This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
I heroically restrained myself from jocularly stating in the article that Eastern Orthodox theologians cannot write a paragraph without using the word "canonical" four or five times. (Mathematicians also frequently use that word, but not as often as Eastern clergy.) Michael Hardy 02:08, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
This article is largely redundant with Eastern Orthodoxy and should be folded in insofar as possible. Maybe as a summary at the beginning? - David Gerard 14:59, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC)
Indeed Michael, it was heroic!, we do have a difficult time restraining from using the word " canonical" since , at the core, it is what the Orthodox Church is, it is ( or so we claim) the canonical Church. The Church that conforms to the Holy Canons. Though I will do what I can to restrain myself .
-- Frmaximos 22:18, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
I don't know who the right people to contact are, but a chart of this would be lovely. User:Erik Zachte, perhaps? -- IvanP/ (болтай) 03:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
when its church is so old?
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.113.79.25 ( talk) 11:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC).
Only 2 or 3 paragraphs of this article add information not already present in the main article and in the History article. So I am wondering whether this article has a solid reason to exist. Maybe just copy the relevant information where necesary, and merge. : 130.225.20.57 22:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
It's not essentially a list; it's also an explanation, for those (most people!) not familiar with the fact, that on the one hand there are different organizations, but on the other hand there is a unified communion, and an account of how and why that came about. Eastern Orhodoxy seems like too big a topic to cram it all into just one article. Michael Hardy 18:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm against merging it. It is a essential article about the Orthodox Churches. Too important to be deleted (or merging)
The merger tag must be remove.
Arthasfleo
10:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I suppose this is not terribly surprising, but this statement
is pretty blatantly POV. According to the Catholic perspective, it is the four eastern churches which broke away from the Pope. I'm sure this can be rephrased to be not POV. john k 17:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
And what exactly is wrong with expressing the Orthodox POV on an Orthodox encyclopedia? Deusveritasest ( talk) 07:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how the so-called Catholic Church can claim the Orthodox Church broke from them, when it is an obvious historical FACT that up until the time the Bishop of Rome(the Pope)claimed supremacy over the other Patriarchs ("equal brothers") we were one Church. The Pope is the one who claimed his superiority. The Bishops of Rome before him never did so. It should be obvious who broke from who. Also, both Orthodox and Catholics recognize one another as the original Church; just unfortunately separate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikoz78 ( talk • contribs) 00:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
These two churches are listed both under "autonomous churches" and "churches without autonomy". Which is it? john k 17:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
My understanding is that the Finnish Orthodox Church is universally recognized as autonomous whereas the Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church is not. So the Finnish Orthodox Church should be taken off of the "churches without autonomy" section. Deusveritasest ( talk) 07:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not aware that anyone considers Western Europe to be an autonomous church. There was a proposal to that effect a few years ago from the Patriarch of Moscow, but that was contingent on all three of the Russian churches (Moscow, ROCOR, and Rue Daru) merging together. The entry under Moscow for Metropolis of Western Europe actually links to the Rue Daru group of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
Unless there is any viewpoint to the contrary, I propose to remove the entry from the list and from the template. Paterakis ( talk) 22:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
This jurisdiction was listed under churches without autonomy, which is clearly not true. Its autonomy is universally recognized. I moved it to the category of churches with autonomy. Deusveritasest ( talk) 07:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
As far as i know Albanian church is right after greek church and senior towards poland church. it is created in 1924, so we should rerank the churches. Do you agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.24.247.82 ( talk) 18:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
This list is according to the Slavic reckoning, whereby Cyprus has been relegated and Russia takes her position. In the tradional southern, Greek and Arab understanding of the hierarchy of the Church, Cyprus has the honorable position of being placed immediately after the ancient Patriarchates, above Russia. This stems from the fact that she was not subsumed into the Patriarchate of Antioch, and was allowed to be the first Autonomous jurisdiction, and in fact first autocephalous church, when the tomb of Barnabus was discovered, following a dream of a monk as to its wherabouts. The honors that are entitled to the Archbishop of Cyprus are to carry a stick with the double headed serpent to signify knowledge, and to sign his name in red ink. 82.36.217.136 ( talk) 19:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
The Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria isn't mentioned here - I can't see why. It is mentioned in Oriental Orthodoxy. Now I see the Armenian Orthodex Church isn't mentioned either. There may be a reason that they're not included here, but it should be made clear. -- Chriswaterguy talk 01:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
There are several churches marked as autonomous under the Patriarchate of Constantinople, yet "not universally recognized." Could someone with more knowledge about this area clarify this in the entry? It doesn't seem readily clear to a non-expert who is recognizing and who is not these churches. Does the Patriarchate of Constantinople not recognize some as autonomous? -- 71.111.194.50 ( talk) 01:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Should the OCA fall under "Autocephalous Churches" or "Autonomous Churches"? I think the OCA claims autocephaly, but this is not universally recognized. Is this incorrect? Fralupo ( talk) 06:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Here, the church are ranked "in order of seniority, as per year of independence (autocephaly)". But the seniority is not the same thing as year of independence. Russian Orthodox Church is, for example, much younger than Church of Cyprus, but is more senior because Russian Church has the rank of patriarchy and the Cypriot church has the rank of archeparchy. We should rank the churches in the order of seniority or by the year established, but as it is written here in the article, it is not clear which of these two criteria is used. Vanjagenije ( talk) 10:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
What about the "The Orthodox Church of Mount Sinai"? It is listed here as both autocephalous and autonomous, but there are no sources to prove either of this. The link is just the redirect to Saint Catherine's Monastery article, which gives some facts on this topic. It states that:
The exact administrative status of the church within Eastern Orthodoxy is ambiguous: by some, including the church itself, it is considered autocephalous, by others an autonomous church under the jurisdiction of the Greek Orthodox Church of Jerusalem. The archbishop is traditionally consecrated by the Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem;
Should it be included int he autocephalous or autonomous churches? Vanjagenije ( talk) 11:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
There can't be an autocephalous Orthodox Church without a Synod; Sinai has not got one, so it is autonomous (at best). Rhodion ( talk) 22:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
It should follow order of Ecumenical Patriarchate, http://www.ec-patr.org/dioceses.php?lang=en&id=99. The autocephaly of the modern Georgian Orthodox Church was approved in 1990. So, it's ranked after Serbian, Bulgarian and Romanian Church. The reference to the year 478 is dubious. According to /info/en/?search=Georgian_Orthodox_and_Apostolic_Church#The_long_path_to_autocephaly, "until the 740s" the election of new bishops "had to be confirmed by the synod of the Church of Antioch". Sorry, but that is autonomy - not autocephaly. If we decide to go back to history and recognize Georgian Patriarchate from 1010 - we should also recognize that the first autocephalous churches of Georgia, Bulgaria, and Serbia are older than Russian Patriarchate. -- N Jordan ( talk) 04:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Is there any objective basis for the distinction made here between "Churches that are unrecognized" and "Churches self-styled as Orthodox, unrecognized as such"? Should these categories be merged? Obiara ( talk) 17:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
@ Cyphoidbomb: The "See Also" section is indeed new, and thus is new content in the article. Yes, I know that it's for links to tangential subjects. What I can't see is what lists of Catholic and Lutheran dioceses have to do with the organization of the Orthodox Church, even tangentially. Ought we to list all the organizational pieces of all Christian churches here, or even of all religions? I guess I would ask, where should it stop? And so, of course, it's also proper to ask where it should start, if at all. A tangential topic ought to have some connection with the article topic, and I can't see any at all here. What's the justification? Evensteven ( talk) 07:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
"The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics."That said, this is not a significant issue for me, (I've got vandals to whack) so I'm yielding on the matter. Seems like this would be Fastifex's beef anyway. Regards to all, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 17:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
The above mentioned ceased to function in 2014 with the passing of the last president of the association. I believe it is now defunct. This could be updated with the appropriate ref in the future. Dr.khatmando ( talk) 16:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved to Eastern Orthodox Church organization. No such user ( talk) 08:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Orthodox Church organization →
Eastern Orthodox Church organization – Per
WP:Consistency with
Eastern Orthodox Church,
Category:Eastern Orthodox Church organisation,
History of Eastern Orthodox Church,
Eastern Orthodox worship, etc.
Chicbyaccident (
talk)
17:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
@
Veverve: I see that you reverted my edit
[1] claiming that it is autocephalous according to
[2]
. First of all, you should know that Wikipedia (especially Serbian Wikipedia) is not a reliable source (see
WP:CIRCULAR). But, even if we accept it as a source, I don't see where exactly does
sr:Crnogorska pravoslavna crkva (2018) says this church is "autocephalous". Can you show me exact sentence?
Vanjagenije
(talk)
22:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
marks the beginning of the new phase in the development of the Montenegrin autocephality movement. The "beggigng of the new phase of the movement" does not mean that the aucephality is reached. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
@ Veverve: I was not active for several days. In the time when article on the "Montenegrin Orthodox Church (2018)" was created on Serbian Wikipedia (2019), that religious organization was in its formative stages, and the article still reflects that situation, because it was not updated in relation to recent developments. Regarding the question of autocephaly, MOC (2018) supports the creation of an united and fully autocephalous church within the state boundaries of Montenegro, but the MOC (2018) itself is still organized as a single non-canonical eparchy, that was formed in cooperation with similar non-canonical jurisdictions that are based in Italy. Therefore, MOC (2018) does belong to the autocephalist movement, but itself did not achieve any form of autocephaly. That distinction is explicitly stated in its Constitution (Устав), that refers to autocephaly as one of its main goals, still to be achieved. Sorabino ( talk) 12:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Bishop in the Eastern Orthodox Church and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 2#Bishop in the Eastern Orthodox Church until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve ( talk) 02:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved. ( non-admin closure) Colin M ( talk) 21:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Eastern Orthodox Church organization →
Organization of the Eastern Orthodox Church – More natural in my opinion.
Super
Ψ
Dro
20:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
I heroically restrained myself from jocularly stating in the article that Eastern Orthodox theologians cannot write a paragraph without using the word "canonical" four or five times. (Mathematicians also frequently use that word, but not as often as Eastern clergy.) Michael Hardy 02:08, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
This article is largely redundant with Eastern Orthodoxy and should be folded in insofar as possible. Maybe as a summary at the beginning? - David Gerard 14:59, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC)
Indeed Michael, it was heroic!, we do have a difficult time restraining from using the word " canonical" since , at the core, it is what the Orthodox Church is, it is ( or so we claim) the canonical Church. The Church that conforms to the Holy Canons. Though I will do what I can to restrain myself .
-- Frmaximos 22:18, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
I don't know who the right people to contact are, but a chart of this would be lovely. User:Erik Zachte, perhaps? -- IvanP/ (болтай) 03:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
when its church is so old?
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.113.79.25 ( talk) 11:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC).
Only 2 or 3 paragraphs of this article add information not already present in the main article and in the History article. So I am wondering whether this article has a solid reason to exist. Maybe just copy the relevant information where necesary, and merge. : 130.225.20.57 22:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
It's not essentially a list; it's also an explanation, for those (most people!) not familiar with the fact, that on the one hand there are different organizations, but on the other hand there is a unified communion, and an account of how and why that came about. Eastern Orhodoxy seems like too big a topic to cram it all into just one article. Michael Hardy 18:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm against merging it. It is a essential article about the Orthodox Churches. Too important to be deleted (or merging)
The merger tag must be remove.
Arthasfleo
10:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I suppose this is not terribly surprising, but this statement
is pretty blatantly POV. According to the Catholic perspective, it is the four eastern churches which broke away from the Pope. I'm sure this can be rephrased to be not POV. john k 17:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
And what exactly is wrong with expressing the Orthodox POV on an Orthodox encyclopedia? Deusveritasest ( talk) 07:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how the so-called Catholic Church can claim the Orthodox Church broke from them, when it is an obvious historical FACT that up until the time the Bishop of Rome(the Pope)claimed supremacy over the other Patriarchs ("equal brothers") we were one Church. The Pope is the one who claimed his superiority. The Bishops of Rome before him never did so. It should be obvious who broke from who. Also, both Orthodox and Catholics recognize one another as the original Church; just unfortunately separate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikoz78 ( talk • contribs) 00:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
These two churches are listed both under "autonomous churches" and "churches without autonomy". Which is it? john k 17:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
My understanding is that the Finnish Orthodox Church is universally recognized as autonomous whereas the Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church is not. So the Finnish Orthodox Church should be taken off of the "churches without autonomy" section. Deusveritasest ( talk) 07:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not aware that anyone considers Western Europe to be an autonomous church. There was a proposal to that effect a few years ago from the Patriarch of Moscow, but that was contingent on all three of the Russian churches (Moscow, ROCOR, and Rue Daru) merging together. The entry under Moscow for Metropolis of Western Europe actually links to the Rue Daru group of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
Unless there is any viewpoint to the contrary, I propose to remove the entry from the list and from the template. Paterakis ( talk) 22:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
This jurisdiction was listed under churches without autonomy, which is clearly not true. Its autonomy is universally recognized. I moved it to the category of churches with autonomy. Deusveritasest ( talk) 07:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
As far as i know Albanian church is right after greek church and senior towards poland church. it is created in 1924, so we should rerank the churches. Do you agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.24.247.82 ( talk) 18:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
This list is according to the Slavic reckoning, whereby Cyprus has been relegated and Russia takes her position. In the tradional southern, Greek and Arab understanding of the hierarchy of the Church, Cyprus has the honorable position of being placed immediately after the ancient Patriarchates, above Russia. This stems from the fact that she was not subsumed into the Patriarchate of Antioch, and was allowed to be the first Autonomous jurisdiction, and in fact first autocephalous church, when the tomb of Barnabus was discovered, following a dream of a monk as to its wherabouts. The honors that are entitled to the Archbishop of Cyprus are to carry a stick with the double headed serpent to signify knowledge, and to sign his name in red ink. 82.36.217.136 ( talk) 19:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
The Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria isn't mentioned here - I can't see why. It is mentioned in Oriental Orthodoxy. Now I see the Armenian Orthodex Church isn't mentioned either. There may be a reason that they're not included here, but it should be made clear. -- Chriswaterguy talk 01:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
There are several churches marked as autonomous under the Patriarchate of Constantinople, yet "not universally recognized." Could someone with more knowledge about this area clarify this in the entry? It doesn't seem readily clear to a non-expert who is recognizing and who is not these churches. Does the Patriarchate of Constantinople not recognize some as autonomous? -- 71.111.194.50 ( talk) 01:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Should the OCA fall under "Autocephalous Churches" or "Autonomous Churches"? I think the OCA claims autocephaly, but this is not universally recognized. Is this incorrect? Fralupo ( talk) 06:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Here, the church are ranked "in order of seniority, as per year of independence (autocephaly)". But the seniority is not the same thing as year of independence. Russian Orthodox Church is, for example, much younger than Church of Cyprus, but is more senior because Russian Church has the rank of patriarchy and the Cypriot church has the rank of archeparchy. We should rank the churches in the order of seniority or by the year established, but as it is written here in the article, it is not clear which of these two criteria is used. Vanjagenije ( talk) 10:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
What about the "The Orthodox Church of Mount Sinai"? It is listed here as both autocephalous and autonomous, but there are no sources to prove either of this. The link is just the redirect to Saint Catherine's Monastery article, which gives some facts on this topic. It states that:
The exact administrative status of the church within Eastern Orthodoxy is ambiguous: by some, including the church itself, it is considered autocephalous, by others an autonomous church under the jurisdiction of the Greek Orthodox Church of Jerusalem. The archbishop is traditionally consecrated by the Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem;
Should it be included int he autocephalous or autonomous churches? Vanjagenije ( talk) 11:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
There can't be an autocephalous Orthodox Church without a Synod; Sinai has not got one, so it is autonomous (at best). Rhodion ( talk) 22:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
It should follow order of Ecumenical Patriarchate, http://www.ec-patr.org/dioceses.php?lang=en&id=99. The autocephaly of the modern Georgian Orthodox Church was approved in 1990. So, it's ranked after Serbian, Bulgarian and Romanian Church. The reference to the year 478 is dubious. According to /info/en/?search=Georgian_Orthodox_and_Apostolic_Church#The_long_path_to_autocephaly, "until the 740s" the election of new bishops "had to be confirmed by the synod of the Church of Antioch". Sorry, but that is autonomy - not autocephaly. If we decide to go back to history and recognize Georgian Patriarchate from 1010 - we should also recognize that the first autocephalous churches of Georgia, Bulgaria, and Serbia are older than Russian Patriarchate. -- N Jordan ( talk) 04:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Is there any objective basis for the distinction made here between "Churches that are unrecognized" and "Churches self-styled as Orthodox, unrecognized as such"? Should these categories be merged? Obiara ( talk) 17:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
@ Cyphoidbomb: The "See Also" section is indeed new, and thus is new content in the article. Yes, I know that it's for links to tangential subjects. What I can't see is what lists of Catholic and Lutheran dioceses have to do with the organization of the Orthodox Church, even tangentially. Ought we to list all the organizational pieces of all Christian churches here, or even of all religions? I guess I would ask, where should it stop? And so, of course, it's also proper to ask where it should start, if at all. A tangential topic ought to have some connection with the article topic, and I can't see any at all here. What's the justification? Evensteven ( talk) 07:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
"The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics."That said, this is not a significant issue for me, (I've got vandals to whack) so I'm yielding on the matter. Seems like this would be Fastifex's beef anyway. Regards to all, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 17:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
The above mentioned ceased to function in 2014 with the passing of the last president of the association. I believe it is now defunct. This could be updated with the appropriate ref in the future. Dr.khatmando ( talk) 16:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved to Eastern Orthodox Church organization. No such user ( talk) 08:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Orthodox Church organization →
Eastern Orthodox Church organization – Per
WP:Consistency with
Eastern Orthodox Church,
Category:Eastern Orthodox Church organisation,
History of Eastern Orthodox Church,
Eastern Orthodox worship, etc.
Chicbyaccident (
talk)
17:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
@
Veverve: I see that you reverted my edit
[1] claiming that it is autocephalous according to
[2]
. First of all, you should know that Wikipedia (especially Serbian Wikipedia) is not a reliable source (see
WP:CIRCULAR). But, even if we accept it as a source, I don't see where exactly does
sr:Crnogorska pravoslavna crkva (2018) says this church is "autocephalous". Can you show me exact sentence?
Vanjagenije
(talk)
22:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
marks the beginning of the new phase in the development of the Montenegrin autocephality movement. The "beggigng of the new phase of the movement" does not mean that the aucephality is reached. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
@ Veverve: I was not active for several days. In the time when article on the "Montenegrin Orthodox Church (2018)" was created on Serbian Wikipedia (2019), that religious organization was in its formative stages, and the article still reflects that situation, because it was not updated in relation to recent developments. Regarding the question of autocephaly, MOC (2018) supports the creation of an united and fully autocephalous church within the state boundaries of Montenegro, but the MOC (2018) itself is still organized as a single non-canonical eparchy, that was formed in cooperation with similar non-canonical jurisdictions that are based in Italy. Therefore, MOC (2018) does belong to the autocephalist movement, but itself did not achieve any form of autocephaly. That distinction is explicitly stated in its Constitution (Устав), that refers to autocephaly as one of its main goals, still to be achieved. Sorabino ( talk) 12:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Bishop in the Eastern Orthodox Church and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 2#Bishop in the Eastern Orthodox Church until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve ( talk) 02:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved. ( non-admin closure) Colin M ( talk) 21:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Eastern Orthodox Church organization →
Organization of the Eastern Orthodox Church – More natural in my opinion.
Super
Ψ
Dro
20:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)