Talk:Orthodox Christianity

Older comments

I've removed the section about the "Oriental Orthodox" Christology being recognized (by some) as Orthodox. This question is far too complex and contentious to be described on a basic disambiguation page. In fact, many "Oriental Orthodox" continue to assert that their rejection of Chalcedon was based on principle, not semantics or politics (see http://www.britishorthodox.org/113e.php for example). TheEvilPanda (talk) 12:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is NPOV. Certainly all of those claim to be orthodox, but also that the others are heterodox. There is not general agreement on which churches are orthodox. The Anglican churches also consider themselves orthodox, for example. Michael Hardy 00:28 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I'd say ditch this article entirely. If "Orthodox" is used here in the sense of "correct" or "traditional," then it's far too vague for an article. Better stick with the agreed-upon divisions, and separate articles on them: Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholic Church, etc. --Delirium 00:36 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I don't doubt Anglicans believe they're doing as God wishes, but I would be surprised if church leaders use the word "orthodox" to describe their church in terms of the larger history of Christianity. I don't know if they were Anglicans, which of course makes all the difference, but I'm sure I've heard people describe the Anglican church as protestant, of all things. Can you cite any text in which an Anglican leader calls the church "orthodox" in an appropriate sense? While I admit that the connotations of "orthodox" are problematic, I think "Orthodox Christianity" is a technical term that people use, and not an offensive one like "nigger." In the absence of evidence that other Christian sects are vying explicitly for the designation "orthodox" (i.e. as opposed to vying simply to be regarded as the most Christian, as fundamentalists do) I don't think there's any NPOV violation in defining the term as the article does now. I'm certainly open to evidence though. 168... 01:27 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

"Orthodox" is used as a title, "orthodox" as a descriptor. The same could be said of "Catholic" and "catholic". The Anglican church can and has used both "catholic" and "orthodox" to describe itself, but never to my knowledge "Catholic" or "Orthodox" when referring to itself as a body (as opposed to lables given to movements within the church, such as "Anglo-Catholic")

Therefore, in my opinion, this should be disambiguation page that keeps strictly to giving a list of named Churches that use Orthodox in their title, plus a brief word about the difference between big-O and little-o orthodoxy, and their relative objectivity. Tobermory 01:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I would say that when used with a capital "O", the term "Orthodox Christian" always refers to the traditional Christian churches of the East (Eastern Europe, Near East, Middle East, India, etc.), that is, to the Christians of the Eastern/Oriental varieties, who could possibly be better understood by laymen as being adherents of "non-Roman" Catholicism, since they are very traditional, liturgical Christians not in communion with Rome. This includes the Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Syrian Orthodox, etc. However, when used with a small "o", I believe its most common useage is among what may be called "pan-Christian" conservatives (mostly evangelical & fundamentalist Protestants in the US, but also trying to find common ground with conservative mainline Protestants, Roman Catholics, & Eastern Christians) who wish to define & separate traditional/conventional Christian doctrines, especially regarding the Scriptures and the Trinity, from both liberals/modernists and from off-shoots that they don't really regard as Christian (such as Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, certain Adventists, etc.).Shanoman (talk) 19:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Communion?

In the article we read "Note: The Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches preserve ancient church traditions but are not in communion.". What does "in communion" mean? It would be nice to explain these things, since giving understandable information is what an encyclopedia is all about. Thanks - KitchM (talk) 02:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Similar to how the Latin Rite Catholic Churches and Eastern Rite Catholic Churches are in commonion under the Holy See, or how all the various Anglican churches (e.g. Church of England, Church of Ireland, Episcopal Church in the United States, etc) are all under the Anglican Communion. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the relevant text is no longer present in the article so this discussion is moot now. But for the record, the appropriate fix would have been to link that phrase to Full communion. Mrhsj (talk) 01:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Eastern & Oriental Orthodoxy unrelated?

While there are minorities within both the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox communions who would argue that "the term Orthodox Christianity when used to refer to these two Churches collectively has little meaning" (as this article states), it's my understanding (and certainly my experience) that the mainstream of each communion regards the other as extremely close or identical in doctrine, worship and spirit. I've heard stories of frequent, authorized intercommunion among the two Churches, especially in Lebanon and Syria. As such, I believe the "Note" at the bottom of this page represents a minority POV. If there's no objection, I plan to remove or revise this note in the next day or two. Buddhagazelle 00:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

For the above reasons I've deleted the "Note." The Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches are what they are-- the article quite nicely and succinctly defines who each is, and the manner in which they differ (seven vs. three councils) is made quite clear. There is no need for a clarifying note; and the "Note" as it stood was in fact misleading and inaccurate (or at least strongly POV). Buddhagazelle 18:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

MCorazao is in fact correct. The notion that a "minority" objects to the intercommunion is quite irrelevant, especially since this "minority" includes most monastics in the Eastern Orthodox Church. In fact, most Orthodox do not even know enough about the issue to have an opinion about it, so the talk of "minorities" and "majorities" is highly irrelevant and disingenuous. TheEvilPanda (talk) 12:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Folks, I have not been monitoring this page for while so I missed this edit. Let me state clearly: You are completely wrong here. Please do not make edits like this without researching. What was stated here is correct. Doctrinally the Roman Catholic Churches are much closer historically than the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches. Remember than until around the turn of the millennium the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches were the same church whereas Oriental Orthodox Church was separate. The similarity in Eastern and Oriental Orthodox is cultural, NOT religious.

Again, please be careful about making uninformed edits. The precise reason I added this note was specifically because of this common misunderstanding.

--Mcorazao 04:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a source for your statement that "the term Orthodox Christianity when used to refer to these two Churches collectively has little meaning". The Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches typically refer to their division as "a split within Orthodoxy," rather than as the one being Orthodox and the other not. In many parts of the world, especially Lebanon and Syria, intercommunion between the two churches is authorized and frequent. Check also the "Relationships with the Eastern (Chalcedonian) Orthodox Churches" on this page, which states that "the official view of both families of Churches was clearly expressed at the 1989 meeting: 'As two families of Orthodox Churches long out of communion with each other, we now pray and trust in God to restore that communion on the basis of the apostolic faith of the undivided Church of the first centuries which we confess in our common creed.' ".

While there is a substantial minority within both the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox traditions that holds the other to be completely non-Orthodox, this is a minority position on both sides. Most Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Christians regard the other to be also Orthodox. Removing the "Note" does not imply that the two Churches have no differences-- the differences between the two are quite clearly stated in the article (that the one accepts seven councils and the other three). A note to clarify that the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox communions are not (yet) in full communion with one another might be in order. But the "Note" as it stands is really very POV. Don't accuse me of making "uninformed" edits without sourcing your own claims. --Buddhagazelle 02:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Population?

Okay. Really, what is the population of Orthodox Christianity, and what are the sources for those? Robotbeat 09:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is meant by "Orthodox Christianity"? Deusveritasest (talk) 23:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Tidying up Eastern Christian entries

Please see my proposal on the discussian page of Eastern Christianity. This may be a way of dealing with some of the problems behind the ambiguity of the word orthodox.

Dorotheus 10:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

merge proposal

Dorotheus, I changed your merge proposal. I hope you don't mind. Discuss it at Talk:Eastern Chrisitanity --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• The content from this page was a duplication of Eastern Christianity, so I have merged it into that page and made Orthodox Christianity a disambiguation page, per the proposal. Chonak 14:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

addition by 72.66.231.187: "Ukrainian Reformatory Orthodox Church"

User 72.66.231.187 added this reference on 2006-09-17 under "See also", but there is no article under that name; therefore I shall remove it. Chonak 02:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

This page was marked for cleanup per MoS:DAB. I deleted sublinks that were already listed as mainlinks, and moved some of them up from the "See also" section. I also deleted the descriptions from the "See also" section, but provide them here if someone thinks those links (with descriptions) should be listed under the main "may refer to":

• Old Believers, a movement containing a large number of Eastern Orthodox denominations, which broke from the Russian Orthodox Church in the 17th century:
  • Russian Orthodox Old-Rite Church
• Orthodoxy, the correct theological or doctrinal observance of religion
• Western Orthodoxy, which is a term usually used to describe parishes that, although actually Eastern Orthodox in doctrine, use rites adapted for use in Protestant or Catholic countries. It is also used by some church bodies associated with the Old Catholic Church, Continuing Anglican Movement, and Liberal Catholic Church.

– sgeureka ^t•c 11:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This page has been reverted to-and-fro several times in the meantime, so I'll be more clear. That page was marked for DAB cleanup, and I cleaned it up using the rules of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). Please familiarize yourself with that topic before doing any more reverts to the for-cleanup-marked page. That page is a disambiguation page to help people find what they want quickly (see Wikipedia:Disambiguation) and not a page where to describe the linked-to pages in detail. I have reverted it back. You may help by building on my cleanup version where you think I was too bold in removal of information. – sgeureka ^t•c 22:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That's just it - I think ALL of the removal was too bold, and giving so-called "Conservative Christians" in the West as the primary meaning of "Orthodox" is completely unacceptable. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:REVERT#Don't. Your reverts seem inappropriate, especially since you didn't improve my edit but rather reverted back to a version that is obviously not acceptable by MoS:DAB standards. As for putting Conservative Christians first: I'm not familiar with Christianity and simply went for an alphabetical order, with no harm intended. That alone should not have been your reason to revert, especially if a simple cut-paste job would have done. I'm leaving this note up for others to decide what should be done. Please also read WP:3RR. One of the reverts back to my version was not by me. – sgeureka ^t•c 23:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, DO NOT delete {{disambig-cleanup}} until this disambiguation page has been properly cleaned up per MoS:DAB (or until we could find consensus otherwise). Anyone may clean up. – sgeureka ^t•c 01:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the best course of action is for Codex Sinaiticus to expand the page into a comaprison of the various orthodoxies. Consequently, I'm removing the disambiguation tag from this page altogether. Ewlyahoocom 20:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

That change has made it much worse than it was before (IMO). I've looked through the history. Please look at the evolution of this page: Dec 2001 (creation) Feb 2002 Jul 2003 Jun 2005 Aug 2005 Jan 2006 Feb 2006 May 2006 Sep 2006 Sep 2006 Jan 2007 (when marked for {{disambig-cleanup}}). I think this page was right to be a (topic) disambiguation in the first place, even if religion tends to not have strict borders. But for disambiguation pages, there is MoS:DAB, and this should apply here also. I'm still inviting others to apply those cleanup guidelines here. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record: The whole {{disambig-cleanup}} tag has been deleted in the last revert (not by me), thus deleting the DAB status of this page (although I think it is a DAB page, even though not in the strictest sense). I am going to leave this page alone for now and wait what others think about it being a DAB page. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Caution

At the risk of sounding obnoxious ...

There have been a some fairly questionable edits in the last few months, cases of people apparently just making assumptions without checking facts. I realize we all make mistakes but please try to check facts especially when undoing someone else's edits (i.e. it is one thing to mistakenly add something but it is another to remove something that was actually correct).

--Mcorazao 04:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Stub or dab?

This reads to me like a disambiguation page. I note the previous history here, so want to move with caution. I propose adding {{disambig-cleanup}} and formatting correctly as a disambiguation page, including all terms which lay claim to the description "orthodox christianity" and closely related terms, in the order prescribed WP:MOSDAB. The information lost in this process would be minimal, and all would be on linked pages.

As I see it, the alternative would be to mark it as a stub; but what kind of article could be made here that doesn't just repeat the content of the linked articles?

I would be happy to work with other editors in a sandbox to try and achieve consensus before applying any changes.

--Rogerb67 (talk) 21:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Icon

Hi, this article should have a Byzantine icon on it, not a Western icon. --Iliada 22:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

On the "Note"

I don't understand why this note has to be here. The discussion above (from 2007) concerning it shows that the subject matter is a POV gantlet. It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to resolve the issues at stake in the Council of Chalcedon and the ensuing schism, either in the direction of unity or disunity. Very few people, at least in Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic and Protestant circles (I'm admittedly less familiar with OO lingo), use "Orthodox Christianity" to refer collectively to the "Eastern" and "Oriental" churches. More usually, the term 'Eastern Christianity' is used to refer collectively to miaphysite and diaphysite churches of the Orient (usually while emphasizing their cultural and ritual, not doctrinal, similarity). -- JALatimer (talk) 02:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Redirection page

I am going to take the page redirective to Eastern Orthodox Church as Orthodox Christian itself redirects to the article you can see by clicking it. Do you accept creating of such page? Pensionero (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Disagree, because this change does not adequately deal with Christians who consider themselves "orthodox" (in the sense that they believe theirs is the authentic, original Christian faith) without being "Orthodox". Some material to this effect used to exist on this page; it was removed several weeks ago by an IP-anon, but I'm going to reinstate it once I've reinstated the original Orthodox Christianity page. Richwales (talk · contribs) 17:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

There is clearly a lack of consensus for the change proposed by Pensionero. Esoglou (talk) 19:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Esoglou. I see a WP:NPOV problem with the new item "mainstream churches, as opposed to what are termed sects or cults" — one man's heresy is another's orthodoxy, and although we need to recognize that many theologians (e.g., from evangelicalism or conservative Protestantism) consider their own beliefs to be (small-o) "orthodox Christianity" and classify conflicting beliefs as "sects" or "cults", all of these terms are arguably POV, and Wikipedia does not take any position on such disputes. Even "mainstream" is troublesome, I believe, given that some evangelicals go so far as to consider the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches to be "cults". Richwales (talk · contribs) 20:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Modified that bullet to be clearer about what I think it is intended to mean. Mrhsj (talk) 23:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

While this page has improved somewhat in recent weeks, it seems to me that it goes into far more detail than is appropriate for a redirect page. Detailed info as to exactly why various groups consider themselves to be the uniquely authentic keepers of "Orthodox" Christianity belongs in the individual target pages, not here. Going into this degree of detail also compromises the neutrality of a redirect page; see WP:RNEUTRAL. I'm going to try to pare down the content of this page along these lines. Richwales (talk · contribs) 16:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks good thanks. Mrhsj (talk) 03:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I reinstated a list of some major Eastern Orthodox churches, but in the body rather than as a footnote. I did the same for some Oriental Orthodox churches. The concept of autocephalous bodies, regionally distinct but still in full communion with one another, may be confusing to some non-Orthodox readers, so I think it's worthwhile to mention a few — but without going into any great detail about this concept, since that should be covered adequately in the articles linked to from this redirect page. Richwales (talk · contribs) 04:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Applause. Esoglou (talk) 07:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

There are currently three articles on this topic, and we should merge them

Wikipedia currently has three articles on the topic of Eastern Christianity (that is, the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and smaller splits from them). The articles are Eastern Christianity, Orthodox Christianity, and Orthodox Churches. Wikipedia policy says that if multiple articles exist on the same topic, they should be merged. The article Eastern Christianity is by far the longest, most well-developed and best written. As such, I propose that Orthodox Christianity, and Orthodox Churches should have their content merged into Eastern Christianity (unless similar content is already there), and become redirects for it. Ohff (talk) 07:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

It is best to unite the discussion at Talk:Orthodox Churches. Esoglou (talk) 08:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this article should be called "Orthodox Christianity" because it discusses only one of the branches of Christianity that consider themselves orthodox. So it violates the principle of neutral point of view. Why not just call it "Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Christianity"? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 12:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows the practice of naming each article according to the most popular or most common name of the subject of that article. The term "Orthodox Christianity" commonly refers to the Eastern and Oriental Churches, even though they are not the only Churches to call themselves "orthodox". The same goes for many other terms - for example, the word "catholic". The article Catholic Church refers to the Church that is led by the Pope of Rome, because that is the organization most often called "the Catholic Church", even though many other Churches also claim to be "catholic". Ohff (talk) 08:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment on chart/map

A chart/map that indicated the proportion between Orthodox and total population in each country would show how Orthodox each country is better than the chart/map that gives the absolute number in each country, thus making big countries appear more Orthodox and small countries less Orthodox. Esoglou (talk) 19:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Pagan Influences on Orthodox Christianity

[1]. I believe this might be helpful for this article. Komitsuki (talk) 11:46, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

It's an interesting article, but this is a self-published source — not the kind of reliable source we need to use in a Wikipedia article. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:SCHOLARSHIP would be applicable here; come back when it's peer-reviewed and published in a respected journal. Elizium23 (talk) 05:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The map

The map is correct but it doesn't say about Montenegro and Albania, like if they're not orthodox at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.69.82.67 (talk) 15:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Nicene Creed

The Orthodox Churches do omit "God from God" in their version of the Creed, even though this phrase was present in the original 325AD version. See Nicene Creed for a complete explanation. Elizium23 (talk) 21:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

The Nicene Creed page lacks a "complete" explanation and lacks a citation. Please find a citation for it. Thanks. tahc ^chat 05:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

RFC – Orthodox Christianity: keep as a page or make a redirect?

In order to avoid the war of edits, I invite the entire Wikipedia community to discuss such a complex issue. The problem is the following: whether to leave the article on Orthodox Christianity or not. I stand to leave. First, without this article, it is impossible to understand the culture and history of Russia. Secondly, I believe that the Orthodox Christianity article should be separate from the Orthodox Church article, since Orthodox Christianity is not homogeneous, there is no single church, but a common religious tradition. After all, this topic affects millions of people and their culture. Not having an article about Orthodox Christianity would be strange. MarcusTraianus (talk) 10:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

This is better handles at WP:AFD, and as such, is not an RfC matter. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Retarget of March 2023

(Hoping this is okay to do, and that the editors involved in discussion will be okay with me pinging them and raising here: @CycloneYoris:, @Thryduulf, @Red-tailed hawk, @CoyOil:, @Scyrme, @Presidentman. Only saw the discussion today, post-closure, so not sure what procedure to follow.)

Following this discussion: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 16#Orthodox Christianity and its result to retarget the redirect to Orthodox Church there are over 1,200 articles left with DAB links [that end up at the new target (a DAB page)]. Is this normal? It seems an awful lot to disambiguate, and I really couldn't follow in the discussion why redirecting to either Eastern Orthodoxy or direct to Eastern Orthodox Church would not have been a better solution.

Not too sure how these redirects discussions work, but could this possibly be reconsidered or re-opened please? AukusRuckus (talk) 10:49, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Update to modify pings and remove repeated word. AukusRuckus (talk) 07:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to list again at RFD. We've had situations before where an editor brought new information or insights after closing, and the standard procedure has simply been to list it again. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

That sort of thing seems fine to me. It might be a good idea to have an article on Orthodox Christianity more broadly, if that is the issue. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:52, 30 March 2023 (UTC)