the official name. What he does not say, is that the Malankara Orthodox church is not in full Communion with the Syriac Orthodox Church or any of the other "Oriental Orthodox Churches." The Malankara Orthodox church started by rejecting Syriac authority. The person 2 above is correct in stating that the Syriac Orthodox Church has excommunicated the Malankara Orthodox church; probably better phrased as severing ties. The two are no longer connected, and the other Oriental Orthodox churches have sided with the Syriac Orthodox church and are not in full communion with the Malankara Orthodox Church. The Malankara Orthodox church should be removed entirely from this page.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.125.206.227 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

About the name

Personally, I find Oriental Orthodox to be a confusing name for this article, and I know that I am not the only one. I have always know this group as either anti-Chalcedonian or Monophysites; though, I understand the distinction between Eutychian Monophysitism and this group, which accepted the Alexandrian union, was basically in accord with established orthodoxy, and only really butted heads with Sophronius at first. So I understand not using monophysite, and I also understand that anti-Chalcedonian might be awkward as a name. But the confusion is that Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy are, on the surface, synonyms – and I really cannot imagine that Oriental Orthodoxy call themselves such, since this kind of fine distinction is only really possible in English (a language perhaps only spoken by a few Oriental Orthodox as a native tongue). Does anyone more learned in this know what the Oriental Orthodox call themselves? Lostcaesar 09:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes - Oriental Orthodox. Oriental Orthodox prefer to be called 'Oriental Ortodox' as a denominational name in English, and certainly never the antagonistic terms 'anti-Chalcedonian' or 'Monophysite' that you say you have always known. The native term varies according to the specific national Church in various languages, for example the Ge'ez term Tewahido is used in the Eritrean and Ethiopian Orthodox Churches. The literal translation of Tewahido is "unified" or "made one" (related to aHad, one) in reference to the firm belief that after Christ's human and Divine nature were "unified", the total number of remaining natures was then not two, but one - just like after East and West Germany were unified there are no longer two Germanies, but only one. The term Tewahido probably should not be used in English as a bigger umbrella to cover the other Oriental Orthodox Communion Churches, however. And you would be surprised how many around the world know at least this much English, even if it is not a "native tongue"! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 11:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't "Tewahido", then, rather mean the same thing as "Monophysite"? "Oriental Orthodox," though, is pretty clearly a term used only in English. The French use "Churches of the Three Councils" (presumably Nicea, Constantinople, and Ephesus), the Germans "Old Oriental Churches". But "Oriental Orthodox" does seem to get more hits than "Monophysite" or "Non-Chalcedonian." This (very conservative, anti-ecumenist Eastern Orthodox site seems to object to "Oriental Orthodox", suggesting it obfuscates differences between the groups we discuss here and the Eastern Orthodox, and advances a particular political agenda. I'm not sure what's to be done - there's not any particularly version which is both inarguably neutral and well-used. The basic issue is that what you have here is three separate groups (Armenians, Copts, and Jacobites), who need a common name to describe them, where, until recently, they did not have a self-designated one. "Oriental Orthodox" seems a particularly obnoxious one, given that it means exactly the same thing as "Eastern Orthodox," but, unfortunately, we don't seem to have a better option. john k 12:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

FIVE different national Churches, actually: Copts, Syrians, Armenians, Indians, and Ethiopians. And yes, "Oriental Orthodox" seems least objectionable, at least in English since, as with the folks centered on Constantinople, the preferred term is simply "Orthodox" with qualifers, such as "Roum" ("Roman") applied to the Byzantine Churches. Regarding the meaning of "Tewahido," the best translation would be "miaphysite," not "monophysite". --Midnite Critic 12:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the Ethiopian Church clearly derives from the Coptic Church, and the Indian from the Syrian Jacobite. john k 19:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to note, the Swedish, Norwegian, and Dutch wikipedias do use "Oriental Orthodox" but I'm not sure I'd trust that this represents actual usage in those languages, rather than simply a literal translation of the English wikipedia title. john k 12:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

See also the statement from the Conference of Oriental Orthodox Churches on relations with the Eastern Orthodox Church: http://www.orthodoxunity.org/state06.html

Churches of the Three Councils doesn't seem half bad in that it says something informative and constructive about the churches; it doesn't sound that great either though because it is wordy. Miaphysite might be a decent alternative to think about, though it narrows the issue to a Christological formula, at least it is what these groups are comfortable describing themselves as. I understand your point, John, that we might not have any alternative. Out of curiosity, what do those other language pages do with Eastern Orthodoxy? Lostcaesar 13:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is going to use what they are properly known by in English, which is "Oriental Orthodox" - not something like "Church of the Three Councils" that contributors have concocted on the spot for possibly contentious purposes. Miaphysite describes the doctrine, not the denomination; that's another article. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd think "Non-Chalcedonian" is the term used in English that corresponds in meaning to the French "Churches of the Three Councils." I agree with Codex that we can't use a term not used in English. Apparently the German and French wikipedias just call the Eastern Orthodox church the "Orthodox Church" (in the former case) or "Orthodoxy" (in the latter). As noted before, I think that the German and French wikipedias are probably the only ones that are sufficiently worked on to really be considered as actually representing anything real in terms of usage. john k 19:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

In other contexts I have used "tricounciliar" (vs. "septocounciliar"), but again, I think, despite its inadequacies, "Oriental Orthodox" is the most commonly accepted term in English at this time, across all lines of opinion. --Midnite Critic 20:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Although it's an incredibly awkward and confusing term, I think I am reluctantly forced to agree. Certainly nobody has come up with anything better. john k 20:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Conference of Oriental Orthodox Churches, January 15, 1965

At the Conference of Oriental Orthodox Churches, Friday, January 15, 1965 held in Addis Ababa, His Majesty Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia gave a very inspiring speech on the Unity of the Churches in Christ thatenabled them to put aside their differences. This is one of my favorite speeches and is an excellent primary source.

Some excerpts:

Ever since We ascended the historic throne of Ethiopia, We have considered it Our duty to call for a meeting of the churches who belong to the same fold. We were praying to God for His help in achieving this holy purpose, so that He may grant it to us to see this event. In ancient times the Byzantine emperors used to summon the councils. Our sincere wish from the very beginning was to see these churches meeting to discuss their common interests and decide on their common problems. This wish is in actual fact fulfilled today, and We are happy to witness it. Therefore, We thank Almighty God first because He has enabled Us to properly fulfil Our clear duty, and secondly, because Our long cherished desire has now met with fulfilment. Henceforth the matter will demand the spiritual unity and hard work of Your Holinesses. For strength can be achieved through unity, and success is the fruit of co-operation. There is no doubt that work done through a co-operative spirit shall meet with success. Christ affirmed: "... That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my father which is in heaven." (Matt. 18: 19)

For centuries past our Orthodox Churches have been without contact. Perhaps that which still divides the two groups is a matter of some importance. Perhaps it is not. In any case. we live in a time when even political differences are discussed around the conference table and peaceful and amicable solutions sought by all. The Church can afford to do no less.

The speech can be read in its entirety in several places on the web; for example, here.

ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Numbers?

I came to this page out of curiosity. One thing I was curious about that isn't addressed: how many people are members of the Oriental Orthodox Church? Obviously, breaking it down by nation would be even better. CarlFink 16:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I've generally heard around 80 million members (around the same amount as the Anglican Communion), with probably around half (or maybe a little more) of them being in the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church. Deusveritasest (talk) 22:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Spiritual Leadership

Francesco Mazzocotelli has objection in identifying the Oriental Orthodox Comunion or Group as having the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria as the Spiritual Leader of the Group. Here is my response to this objection:

1) Spiritual Leadership in this Group is not an official organized distinction that reflects a certain perogative or jurisdiction or authority from one church over another from the group. This definition is rather an allegorigal representation in the honorific position of the precedence of Apostolic Thrones based on the model established in the early church for the Pentarchy in the following sense:

• The Historical and aproved presedence in dignity and in honor within the original five major sees (the Pentarchy) as established in the Ecumenical Councils of Nicea and Constantinople. Accordingly, the Throne of Alexandria is the foremost within this Oriental Orthodox Group, followed by Antioch then the Armenian Church as a whole, since within this Church there is the remnant of several recognized as Christian Centers but of lesser importance than the above mentioned. Within it the Church of Jerusalem that came after Alexandria and Antioch, considering that Jerusalem at one point was a Metropolis wihin the jurisdiction of Antioch and All the East, then was recognized as an Apostic Throne and gained its independence at Chalcedon, the church of Cappadoccia, the Church of Cilicea, the Church of Nisibin and other metrolises in the East that were at one point part of the extended jurisdiction of Antioch, then gained independence at different times.
• The Church of Alexandria has the highest percentage of the adherents within the group, either directly within the mother Church of Alexandria (i.e. the Church in Egypt, which accounts for about 11 million + about 4 millions in the diaspora) or within the daughters churches that stemmed out of it (Ethiopia 39 million + Eritrea 2.5 million), thus forming at least 56-57 million out of approximately 79-80 million of total adherents in the Oriental Orthodox Church (counting 6.5-7 million Armenians, 2.25-2.5 million of Syriac tradition, including the Church in India and 2.5 million of the independent Indian Orthodox Church). I do recognize that number of adherents is not a sole factor or a justification of consideration of an allegorical spiritual leadership.

2) Spiritual leadership in this group is not defined or understood as it is implemented in the Eastern Orthodox Church, giving the Church of Constantinople certain prerogatives based on Canon Law definitions identifying rights of appeal of ecclesiastical courts, extending jurisdiction in barbaric lands according to ancient definitions or even the right to preside in honor as first among equals in consideration of being the Imperial Capital.

It is however, because of the above mentioned that collectively the Oriental Orthodox Churches do give a certain respect for the elder sister church that, given the historical background, enjoys the privilege of being, if you want to term it in layman language, "the big brother' but in a loving and respectful manner, nothing more or less. There is no rights of presedence or jursidiction or canon law based privileges. It is in the spirit of a courtesy of respect. And this respectful courtesy is actually implemented in any meetings at any level, in the precedence in the terming the wordings of any official declarations, in seating arrangements when in a meeting or concelebrating, when signing documents or even presendence of the speaches, according to the hosting party of course, among the Hierarchs of these respective churches in a conciliar manner.

This spiritual leadership does not diminsh any prestige of any of the Churches within this group, it does not belittle or affect any aspect of the autocephalous status of each church of the group, or even overshadows any self gained privilege.

This is what is meant by the spiritual leadership in the Oriental Orthodox Church. I hope that apart finding a suitable NPOV as you are labeling yourself, you will gracefully and intellectually understand and accept this description in a good fraternal spirit.

Orthopraxia, 09:27 PM pacific time, December 28th, 2006

I am gracefully, intellectually and fraternally not completely convinced by your arguments. First of all, you do not quote any source, reference or document to back up your theories. I don't doubt that the Patriarchal See of Alexandria might have had an importance and a prestige that placed it in a superior position in the 4th century CE. I am wondering if and how you can assert that today the other Oriental Orthodox Churches consider the Coptic Orthodox Church as their primus inter pares. Is it true that the first conference of Oriental Orthodox Churches ever held after the Council of Ephesus took place in Addis Ababa in January 1965? If that is true, how can you assert that there is a consolidated tradition which recognizes a superior rank, even if only on a symbolic level, to the Coptic Church?

Moreover, as you say, the number of adherents is not an issue as it doesn't make a factor that implies or justifies spiritual leadership.

Maybe you should also explain in the article that "spiritual leadership" is referred to in a different meaning than in the Catholic or Eastern Orthodox tradition, so there are no misunderstandings on the readers' side. FrancescoMazzucotelli 18:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I can still see in your kind and fraternal response that you have missed the explanation I gave about the meaning of the extended spiritual leadership in the Oriental Orthodox Communion to the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria.

The reason I am saying so is your statement of "superior rank" which was never mentioned and "primus enter pares" which is , although I did not write it and does not apply to the Oriental Orthodox Churches, what I reffered to as what is understood in the Eastern Orthodox Church Communion. This is also not what I said. I said, "certain respect" and "the big brother" "but in a loving and respectful manner, nothing more or less". "There is no rights of presedence or jursidiction or canon law based privileges". "It is in the spirit of a courtesy of respect."

As to how to prove what I claim, you can easily search and view pictures, read wording of the several joint declarations made at several times when meetings of the heads of the Oriental Orthodox Churches meet whether in Cairo, Egypt, Wadi Natroun's Monastery of Saint Bishoy, at Beirut, Lebanon, whether at Antelias, or other Patriarchal centers, or even in Damascus, Syria.

These pictures and documents of the joint declarations are available on all offical websites of the respective Patriarchates,and also on wikipedia. In the pictures you will see that always the center position among the Hierarchs is given to the Pope of Alexandria anywhere, and when meeting with Government positions, like in Lebanon (President of Lebanon and others), the Pope of Alexandria is seated according, most probably too, to the aproved protocol of seniority implemented in the diplomatic arena, nearest to the Official followed by the other Patriarchs and always in the following sequense: Alexandria, Antioch, Antelias or Etchemiazin, Axum and Malankara. The Pope of Alexandria is also given the Center position on the Cathedra when seated in the Patriarchal Cathedral of the receiving Patriarch (Syriac or Armenian), this honor is not usually extended to any other Hierarch visiting another Hierarch in their Patriarchal Cathedral.

As for the documents (Common Declarations) wording, it always start with the Pope of Alexandria, followed by the Patriarch of Antioch, then the Catholicos of the House Cilicia or the Catholicos of the All Armenians (whoever is attending).

Now again this does not give any perogatives to Alexandria or higher status or jursidiction or even distinction in, if you want to label it as, an appartidal way (if this word exist). It is just an extended respect mutually acknowledged among the churches.

I will add as per your sugestion a clause that states that the Spiritual leadership in the Oriental Orthodox Churches is in a different understanding and in a different spirit than the one granted in the Eastern Orthodox Churches to avoid any misconception. I hope that this would be satisfactory.

In Christ, Orthopraxia, 1:13 AM Pacific Time, January 8th, 2007

Roman Catholic bias in Liturgy_of_the_hours and renaming proposal

Please see Talk:Liturgy_of_the_hours#Requested_move for details. --Espoo 10:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed WikiProject

The Oriental Orthodox Church is at this point probably the only branch of orthodoxy which does not have a specific project dealing with it. On that basis, I have proposed a new project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Oriental Orthodoxy. Any individuals interested in seeing such a project develop should indicate their interest there. Thank you. Badbilltucker 22:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church

"Syriac and Indian ecclesiastical jurisdictions" removed.

—There is no "Indian Orthodox Church" our church name is Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. Our constitution says, "The Malankara Church is a division of Orthodox Syrian Church. The primate of the Orthodox Syrian Church is the Patriarch of Antioch." It also says, "The ancient and the real name of the Malankara Church is The Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, although it is also wrongly called 'The Jacobite Church', for the same reasons for which the Orthodox Syrian Church has been also called so." The great scholar Dr. Paulose Mar Gregoriose records that we are an autonomous church. So please, stop changing our status to Indian Orthodox Church. It is not recognized by our constitution. There are two factions in Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, one who is more traditional and goes back to Mar Thomas Sleeha and the other who wants to make a new Indian Orthodox Church with no ties to anything that is not from India. So, it is not the case. If someday we do split and have one Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church and another Indian Orthodox Church then you should change the listing. Until then, please honor our church constitution and stop editing our holy autonomous status! Paulosethomas 02:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

In response to your justification of the name and autonomy of the Church, it is quite obvious that you are a member of the Malankara Syrian Jacobite Church, which is in fact an autonomous church, whose Catholicos is the Catholicos of India, and is fact under the Patriachate of Antioch, and this church is already mentioned in the lineage of the Oriental Orthodox group/Communion. But, it is an established fact, whether I or you like it of not that the Indian Orthodox Church Church exist and is Autocephalous (independent) and whose Catholicos is the Catholicos of the East and the malankara Metropolitan. They have their church, their website, their Page, as it is referenced in Wikipedia and there is nothing that will change this fact. Your opinion and mine for that sake is irrelevant.

If your sentiment is towards that they should be one united church as before, then we all pray for that, but until this happens, neither I or you or anyone has the right to change the fact, and by eliminating what you removed from the page or by putting the name of the Church under the Church of Antioch will not change anything.

I am sorry if I sound blunt, but you have to deal with certain realies, even at your dissatisfaction. I will revert what you have done and I will always do that, and I have to, I will report your tampering of the page to Wikipedia administrator.

You have the right, if you want to create a Page to discuss you opinion, you may add the link to the Oriental Orthodoxy Page if you wish, although the ongoing rift within the Churches in India is already well documented from both factions and it does not need further elaboration. I would appreciate that you take heed of this issue and abide by it respectfully.

I would like to add that I am not a memeber of either churches, if this is your concern and I am not advacating one over the other. This is an encyclopedia of information and information should be correctly documented without bias and based on established facts whether we like it or not. Orthopraxia 09:28 am Pacific Time, January 23, 2007

— I am sorry to sound blunt also, but you need to deal with certain realities, even if it does not give you pleasure. There are two groups of Orthodox in India, the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, which goes back to our first Patriarch St. Thomas Sleeha, and Malankara Jacobite Syrian Church. I am part of Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, not Jacobite Syrian Church. Let it be clear to you. Inside Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church are two factions, one who is ancient faction that respects our 1934 Constitution and one who wants to make a new constitution and change our name to Indian Orthodox Church. I am part of ancient faction of Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. You are so quick to make assumptions and it shows you don't know what you're talking about. So go ahead an report your false information. I have evidence to back the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. If you even click on the link called "Indian Orthodox" you can view many websites in links sections. All of these prove that you are wrong. Let's list them please.

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Indian_Orthodox_Church#External_links

Now click the first link: Official site of the Indian Orthodox Church - Then on left menu, click "Church Constitution." What you will see in the top? Everything I quoted above. Right in front of your face.

Now click on the second link: St. Gregorios Indian Orthodox Church, UK - This is a parish website, not official, but still it is clear. Then on left menu, click "historical." You can read about the history. From this page it clearly says "The Indian Church was autonomous then, and is now, like all Orthodox Churches."

Now click on this link: The website of the Malankara Orthodox Church - On top left, click "History." You will read many pages and at the end it says "Orthodox Church is an Ancient, Autonomous, Independent, Indian Church whose Supreme Head is His Holiness The Catholicos of the East and Malankara Metropolitan, with headquarters at Catholicate Aramana, Devalokam, Kottayam, Kerala. " http://www.orthodoxsyrianchurch.com/html/history/moc7.htm

Now click on official American diocese site and click catholicose then history: http://www.indianorthodoxchurch.org/history.html What does it say? "The Indian Orthodox Church is autonomous, but belongs to the family of the Oriental Orthodox Churches, and to the wider group of the world's Orthodox Churches, which have a membership of about one hundred and twenty five million."

I will be nice to you because you are not in Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church so you don't understand. We are autonomous and this is the law. It is in our 1934 constitution. If some want to change it to autocephaly, they cannot do it. This would break the constitution and we would have to forfit our churches that belong to us! I have given you official evidences and even not official evidences. So if you are not part of this Church, please quit your behavior or I will report you as well. Paulosethomas 19:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Requested move of interest

In case anyone here wants to weigh in, Eastern Rite Catholic Churches → Eastern Catholic Churches: See Talk:Eastern Rite Catholic Churches. Fishhead64 07:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

"Old Oriental Churches"

can someone give some more information about this, specifically the word 'Old'? a) I've never heard it before, b) I can't find anything about it other than this information copied elsewhere, and c) I can't find any 'New Oriental Churches'. Richardson mcphillips1 (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

With respect to liturgical and theological traditions, relative to the Oriental Orthodox, the Eastern Orthodox churches could probably be named the "New Oriental Churches". Deusveritasest (talk) 22:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

"Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches"

I made an alteration in the text where it describes the conflict as having caused a schism between the Oriental Orthodox churches and "what would later become the roman catholic and eastern orthodox churches". The alteration I made was to change that phrase to "the mainstream of the Christian Church", which is more historically accurate, although it was, unfortunately, reverted immediately. The phrasing as it stands is at best overly simplistic and under-informed, and is at worst a potential NPOV violation. If we are to be fully accurate in these terms, it would be ideal to alter the the text to say "what would later become the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, etc...". What do people think? S0343463 (talk) 18:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I do see your point. However, I tend to disagree. The church from which the Oriental Orthodox split (itself a POV wording) would indeed become the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. The Roman Catholic church would then split to give us the panoply of western churches we have today. So the wording is technically entirely correct. Your phrasing, while defensible, to my mind suggests that Oriental Orthodoxy is not a "mainstream" church whereas the others are, thus giving them legitimacy. While I understand as well as you do that that is neither the intended meaning nor the precise meaning when read closely, it is nonetheless a possible understanding. Can you explain how the current wording is not neutral? Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 19:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Sam Korn, in both seeing your point and tending to disagree. The word 'mainstream' is not too helpful, to me (nor would 'main body' or 'larger part' be either). But I don't think saying 'the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches' is NPOV so much as anachronistic (when did the Roman Catholic Church start using the word 'roman' to describe itself as a whole entity?). How about 'the rest of the Christian Church'? It is simple, true, but the wordier explanation can come later in the article. Richardson mcphillips1 (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem, Richardson, with your proposed phrasing is that what is now called the Catholic Apostolic Assyrian Church of the East, aka the "Nestorians," had already separated in the wake of Council of Ephesus. Your concern about anachronism is well-taken, but look closely at the wording: "what would become the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches." I think this wording is adequate, non-anachronistic, NPOV, and possibly the best available.--Midnite Critic (talk) 04:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

good point, I had forgotten about the Nestorians. Yes, this might be the best available. Concerning the Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East, I notice this article says that they are 'sometimes, although incorrectly, considered an OOC.' Then the article goes on to list them as 'Oriental Orthodox in Tradition but not in communion with the Oriental Orthodox Communion'. Is this misleading? (I write as one who made this mistake regularly, and am grateful to the author for making this point in the article) Richardson mcphillips1 (talk) 19:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Not only misleading but incorrect. The OO, by definition, accept the Councils of Nicea, Constantinople, and Ephesus as being ecumenical and binding. The Assyrian Church accepts only the Councils of Nicea (AD 325) and Constantinople (AD 381) as ecumenical. The tradition of the Assyrian Church is usually termed "East Syrian," as opposed to the "West Syrian" tradition of the Syriac Orthodox Church, the Syriac Rite Church in communion with Rome, and the Maronites, also in communion with Rome and West Syrian, but whose tradition is a variant. --Midnite Critic (talk) 20:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

To further clarify: the terminology can be confusing, especially in Iraq, since many people who consider themselves "Assyrian" by ethnicity are members of the Syriac Orthodox Church. --Midnite Critic (talk) 20:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

What kind of phrasing is that? Roman Catholics would not agree to it. To them the Chalcedonian Church was identical to the Roman Catholic Church to the exclusion of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Therefore a traditional Roman Catholic would only agree to the phrasing "what would later become the Roman Catholic Church". The Eastern Orthodox would say the very same about themselves. And for those who adhere to branch theory, they would extend that reality beyond the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. So I don't see how this phrase really represents the opinion of any major ecclesiastical group in Christianity. Deusveritasest (talk) 06:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The phrase...

..."This was not because Chalcedon stated that Christ has two natures, but because the council's declaration did not confess the two natures as inseparable and united." is absolutely fallacious on both counts. The traditional Oriental Orthodox who object to Chalcedonian Christology DO object to the formula "to be acknowledged in two natures". Secondly, the Chalcedonian Creed most certainly does confess the two natures as united inseparably. Deusveritasest (talk) 06:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Georgian Orthodox Church

Referring to the link at the bottom of the page. Aside from the fact that this is a faulty link, I am curious as to why the Georgian Orthodox Church is linked in an article about Oriental Orthodoxy? The Georgian Orthodox Church, to my knowledge, is an Eastern Orthodox church, not an Oriental Orthodox church. Deusveritasest (talk) 06:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Odd statement

"These six churches, while being in communion with each other are completely independent hierarchically and have no equivalent of the Bishop of Rome or Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople."

What's that supposed to mean? This makes it seem as if the Patriarch in Constantinople is the same as the Pope in authority. While the Oriental Orthodox may have no First among Equals, this is a misleading comparison that can draw false conclusions on Eastern Orthodox hierarchy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.187.190 (talk) 22:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not? Ancient Canons before the church split says that the Ecumenical Patriarch was having the highest authority. Pope was only having an honarary post since he was the Patriarch of old capital of the empire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.196.131.64 (talk) 17:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you substantiate the claim that the Patriarch of Constantinople had the "highest authority", greater even than the Bishop of Rome? Deusveritasest (talk) 06:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

"While the Oriental Orthodox may have no First among Equals,". The Oriental Orthodox most certainly do have a first among equals within their communion. The Coptic Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria is regarded as the first in honorary rank among the Oriental Orthodox bishops. Deusveritasest (talk) 22:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Indian church in a pathetic state

The situation of the Orthodox Church in India is similar to that of the church in Ukraine. The followers of Patriarch of Antioch and Catholicos of East are fighting in the streets to get possession of the assets of the church.

The Patriarch fraction is known as Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church, and the Catholicos fraction as Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. An Independent Orthodox Church body also exists since 1772 AD by name, Malabar Independent Syrian Church, which is not in communion either with the Patriarch or Catholicos.

Majority of the Orthodox christians in India,including me, accept the Patriarch of Antioch as the Spiritual leader, and Catholicos of East as the autocephelous head. Similar to the situation in Georgia, where Georgians accept the Catholicos of Georgia as their autocephelous head and Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople as the Spiritual head.
So, we christians dont know which church we actually belong, since we need both the Patriarch and the Catholicos.

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kulangattil (talk • contribs) 11:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC) 

The particular churches

So, more and more I am becoming very confused as to which particular churches actually constitute the mainstream Oriental Orthodox communion and maintain full communion. It seems pretty clear that the Coptic, Syriac, and Ethiopian (under Abuna Paulos) churches maintain full communion and are legitimate parts of this Church. I'm not sure about the Eritrean church. However, I have heard from a number of insiders that supposedly the Malankara Orthodox Syrian church is actually not in full communion and thus not part of the mainstream Oriental Orthodox Church. On top of this, I recently read an odd statement in The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church that: "Owing to the wars in which they were involved, the Armenian were not represented at the Council of Chalcedon, but in 555 the Armenian Church definitively repudiated that Council and the schism has not been healed. The decision seems to have been partly motivated by fear of domination by Constantinople, and the Armenians never entered into full communion with the other Oriental Orthodox Churches". So I am confused also about the Armenian church.

Can some individual informed about Oriental Orthodoxy clarify which churches actually maintain full communion and which do not? Deusveritasest (talk) 05:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Part of the problem is the origin of the term: it's a European classification. West Syriacs, Copts, Ethiopians and Armenians united in their rejection of Chalcedon, supporting each other in opposition to the imperial church. However, the churches have remained quite distant from one another, mainly because of their ethno-linguistic origins. As with all Orthodox, they have always been quite flexible over what being in 'full communion' means. The traditional model is that you're either a heretic or you're in full communion. Thus, these churches remain in communion with each other. The two Indian churches that have ties with the Syriac Orthodox Church — the semi-autonomous 'patriarchal faction' and the autocephalous 'catholicos faction' — are both Oriental Orthodox. However, the Malabar Independent Syrian Church seems to reject any association with this concept, though I would be happy to consider it Oriental Orthodox too. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Does that mean that schism while both factions hold the same faith would technically be impossible? So, given this model, it would mean that all of the Oriental Orthodox churches are one Church regardless of the messiness of their ecclesiastical structure and relations? And also, if the modern leaders in ecumenism between the Eastern (Chalcedonian) Orthodox & Oriental (Non-Chalcedonian) Orthodox churches are correct in asserting that we have held the same faith all along, that we have also been one Church all along? 24.130.191.89 (talk) 22:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Faith and authority are two different things. Eastern churches have always emphasized faith as the criterion for communion, whereas Catholics have emphasized authority first and then dictated faith from the centre. Unlike the Eastern Orthodox centring on the symbolic leadership of the Patriarch of Constantinople, even thought many of the autocephalous churches thoroughly disagree with him, the Oriental Orthodox have never had a central authority or symbol. Each church is separate in authority and liturgical tradition (with the exception that the Eritreans are rooted in Ethiopian tradition, the Ethiopians under traditional Coptic authority, and the Indian Syrians under Antioch). For example the division of factions in the Indian Syriac churches are not about doctrinal fundamentals, but about authority and property. The Oriental Orthodox are more disparate than the Eastern Orthodox, but even the latter would not readily call themselves one church, but part of a common doxa. In this case, schism is to declare the other 'heterodox'. For the Oriental Orthodox, part of the tradition is the rejection of the idea that there is a single 'imperial church'. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 23:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help so far. What you are saying here makes sense to me, though it appears to be contrary to the explanations of a number of members of my Church. They speak not only of a unity in the Orthodox faith, but also in the Sacraments. Thus, according to this view, even though the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox may have substantially held the same faith all along, that we are rendered two distinct broad Churches because of our formal severance of intercommunion. Do you think such an idea is an innovation with respect to the Eastern Christian tradition? Also, why is it that the Syriac Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch has "excommunicated" the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church? Deusveritasest (talk) 06:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The latter matter is part of an ongoing dispute between the patriarch and the Indian portion of the Syriac Orthodox Church. The issues are mainly property, money and authority, but has a complicated history. The church in India is divided into two factions: one supporting the patriarch (patriarchal faction) and one wanting autonomy (catholicos faction). This is complicated by the patriarchal faction in India now being lead by a catholicos also. On the broader issues, the truth is whether a certain church is orthodox or heterodox is rather subjective. Within Eastern Orthodoxy, there is considerable variation of practice, yet an agreement on substantial doctrine. The modern repairing of cordiality between the Oriental Orthodox and others covers doctrinal agreement (although I'm sure certain OO liturgical texts would be totally unacceptable to the EO), but does not recognise a unified authority structure (demanded by RCs and nominally among EO churches). — Gareth Hughes (talk) 02:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3