Talk:Eastern Orthodox Church/Archive 12

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

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

ECC

Latest comment: 8 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion

Let us try to do better this time; focus on the central issue.

While it is cited that Eastern Orthodoxy is "catholic" you would need a WP:RS for it having the/a official name of "Orthodox Catholic Church". Since this is obviously likely to challenged some, you should have a RS on the topic-- and quote the text of that source within the footnote. This would make future laborious discussions unneeded. Having two extra sources do not seem needed for this fact if you can do just do this with just one of them.

By the way, it would also seem hard to believe that its real name is ECC without any publication of the Eastern Orthodox Church using it. tahc ^chat 00:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

There are multiple citations in the article for exactly this designation, including the ones below together with quotes:

Encyclopædia Brittanica Online, "Eastern Orthodoxy" "Eastern Orthodoxy, official name, used in British English as well, is Orthodox Catholic Church, one of the three major doctrinal and jurisdictional groups of Christianity."
Ellwood Encyclopedia of World Religions 2007, p. 128 "The Eastern Orthodox Churches are properly known as the "Orthodox Catholic Church"".
Tsichlis, Fr. Steven. "Frequently Asked Questions About the Orthodox Church". St. Paul's Greek Orthodox Church, Irvine, California, USA. Retrieved 4 May 2014. The full title of our Church is "The Orthodox Catholic Church."
Encyclopædia Brittanica Online, "Eastern Orthodoxy" "The official designations of the church in its liturgical or canonical texts are either "the Orthodox Catholic Church" or the "Greek Catholic Church" only.".
Merriam-Webster Encyclopedia of World Religions 1999, p. 309 "The official designation of the church in Eastern Orthodox liturgical or canonical texts is "the Orthodox Catholic Church."
Richard R. Losch (1 May 2002). The Many Faces of Faith: A Guide to World Religions and Christian Traditions. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. p. 76. ISBN 978-0-8028-0521-8. The official name of the body is the Orthodox Catholic Church.

I gather you did not notice them. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

As far as By the way, it would also seem hard to believe that its real name is ECC without any publication of the Eastern Orthodox Church using it. This is not a matter of "belief" but of reliable sources and verification. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

This issue has gone on for years. There is plenty of evidence available that the church refers to itself as the "Orthodox Catholic Church". Whether this is unquestionably an "official" name as such I don't know but it seems that this is the case from various sources. What we do know is that "Eastern Orthodox Church" is a common name and not an official one. Anglicanus (talk) 01:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Anglicanus. I fully agree with your well-made points, including that, unfortunately, this issue has gone on for years. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy to agree with Anglicanus, but nonetheless the article title should remain as it is. It is never called the "Orthodox Catholic Church" by general media, to avoid the confusion with the CC this would certainly cause. Johnbod (talk) 02:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Anglicanus has made the distinction about the common name in any case, and EOC is the common name which dictates the article title. I don't think there is any disagreement about that. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

You are right, I didn't notice the quotes and citations in the 3rd paragraph of the "Catholicity of the Orthodox Church" section, even though I looked for such citations.

The quotes and citations should be made easier to find than it is. It seems you could either (a) duplicate (some of) the citations in a note/footnote in the lead and/or (b) make a section or subsection on this issue "Church name" to link to beginning with "In keeping with the Church's teaching..." tahc ^chat 03:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The lead used to be enormously cluttered with such things and was simplified in this manner to relieve it of the full burden. Perhaps it would be better simply to make the single note a better pointer. Evensteven (talk) 04:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Evensteven. While at it, we might as well put all the sources referring to the full title in one group. Currently the OCC is directly supported by only three references while there are several more which explicitly refer to its title "OCC" as I showed above. In normal circumstances this wouldn't have been necessary but the history of this contested edit is not exactly normal. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 15:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I do think all the sources should remain as they are in the subsection on Catholicity, but they can certainly have duplicate references packaged however it seems best to support the lead. A grouping as suggested works fine as far as I'm concerned. Can I leave the details to you, DrK? I've only been popping in briefly recently, and it's likely I'll be semi-quiescent and intermittent for awhile. There are other things I must focus on at present. Thanks! Evensteven (talk) 01:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I will do my best Evensteven. Take care and thank you for your great work in this article. Hope to see you back soon in full force. On the subject of thanks I also thank Johnbod and Anglicanus for their valuable input and Tahc for his constructive approach. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on Eastern Orthodox Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Two archives were broken links, but I fixed that. Others are OK. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

"officially the Orthodox Catholic Church"

Latest comment: 8 years ago17 comments8 people in discussion

The article is a joke to anyone who is a bit familiar with Christianity and its three main branches. Eastern Orthodoxy (or Pravoslavie in Russia) was never known as "Orthodox Catholic Church", it's not a part of Catholicism and never associated itself with one - at least outside of the United States. There's a detailed enough article Eastern Orthodox – Roman Catholic theological differences that lists the differences and arguments between the two churches since their separation in 1054. There are more differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism than between Catholicism and Protestantism. Brittanica and other American sources only show how ignorant are those scholars - or, more likely, how biased are they, making one the most powerful branches of Christianity look like a mere shadow of the Catholic Church.

I hope someone competent enough - a priest or a practicing Christian belonging to one of the European Orthodox churches - will finally rewrite this article, as it is revisionism. AveTory (talk) 23:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but did you read the article? I think this section explains it rather well Eastern_Orthodox_Church#Catholicity_of_the_Orthodox_Church. I fear you misunderstand what "Catholic" means. Jeppiz (talk) 23:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

AveTory : You really should read the references before making such ill-informed comments. It is an established fact that the (Eastern) Orthodox Church often refers to itself ~ both in official documents and elsewhere ~ as the "Orthodox Catholic Church". You should also already be well aware of the fact that the terms "Catholicism" and "Catholic Church" are not restricted to the (Roman) Catholic Church. Afterwriting (talk) 23:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps we can add a FAQ to this article talkpage and refer future enquiries to the multiple archived threads on exactly the same subject so that we don't have to repeat these arguments over and over. Dr. K. 00:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

In case of Christianity those terms have exactly one meaning: belonging to the Catholic Church. The Eastern Catholic Churches are defined as "23 self-governing particular churches in full communion with the Pope". That's exactly what the "Catholic" part points at. Eastern Orthodoxy, Catholicism and Protestantism are three main branches, each of them claims to be separate and original, two of them have a long-lasting argument for centuries. They were named differently for a reason. Protestantism is never called "The Protestant Catholic Church" or "The Orthodox Protestant Church". When did the "Orthodox Catholic Church" name become official? When Raphael of Brooklyn claimed it some 100 years ago? Or when Kallistos Wared said it in 1993? They are just two scholars.

And yes, I followed the links. Just because some very random English sites and texts add "Catholic" to the name, it doesn't make the term legitimate. Especially since most of the sources originated in the USA where Eastern Orthodoxy is still hardly established and where the churches exist as autocephalies. AveTory (talk) 01:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@AveTory: No. Actually, being "catholic" is on of the Four Marks of the Church, and as such is included in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, which serves as an official definition of the Eastern Orthodoxy. Vanjagenije (talk) 01:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Then it should be written so: "The Eastern Orthodox Church considers itself to be part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church". It's quite different from "Officially the Orthodox Catholic Church". AveTory (talk) 02:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Once more, that's not what the reliable sources say. In Wikipedia we go by what the reliable sources say, not what original researchers claim. Dr. K. 02:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Just because some very random English sites and texts add "Catholic" to the name, it doesn't make the term legitimate. Encyclopedias of religion and other scholarly sources are not some very random English sites and texts. Before commenting any further I advise you to read the policy on reliable sources. All you have added to this conversation is your own personal opinion but that does not count as it is your own original research. Dr. K. 02:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the name "The Orthodox Catholic Church" is simply absurd for anyone who lives in an Orthodox country. It's like saying "A wooden house made of bricks". An example with the Eastern Catholic Churches shows how illogical and misguiding this name is. And the paragraph Each retained the "Catholic" part of its title, "Roman Catholic Church" on the one hand, and "Orthodox Catholic Church" on the other seems very manipulative, because it quotes the Catholic doctrine (in an article about Eastern Orthodoxy) and takes two considerations at once: that there was originally only one church that bore the name "Catholic" (while it was just one of the branches of the Early Christianity originated in the Western Roman Empire, around the same time as the Orthodox branch appeared in the East), and that the Orthodox Church retained that name after splitting "because of the Four Marks of the Church doctrine" (which is, again, absurd, since the word "catholic" is only one of the four marks and doesn't point at the official Church name in any way). The numerous links to American encyclopedias and texts originated in the 20-21 centuries only confirms my suspicions that the term was popularised in the United States in the XX century where Eastern Orthodoxy is undeveloped, poorly researched and translated.

I don't have enough knowledge to continue the discussion regarding English religious terms. That's why I inspire educated English-speakers from outside of American institutes to improve the article using original Orthodox doctrines and manuscripts. AveTory (talk) 12:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

AveTory, I'm sure you have the best of intentions and your contribution is very welcome. Here, there are two important things to understand. A: The current text is accurate. It appears you connect the term 'catholic' with the Roman church under the Pope. That is not it's original meaning, and it's not what the Orthodox church means by the term. B: You seem to approach this as a matter of being right. That's not how WP works. If we have two versions, and one is completely false but found in many reliable sources and the other entirely true but not found in any sources, then we will always pick the wrong version with sources. WP is not about WP:TRUTH but about verifiable sources. However, in this case it is not a problem as the verifiable sources are perfectly accurate. If you believe they are wrong, you must present reliable sources to that effect, as just presenting personal opinions never ever work at Wikipedia. Jeppiz (talk) 12:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. That's why I'm not trying to edit the article and change the information just because I disagree. I was simply amazed to find this kind of terminology used in Wikipedia. To my ear "Orthodox Catholic" sounds like "Judeo-Christianinty" or any other postmodernist slang. It's confusing, and not only for those raised in Orthodox countries, but also for those who know little to nothing about religion. I was directed here by a man who thought that the Eastern Orthodox Church was part of the Catholic Church based on the definition given here. "Catholic" is directly associated with the Roman Catholic Church in people's minds, there's no way around. But thank you for the patience. I won't bother you anymore as long as I don't have something to back up my words with. AveTory (talk) 13:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

AveTory makes a good point, namely the fact that the terminology we use in the introduction may confuse readers. We cannot change a name supported by sources, obviously, but what we can do is to add information that should clear up any potential confusion. Therefore, I will change the sentence "Orthodoxy has no Papacy or bishopric of similar authority.", currently in the introduction, to "Orthodoxy has no Papacy or bishopric of similar authority, and affirms instead that all bishops are sacramentally equal. This is one of the main reasons for the division between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church." Thus, in saying this, we will clarify that there is in fact a split between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church (something the introduction does not clearly mention at the moment). Ohff (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I have further clarified Ohff's addition. It is improper to say the EO have no papacy while forgetting to mention the Holy Synod governance. Also, for the OP, I would point out that the Byzantine Divine Liturgy refers at least once, probably several times, to the "Orthodox Catholic Church", so if you had been attending Divine Liturgies on a regular basis, this designation would not have surprised you. I spoke to a shopkeeper yesterday and I asked him if he was Catholic. He agreed "yes" and said he is "Orthodox Catholic" by which I immediately understood that he did not mean to say he is a right-believing Roman Catholic, but Eastern or Oriental Orthodox. Likewise, it is in the Creed recited at each Liturgy. In fact, this Creed is shared not only by the Eastern Orthodox and Catholics, but by mainstream Protestants as well. I visited a Methodist ecclesial community which had an order of worship with the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, and the line referring to the "one, holy, catholic and apostolic church" had an asterisk which helpfully informed us that "catholic means universal" so as to disclaim Popish connections. Perhaps some recensions of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom also have such an asterisk. Elizium23 (talk) 02:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

A small point regarding my edits: In this article, I think it's important to maintain the adjective "Roman" when talking about the Catholic Church led by the Pope, because, after we've just said that the Eastern Orthodox Church is officially called the "Orthodox Catholic Church", a reader who knows nothing about religion may be very confused to hear about some other body called simply the "Catholic Church". For the sake of clarity, it's best to use the alternative name "Roman Catholic Church", which makes it easier to understand that it is a different body from the "Orthodox Catholic Church". Ohff (talk) 01:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

According to WP:COMMONNAME policy for article titles, a title should be recognizable, concise, natural, precise, and consistent – from that and that there are an order of magnitude less Orthodox adherents than Catholic adherents in world, using the term Catholic is unambiguous for many people while, in my opinion, the term Roman Catholic is a less common post-Protestant Reformation term used now mostly by Protestants in English speaking countries. There are also the distinctions between the conventional uses of Catholic vs catholic and Orthodox vs orthodox and Church vs church. I think a FAQ about the Orthodox self-identified naming conventions would be good to have on this talk page but also leaving a clear description in the article itself is vital. Although the term Orthodox itself is what is more common, I think using the term Eastern Orthodox is best along with leaving a good description in the name section about what that term conveys. All the Eastern Orthodox Churches (which are not in communion with the Churches that are in communion with the Pope) and Eastern Catholic Churches (which are among the Churches in communion with the Pope) profess the Nicene Creed which states a belief in one Catholic (the Greek text capitalizes that term) Church. I also think neither Eastern Orthodox Churches nor Eastern Catholic Churches consider themselves Roman like the Latin Church does. The distinctions about how each defines what is necessary to be called Catholic are probably not evident to a 21st century post-Christian reader. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 00:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

There is much electronic ink spilled regarding this issue at the article Roman Catholic (term) and I agree with Ohff in his assertion that it is better to err on the side of disambiguation in this one particular instance. Elizium23 (talk) 03:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The Britannica contradicts Wikipedia

Latest comment: 7 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

Encyclopedia Britannica articles rarely refer to the Orthodox Church as catholic.

Wikipedia is wrong to call Orthodox catholic which it is rarely referred to as, in the Britannica.

Wikipedia should conform with the Britannica and remove the word catholic entirely here, as it is misleading and a rarely used designation.

http://www.britannica.com/topic/Russian-Orthodox-church — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.65.234.214 (talk) 16:31, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

The Britannica refers to it as the "Orthodox Catholic Churc" in the very first sentence, see [1]. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:04, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

In usual places the Britannica never uses the word Catholic in describing the Orthodox Church. Catholic should be removed from the article. Most experts do not recognize nor use the word Catholic in referring to the Orthodox Church. Wikipedia should indicate this and remove the word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.65.234.214 (talk) 15:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

So, the first sentence is unusual place? Vanjagenije (talk) 21:27, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The first and only sentence in just that one short incomplete link. Read Britannica's full articles on the subject. The full Britannica states that in English usage the church is referred to as the Eastern or Greek Orthodox church see http://www.britannica.com/topic/Eastern-Orthodoxy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.65.234.214 (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

So, to summarize: Britannica calls it "Orthodox Catholic" in the first sentence, but than refers to it as "Eastern Orthodox" in the rest of the article. Wikipedia calls is "Orthodox Catholic" in the first sentence, but then refers to is as "Eastern Orthodox" in the rest of the article. Where is that "contradiction"? Vanjagenije (talk) 16:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

The contradiction is in that it is misleading not to point out in the Introduction, as does the full Britannica article, that in English usage the church is referred to as the Eastern or Greek Church, and not Catholic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.65.234.214 (talk) 18:15, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

It seems like Wikipedia is adhering very well to the same usage as Britannica, so the only misleading thing is the title the IP picked for this section. Jeppiz (talk) 18:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Search Eastern Orthodoxy Britannica on Google to see the full article, which says in English usage the church is referred to as Eastern or the Greek Church. This belongs in the wikipedia Introduction for clarity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.65.234.214 (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

First of all, stop edit warring! You have tried to impose your own version several times already, and been reverted by both Vanjagenije and myself. Second, the text is perfectly correct as it is. We already say what the Church is called in English usage, literally in the same sentence you keep changing. That particular part of the sentence is about the official name, not what it is called. Your edit is misleading and wrong, and continuing to edit war over it will most likely lead to a block. Jeppiz (talk) 10:39, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

6.2 Symbolism - Not the right word

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I do not think that the western concept of symbolism is right to explain the Iconostasis and so on. An Icon or a Iconoctasis are not symbols in the orthodox view, they are REAL REPRESENTATIONS and windows to the other world. To call them symbols is an explanation of western thinking that can not explain this eastern belief. Informationskampagne (talk) 17:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I share your reservation with the "symbolism" section title. --Zfish118^⋉talk 04:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Stray reference

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

No longer used in article, but put here for reference^[1] --Zfish118^⋉talk 05:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

References

^ Harakas, Stanley S. "For the Health of Body and Soul: An Eastern Orthodox Introduction to Bioethics". Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America. Retrieved 11 June 2016.

Page Name

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Would it make more sense to move the name of the page to "Orthodox Christian Church"? (Seeing that there are multiple issues with defining this Church apart from the Roman and Non-Chalcedonian churches? Ri Osraige (talk) 21:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:COMMONNAME. Dr. K. 21:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Amen, Dr. K.

Editors have discussed alternate names before. Consensus seems to be for Eastern Orthodox Church, per WP:COMMONNAME. Majoreditor (talk) 01:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Then again, the fact that editors have taken bad decisions in the past is not much of a reason. I dare say no Orthodox churches refer to is as the "Eastern Orthodox Church" so this article imposes an outside definition that the church itself doesn't share. It's a bit as if we'd talk about the Heretic Lutheran Church. Less biased, of course - but still a clear bias. Jeppiz (talk) 00:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

That is not true. The term "Eastern Orthodox Church" is sometimes, even reasonably regularly, used by Orthodox Christians to refer to their church. Afterwriting (talk) 00:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Sure, a better example would be the article Catholic church. That church is often called Roman-Catholic. The thing is, both churches claim to be "orthodox" (have the right teaching) and "catholic" (for everyone). Right now, Wikipedia appears to pick sides here, using the Roman-Catholic terms for both churches. We should either call them Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church or Catholic Church and Orthodox Church. Jeppiz (talk) 10:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

RfC about the names of both the Catholic church and the Orthodox church

Latest comment: 7 years ago61 comments24 people in discussion

NO CONSENSUS, FORMAL PROBLEM

(non-admin closure)

Important note: this RfC closure rests on a finding of fact that no notices were posted to WT:X or Talk:Catholic Church. It may be summarily overturned if that finding is found incorrect, and the closer WP:TROUTed for failing to properly search the archives.

No consensus for any action could be formed by this RfC.

One of the options of the RfC would affect other pages, notably Catholic Church. However, I see no advertisement for this RfC, be it at WT:X or at Talk:Catholic_Church. As a consequence, options 2 and 4 were never really available per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS which makes the question malformed.

Ohff also suggested, in the section "suggested close", that this additional option made the interpretation of other !votes invalid (a known game theory problem, see e.g. [2]). Going by a straw poll nonetheless, the bulk of contributors splitted roughly equally between an argument for consistency between the two churches (i.e., "option 1 or 2") and an argument that the Catholic/Roman Catholic case was already settled while the Orthodox Church needed the disambiguation (i.e. option 3). This opposition fails to produce any meaningful consensus, as the concern outlined above applies.

In addition to this problem, and of particular interest for any future RfC at WT:X or elsewhere, that RfC did not specify its scope and its degree of enforcement. In particular, a subsequent RfC at WT:X could conclude that some form of disambiguation is needed for either church, but only when the context is unclear, or that existing established articles should keep the status quo, etc.

Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 18:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Two major Christian churches, the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church both consider themselves both "catholic" and "orthodox". Sometimes a geographical qualification is given for both, as in the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. Should Wikipedia refer to these two major churches as
1. The Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church (no geographical qualification).
2. The Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church (geographical qualification for both).
3. The Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church (geographical qualification only for the latter)
4. The Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church (geographical qualification only for the former). Jeppiz (talk) 19:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Prefer option 1, open for option 2. My preference for option 1 is that it is the most neutral one, corresponding to how both churches usually refer to themselves (although I'm quite sure cases of both the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox Church can be found at times even in official pages of each church). If a geographical qualification is needed, I'm fine with option 2 though I admit to not seeing the need. I don't think option 3 or option 4 are good, as both of them has a certain inherent bias in which one church or the other is relegated to being called by the other one's terminology. My guess is that very few Catholics would prefer "Roman Catholic" over "Catholic" and that very few Orthodox would prefer "Eastern Orthodox" over "Orthodox". Jeppiz (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Prefer option 2 (geographical qualifications for both), but I'm open to option 1. All of the options - both with and without the geographical qualifications - are in widespread common use, so I don't see that a WP:COMMONNAME argument can be made in favour of any of these options against the other ones. All of them satisfy WP:COMMONNAME. The question, then, is which option is better from the perspective of WP:NPOV. I think options 3 and 4 (of which the former is the current status quo) are evidently biased, as they allow one Church to have an article title that implies it is the only Catholic/Orthodox Church in existence, while the other is given a qualifying adjective. Adherents of both Churches would prefer the titles without qualifying adjectives. If you look at the versions of this article in the languages of majority-Orthodox countries, you will see that all of them call it simply "Orthodox Church" (el ru sr bg ro etc). Although members of this Church do indeed use the adjective "Eastern" themselves on many occasions, their preferred way of referring to their Church is simply "the Orthodox Church" - just as members of the Church headed by the Pope of Rome prefer to call it simply "the Catholic Church". So, then, why do I not favour option 1? Because allowing both articles to use the titles preferred by the adherents of each respective Church ignores the existence of other Churches, outside these two, which also use the names "Orthodox" or "Catholic" for themselves. Examples include the Old Catholic Church and Oriental Orthodoxy. Therefore I believe that all articles should have qualifying adjectives in the title. Ohff (talk) 20:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't see any problem with the current title(s). Wikipedia users certain principles, most important of which is WP:COMMONNAME. @Jeppiz: All this that you are saying is a kind of WP:original research. We should not research what is the most logical title, we should use the most commonly used title. You are not even trying to prove that your preferred titles are most common. Also, WP:PRECISION is relevant here. There is Oriental Orthodox Church which is also quite large and important, so the title "Orthodox Church" is not precise enough. On the other hand, there is no other large or important body called "Catholic Church". Vanjagenije (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, @Vanjagenije:, though I disagree with most of it. I'm not researching what's the most logic title and make no claim except my own view, which is what an RfC is for (also; if someone has statistics, then great). So I simply state my preference and why, exactly as you did. Your assertion that one or the other is the WP:COMMONNAME is also as much (or little) original research, failing any statistic. And if I may correct you, there's no such thing as the "Oriental Orthodox Church". There are several churches that are Oriental Orthodox, but they do not form one common church, unlike both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. So with all due respect, I find both the argument about common name and oriental orthodox a bit weak, and not really a reason to impose any imbalance in naming the churches. That's not to deny the value of WP:COMMONNAME, but I don't see any proof that "Eastern Orthodox Church" is more common than "Orthodox Church". Jeppiz (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Either 1 or 2, defaulting to 2 whenever there is ambiguity. But I oppose 3 and 4. I came here from the RfC notice, and have no other involvement. The way it looks to me, 3 and 4 are borderline POV. The advantage of 2 is that it is the least ambiguous. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Option 3. This is the WP:STATUSQUO. "Eastern" is not strictly a "geographic" qualifier. "Oriental" is a synonym, but "Oriental Orthodox Church" refers to a different communion. "Orthodox Church" is ambiguous because of the existence of what I just mentioned. You did not suggest the official name, "Orthodox Catholic Church" which I would caution against using in an article title because people already constantly come through here and try to delete that information from the article. Elizium23 (talk) 23:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Option 3, the status quo, which has been reached by lengthy (and seperate) debates in the past, on WP:COMMONNAME and other grounds. I don't see the need to raise the matter again, nor to conflate the two questions. Johnbod (talk) 03:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment: WP:COMMONNAME keeps getting mentioned, but is there any actual indication or evidence that either of the variants is more common than the other? I've been an occasional participant in discussions on this page and other related ones, and I've never seen anyone provide anything to indicate that "Eastern Orthodox Church" is more commonly used than "Orthodox Church" to refer to this body (or that "Catholic Church" is more commonly used than "Roman Catholic Church"). Users have provided ample evidence that referring to this body as EOC is common, but not that it is more common than the OC designation. Likewise for the Catholic case: CC is common, RCC is also common, and there doesn't seem to be anything to indicate which is more common. Therefore I do not believe that WP:COMMONNAME can be used as an argument in this discussion, because all the options are equally good as far as that policy is concerned. But correct me if I'm wrong. Ohff (talk) 08:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Option 3, which is status quo. Both of these have been discussed at length independently, and the discussion should be such. There are specific reasons for the differences in naming, each intrinsic to each church. English usage and common name is indeed an important reason, but it is not the only reason, nor it is necessarily the strongest. They are many idiosyncratic elements to each Church that affected those decisions, which by the way were able to reach consensus. If we want to combine both articles into a single discussion, then we would need to include also other articles that will be affected such as the Latin Catholic Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches (all of which are Roman), the Anglican Church (which is catholic), the Oriental Orthodox Churches, etc. Although the desire for consistency is commendable, consensus for a change will not be reached this way. Out of 8 opinions so far, already half are for leave as is, with the other options receiving split votes.--Coquidragon (talk) 08:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment As Ohff already pointed, those who say that one or the other is the WP:COMMONNAME also has the burden to proof to show that it is the common name. The official web pages of most Orthodox churches seem to use "Orthodox Church" and not "Eastern Orthodox Church", so the claim that one is the default common name is very much unproven. I'm also doubtful as to the value of just saying "status quo" if no argument is presented for why the status quo is better. If "status quo" was a sufficient argument, no discussion would ever be needed. Jeppiz (talk) 11:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Jeppiz, when other editors and myself say that "this consensus was reached by lengthy (and separate) debates in the past," we mean that we are not going to repeat here what you can find in the archives. How was the "common name" decided? What where the internal reasons to each church that affected this decision? How was consensus reached? Once again, this consensus was reach by many editors after both sides exposed their arguments with back up sources and data. Keeping the status quo doesn't mean we don't want to engage with you, it means that you have not bought forth any new information that may affect the consensus reached in the past. You are welcome to go through the archives and read all the argumentation. Also, since the current wording is the result of consensus, please assume good faith. To change this consensus, the burden of proof is on the "change," not on the "remain as is." Thanks for your desire to make Wikipedia as accurate as we all want it to be.--Coquidragon (talk) 19:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments have been requested. Here's mine.
Part of the question is beside the point. "Roman Catholic Church" is not a geographical description but a description of a certain liturgy and church body. There are other Catholic churches, like the Greek Catholic Church. You may find a Greek Catholic Church and a Roman Catholic Church in the same Greek town.
The specification "Eastern" in "Eastern Orthodox Church" has a completely different character. It does not denote a particular church body but rather sums up a number of individual church bodies like the Greek Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Church.
So, how should Wikipedia refer to these churches? There really can't be any question about that: It should be precise in referring to whatever it is talking about, respectively, and not make up its own vocabulary. --84.190.85.67 (talk) 23:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Option 3 is preferred since it uses both of the consensus names. Option #1 is OK. I'd prefer to stay away from options 2 and 4. There's been lots of discussion over the years about the name to use for the Catholic Church, and the consensus is for Catholic rather than Roman Catholic. I'd rather spend time on improving articles rather than rehashing discussions on church names ... after a while it feels like the movie "Groundhog Day". Majoreditor (talk) 02:26, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I can understand that. Still, if a question keeps coming up, there may be a reason. That's not to say we should change just because a question is repeated, of course not. Just that it might be worth reconsidering it. I do think there is at least a hint of a bias here, and I cannot see (and yes, I've read the arguments) how calling the Orthodox Church "the Orthodox Church" would be a problem. We have a closely related situation in WP:MOSMAC. The term "FYROM" is widely used, as is "Eastern Orthodox". There is a region called Macedonia, just as there are smaller churches called Orthodox. There are outsiders who strongly want to impose the name "FYROM" and "Eastern Orthodox". In MOSMAC, however, we give a certain priority to how the people concerned actually refer to their country, and I'd think it fitting to do the same for the Orthodox Church. The name "Eastern Orthodox" will always come off as a (slight) insult, so of course people keep bringing it up. Wikipedia usually manages very well to settle on the most neutral and unbiased name, but has failed to do so in this article. That is not to say I suspect any participant, now or in the past, of any hidden motives or any intention to insult. The most I would say is that I think it reflects a bit of a failure to step out of one's own perspective. I don't think anyone wants to use "Eastern Orthodox" to insult, nor even think that it is insulting. That doesn't stop it from being a bit of an insult, which is unfortunate. Jeppiz (talk) 20:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment Some users have said that the current name is the consensus name, the result of previous discussions. Actually, the opposite would seem to be true. The last time there was a discussion on whether to call the church the "Orthodox Church" or the "Eastern Orthodox Church", the result was in fact a rather clear consensus in favour of the "Orthodox Church". So unless I'm missing a later discussion in the archives between these names, the consensus is in fact the "Orthodox Church". The arguments about WP:COMMONNAME is equally troubling. Yes, there has been discussions on the common name, but this on whether to call it "The Orthodox Catholic Church", which was (correctly) rejected as that name is in very limited use. However, there is neither an established consensus for the "Eastern Orthodox Church" over the "Orthodox Church" nor any hint that the former is the common name. The only RfC from which we do have a previous consensus (as far as I can find) is the consensus to call this article the "Orthodox Church". Jeppiz (talk) 20:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Seems to me that the controversy raged throughout Talk:Eastern Orthodox Church/Archive 6 and well into Talk:Eastern Orthodox Church/Archive 7 with no clear consensus on anything except a couple of decisions were taken. Temporarily named this article "Orthodox Church" after it had, for 8 years, been named "Eastern Orthodox Church" and a few months later renamed the article back to its stable name. I think any determination of consensus needs to take into account the totality of that discussion and the actions taken. Elizium23 (talk) 21:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

'Option 3, at least for the titles as WP:STATUSQUO and WP:COMMONNAME. The 'Eastern' here is the common collective, as opposed to saying 'Greek, Russian, Ukrainian, etc' Orthodox church. The shortening of Roman Catholic to just Catholic also seems common. The form "Orthodox Church" may be used for short, after it is made clear that it refers to the Eastern collective or a nationality has been specified. The longer "Roman Catholic Church" or "Holy Roman Catholic Church" in some cases I guess would be more proper as the more formal usage or in a title - see Roman Catholic (term) Markbassett (talk) 14:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Option 1 or 3. Chicbyaccident (Please notify with {{SUBST:re}} (Talk) 16:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Option 1 would be the most correct, representing the official name of each church. In both cases, it can be added "The Catholic Church, sometimes called the Roman Catholic Church" or "The Orthodox Church, sometimes called the Eastern Orthodox Church". It is true that each consider themselves possessing the quality expressed in the name of the other. But it is incorrect, purely and simply, to limit the Catholic Church to "Roman" or "Western" or the Orthodox Church to "Greek" or "Eastern", since both, by nature of being 'catholic', are universal churches, not simply national, ethnographic, or geographic churches. Each is a communion that includes western and eastern elements. There are Eastern Catholics and Western Orthodox. The only use of "Eastern Orthodox" is to distinguish from "Oriental Orthodox", a largely English-language convention, to represent two distinct communions. Protoclete (talk) 07:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Option 1 with #2 an acceptable alternative given that both sets of names are commonly understood. The Orthodox Church self identifies as the "Catholic Church" spoken of in the Nicene Constantinopolitan Creed. However, most of its members and clergy routinely use the word "Orthodox" when speaking of their faith affiliation. The only thing one needs to be careful about when using the word Roman in reference to those in communion with the Pope of Rome, is that there are in fact a number of "sui juris" Eastern Rite Catholic Churches some of which partly follow the Orthodox form of worship and church discipline. They are very small in numbers (minuscule compared to the Latin Rite), but they do exist and are not correctly called Roman Catholics. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Prefer option 2, open for option 1. Options 3 and 4 are both borderline POV; why should Roman Catholicism be known as "the Catholic Church" and not Eastern Orthodoxy as "the Orthodox Church"? It's just double standards. Far better, in my opinion, to have both of the articles with the qualifier at the front, as I feel it unfair to have Wikipedia imply that either has an exclusive claim to catholicity or orthodoxy (furthermore, it could be argued that "Roman" can apply to the Eastern Catholics insofar as they are in communion with Rome; they may not be Latin, but they are Roman). At the very least, if Wikipedia is to allow Roman Catholicism to be known as "the Catholic Church", it should not require what is most commonly known as "the Orthodox Church" to have the qualifier of "Eastern". I would say that the status-quo currently has a strong pro-Catholic bias. Qwertyuiop1994 (talk) 09:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Options 1 and 4 are wholly unviable. Because there are two communions which each claim the name "Orthodox Church" this appellation is completely ambiguous. Wikipedia is not in the business of siding with a particular point of view and therefore cannot claim the name "Orthodox Church" to mean strictly "Eastern Orthodox" without violating that neutrality. Elizium23 (talk) 21:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

There are several communions that claim the name "Catholic Church", too, but one of them is clearly the primary topic. Likewise, the Eastern Orthodox Church is clearly the primary topic for the term "Orthodox Church". Eastern Orthodoxy is often called simply "the Orthodox Church", without any qualifiers, while Oriental Orthodoxy is (to my knowledge) never called by that term without qualifiers. The word "Orthodoxy" is indeed ambiguous and just as often used for OO as for EO. But the appellation "Orthodox Church" - when it refers to a communion and not to a particular autocephalous church - is almost exclusively used for the EO communion. Ohff (talk) 04:27, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Having said that, I do personally prefer option 2. So I do agree with you that it would probably be better for this article to continue having the qualifier in the title. Where I disagree with you is in your calling the option without the qualifier "wholly unviable". I think it's perfectly reasonable and viable, although it is not my top choice. Ohff (talk) 04:40, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Prefer option 2 – I would also say that the status quo has a strong bias, towards the part of the Catholic church which is in communion with Rome. (This bias is not present in the category system as the categories are Category:Roman Catholic Church and Category:Eastern Orthodoxy.) Oculi (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Prefer option 2 seems to be the preferred option in history textbooks. Rjensen (talk) 04:32, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Strong preference for option 2. This has been discussed before, and were it not for Wikipedia's inherent pro-Catholic bias, this would not be a question. The arguments are well known: the Catholic Church, regardless of its subdivisions or which rite its constituent churches follow, is defined principally by its adherence to the Roman pope; it is no coincidence that historians speak of the "the Roman Church"; all other Christian Churches can equally claim to be "catholic". "Roman Catholic" is therefore both clear, in common use, and equitable towards the other churches. Roughly the same applies, mutatis mutandis, for the "Orthodox Church" vs. "Eastern Orthodox Church" argument. Constantine ✍ 11:21, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

In option 2, "Roman" is a reference not really to geography but the to the role of the Pope in Rome as head of the church. Rjensen (talk) 05:47, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Precisely; and "Eastern" is a geographical reference only in regards to history and tradition, referring to the eastern patriarchates and/or the eastern Roman Empire. Today, such distinctions are traditional and don't reflect actual geographical realities any more. Constantine ✍ 10:11, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Rjensen Actually "Roman" is a reference to the "Roman Rite" also called the Latin Rite which is the largest of the various sui juris churches in communion with the Pope. Most non-Roman Rite Catholics (i.e. Byzantine, Greek Rite, Coptic Rite, Maronites etc.) take exception to being labeled as Roman Catholics. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:45, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Nope, although seemingly a minority adhere to that defition, most consider it a factoid. In short: Your description, although fairly widely reproduced now and then, is not accurate. Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:49, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Eastern Rite Catholics are not factoids. Further there are multiple reliable sources that do not agree with you. Just a quick and random selection from the first couple pages of a Google search... [3], [4], [5], [6], and [7]. I have not been able to find a single reliable source that says it is OK to refer to Eastern Rite Catholics as Roman Catholics. I think we need to show some deference to how the Catholic Church self defines itself as opposed to mainstream media and press sources who are notoriously ill informed about religious matters. If we are going to lump all Catholics into the Roman Catholic Church we need to find Catholic sources that say this is OK. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:36, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

You're mixing things up. I still don't agree with that minority position but anyway, that is another discussion which should be held at Roman Catholic (term). Chicbyaccident (talk) 23:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

No definition and naming is perfect in such a topic, and whatever we choose, someone is bound to be dissatisfied. But if we are to show "deference" to the Catholic Church, why not showing the same "deference" to the other churches, that are equally "catholic"? There's certainly enough systemic pro-Catholic bias in WP, e.g. by lifting Catholic Encyclopaedia articles wholesale, or (what I come across very often in my area of interest) editors conveniently "forgetting" that all but a few of the multitude of Catholic titular sees in the East were never Catholic residential sees and/or are still active Orthodox sees, so that IMO, if we need to show "deference" to anyone, it is to the other churches, who get swept under. On the Eastern Catholic Churches, they are significant, but they are nevertheless bound to the wider body of the same Church by one and only one bond: the allegiance to the Roman pope. Arguing about rite differences is putting trappings before substance. It is a bit like the United States and its associated territories; sure you have Puerto Rico, and Guam, and other territories, but they pale into insignificance before the "actual" United States, which is why they are lumped together with the "big brother". Constantine ✍ 16:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't disagree that there are some issues with pro-Catholic bias and I have long been concerned about WP articles that are substantially just copy-pastes from the Catholic Encyclopedia. However I don't think showing deference to how a church self identifies falls under that heading. I don't know of any other prominent church that self identifies as Catholic in its normal conduct of business. The Anglicans use the word in the Creed but when self identifying they are the Church of England or Ireland or the Episcopal Church etc. We Orthodox (full disclosure- I am one) call ourselves Orthodox (often adding Greek Russian etc.). The term Eastern is not altogether accurate for us but it's not a big issue and it helps to distinguish us from the non-Chalcedonian Orthodox. There are a number of small independent Catholic Chuches that use the word Catholic in routine self identification, and we do in fact respect that. See the Polish National Catholic Church, Old Catholic Church of America etc. And for the record, the term United States is in fact the correct name for the federal union of the 50 states +sundry territories. In the end though, we go with what reliable sources tell us. And in this case, as far as I am able to see thus far, those RS sources which address this specific issue are pretty much uniformly coming down on the side of Catholic Church (sans Roman) when referring to the entire papal communion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Puerto Rico and Guam? You seem to have a poor idea of what it means to be a sui iuris Catholic Church. Each of the 24 Churches are equal in dignity and significance to each other. It would be like saying that Idaho and Florida want recognition next to California and Texas. Just because the Latin Church is larger in numbers, recognition, and hierarchy does not mean that it has some kind of priority over the Russian Catholic Church or the Eritrean Catholic Church. Elizium23 (talk) 22:23, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that the current status quo shows deference to how the [Roman] Catholic Church defines itself (despite the existence of other, much smaller churches with "Catholic" in the name), but does not show any deference to how the [Eastern] Orthodox Church defines itself, under the argument that "other, smaller churches call themselves Orthodox too, so we have to call this one Eastern". That is a major inconsistency, and I am very firmly in favour of fixing it somehow. We should apply the same principles consistently to all articles. The EO communion gets called simply the "Orthodox Church" by sources just as often as the communion of the Pope gets called simply the "Catholic Church" by sources. Either both articles should use the title with the qualifier (Roman/Eastern) in deference to the existence of other churches claiming the "Catholic" and "Orthodox" titles, or both articles should use the title without the qualifier, in deference to self-identification. Ohff (talk) 00:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with just "Orthodox Church." The term Eastern isn't terribly useful much less correct. The only thing is we would need to come up with some form of distinguishing the non-Chalcedonian Orthodox. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we need to change anything about the article titles referring to the non-Chalcedonian Orthodox. The main article about the communion as a whole has always been called Oriental Orthodoxy (and not "Oriental Orthodox Church"). The names used by sources for that communion include "Oriental Orthodoxy" and "Oriental Orthodox Churches" (plural), but almost never "Oriental Orthodox Church" (singular), and absolutely never just "Orthodox Church" without qualifiers. Most likely this is due to the much more heterogeneous nature of Oriental Orthodoxy, with each member church maintaining its separate rite and unique traditions and being only loosely associated with the others. The EO communion is clearly the primary topic for the title "Orthodox Church" (singular, without qualifiers). Ohff (talk) 00:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Leaning option 2, but I'm surprised these are the only options. Do we need to decide? Do we need consistency across all articles? There is certainly a great diversity in reliable sources, and I think it can vary from article to article. If there is likely to be ambiguity, then we should be more specific with geographic qualifiers. I note the East–West Schism starts with "The East–West Schism, also called the Great Schism and the Schism of 1054, was the break of communion between what are now the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic churches..." That seems wrong, somehow - we should have the word "Roman" there to distinguish. St Anselm (talk) 08:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Question for clarification: Is this RfC asking about article titles (i.e. a potential double-RM), or references within articles, or both? St Anselm (talk) 08:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

  Without a lot better reason that the two names should be linked and only the two being linked non of the above.209.182.126.26 (talk) 14:49, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Qualified option 2. As there are many Catholic churches (including the Orthodox Catholic Church, one name for Eastern Orthodoxy), the qualification Roman is essential for precision. For article titles, at a minimum, Roman Catholic Church should be the standard. (This is Britannica's usage, as well.) Within an article, where it is clear that the Roman Catholic Church is meant, the shortened form Catholic Church is quite adequate and perhaps often preferable for the sake of concision and flow. As others have noted, there is an asymmetry with the Orthodox terminology, however: there is no "Eastern Orthodox Church" per se, but rather an Eastern Orthodoxy (or Eastern Orthodox tradition) within which various churches exist: Greek Orthodox Church, Russian Orthodox Church, etc. References should be clear: we should refer to the Eastern Orthodox churches = Eastern Orthodoxy (these terms are roughly equivalent), or to a specific church within this tradition (e.g. the Russian Orthodox Church). Clean Copy^talk 17:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

As a side note (but an important one): Eastern Orthodox Christians refer to their communion as a Church, not (merely) a tradition. In terms of organization, this overarching Orthodox Church is quite fluid. Its various component Churches have often merged and separated and re-merged. In the immediate aftermath of the East-West Schism, there were 4 autocephalous Churches within Eastern Orthodoxy. By the 14th century there were 9. Then a series of mergers followed, and by 1825 there were only 5. Today there are 14. The common Orthodox identity has remained throughout these relatively-frequent administrative changes, and an Eastern Orthodox Christian can move from the jurisdiction of one autocephalous Church to another as easily as moving between parishes of the same autocephalous Church. One can get baptized in a Greek church, get married in a Russian church, and have one's funeral conducted by an Antiochian priest. Ohff (talk) 18:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

But having said that, I agree with your views on all issues under discussion (article titles, and the style that should use used within articles). I just wanted to bring some potentially-relevant information to the table. Ohff (talk) 18:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I accept that "the Eastern Orthodox Church" is often referred to as a single body of tradition, even though this is technically-organizationally more a collection of Churches.

Here's a nice complication: "officially Orthodox documents consistently refer to 'the Eastern Orthodox Church' as 'the Catholic Church'" -- Achim N. Maseko, Church Schism and Corruption, p. 127

Finally, yet another construct frequently found: "Western Catholicism," which appears to be a linguistically parallel construct to "Eastern Orthodoxy," with the important caveat that the former generally refers to a single (Roman Catholic) Church, not a collection of Churches with a great commonality of traditions. Clean Copy^talk 08:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Option 3 Referring to the Catholic Church as Roman Catholic would be factually incorrect because of the Eastern Catholic Churches and Eastern Orthodoxy is distinct from Oriental Orthodoxy. Arguably "Roman Catholic Church" is a synonym for Latin Church and applying that to the Church as a whole would be inappropriate. The "Eastern" modifier is important in front of the Eastern Orthodox Church because of the existence of Oriental Orthodoxy, which also considers itself to be orthodox. The Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches also consider themselves to be catholic, but they are not widely known as that, while all the sui iuris Churches in communion with the Bishop of Rome are widely known as the Catholic Church. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Option 2. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 15:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Option 3/Status quo. "Eastern" is needed distinguish from the "Oriental" Orthodox. Catholic/Roman Catholic, has been discussed numerous times. Links to discussion archives can be found here: Wikipedia:Catholic or Roman Catholic?. --Zfish118^⋉talk 00:17, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Suggested close

It appears that Wikipedia:Catholic or Roman Catholic? already ~~answers~~addresses the question for the Catholic/Roman Catholic Church. As regards the Orthodox/Eastern Orthodox terminology, Options 2 and 3, the overwhelmingly favorites in this RFC, are in agreement that WP should use Eastern Orthodox. Unless there are disagreements, I would suggest the RFC is closed with this conclusion. Clean Copy^talk 03:34, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Catholic or Roman Catholic? is, of course, an essay. In any case, I am disappointed that my request for clarification went unanswered. St Anselm (talk) 03:55, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. This is an essay composed recently by user:Zfish118. It does not represent WP consensus. Sorry about the confusion. My bad.

It would seem that this RFC was about article titles only, if only for the fact that local consensus about every single reference in every single article, Wiki-wide, would be positively unenforceable. Elizium23 (talk) 04:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree with close - so no change then. It was always a mistake to lump the two together. Whatever these endless talk page marathons produce, it isn't "clarification". Johnbod (talk) 04:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Except that it isn't clear that the consensus is in favour of Option 3... St Anselm (talk) 04:57, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

There is also no strong consensus to change anything either, which is how many of these naming discussions end. --Zfish118^⋉talk 09:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

There exists a clear consensus on this page to keep Eastern Orthodox Church. There exists no clear consensus to change Catholic Church to Roman Catholic Church. The status quo should remain because of that. Additionally, I think Talk:Catholic Church is a better place to have that conversation than here to have that conversation, since it is the talk page of the article in question (though it would likely not result in a different outcome.) TonyBallioni (talk) 01:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't think there exists a clear consensus on this page to keep the title "Eastern Orthodox Church", because the RfC is not about the title of this page in isolation. It is about the titles of two pages, and the votes for option 2 should not be considered endorsements of the status quo here. Take my vote for example: I voted for option 2, not because I think the title of this page is fine the way it is now, but because I want consistency across Wikipedia, and I thought consistency would be better achieved by changing the title "Catholic Church" to "Roman Catholic Church" (option 2), rather than by changing the title of this page (option 1).

If you asked me to vote on the title of this page alone, in isolation, I would vote to change it to "Orthodox Church". So, again, votes for option 2 should not be considered endorsements of the status quo here, necessarily. Ohff (talk) 10:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I support closing the discussion. Like I said above, the naming question for both of these has been discussed at length independently. There are specific reasons for the differences in naming, each intrinsic to each Church. They are many idiosyncratic elements to each Church that affected those decisions, which by the way were able to reach consensus. If we want to combine both articles into a single discussion, then we would need to include also other articles that will be affected such as the Latin Catholic Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches (all of which are Roman), the Anglican Church (which is catholic), the Oriental Orthodox Churches, the Old Catholic Church, etc. Although the desire for consistency is commendable, consensus for a change will not be reached this way, as we have seen here.--Coquidragon (talk) 23:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Majoreditor (talk) 02:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Consensus on Wikipedia on groupings of Christian denominations

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I opened a discussion on groupings in Christianity, of which there currently seems to lack a consensus on Wikipedia. The discussion might be of interest for followers of this talk page. Please see: Talk:Christianity#Denominations. Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments requested at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_January_19#Category:Persecution_by_atheists

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

One user is requesting deletion of Category:Persecution by atheists even though he has added Category:Persecution by Christians to unrelated articles, such as Population history of indigenous peoples of the Americas. This occurred after he emptied the category of historical examples of persecution by atheists, such as atheist states torturing people of faith in the Soviet Union (especially Eastern Orthodox Christians) or in Revolutionary France. Please share your comments at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_January_19#Category:Persecution_by_atheists, regardless of your opinion. Since Xenophrenic notified the atheism project, I decided to post here. Eliko007 (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Relations with Islam

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Yesterday I deleted all the unsourced content from this article section - not normally an action I like to take. And since it came pretty close to blanking the section, I thought today that I had better explain the action a little more here.

This is one of several sections in the article which have historically been underreferenced for a long time, and upon which I have cast my own disparaging looks. But I have not acted before because, first, they were of less interest to me, and second, because I did not feel they were a priority for me. However, in just a couple of days recently, there's been an exchange of opinion over a tagging in the section (asking for references), and then a contribution that overturned some fairly long-existing material in favor of other material, none of either of which were referenced.

This article has suffered a great deal of disruption and controversy during years of time, over POV and and pointy issues, and has upon occasion been the recipient of a bunch of tagging, some of it in the nature of attacks. This kind of disruptive nonsense has driven many editors away from Wikipedia, and the toll on Orthodox writers has been particularly high. I myself took a breath from it for what I thought was going to be about a month, and enjoyed that so much that I've returned only after more than a year. And now when I see only artifacts of this stuff again, even when the editors involved are not actually misbehaving, the refreshed memory is still obnoxious.

So, for the sake of the article, I judged that in this one case that it was better to remove long-standing unsourced material that practically invites controversy, and certainly invited unhelpful activity. For without sourcing, the article lies open to continued hassle. So do we editors, and I have given my indications on why I think that is no small matter either.

Anyone is still free to edit as he or she sees fit, and pull me in if they think they see me overstep. But be assured that I won't be editing lightly. I want to get these things right also, so I *do* want to discuss issues if they come up. Therefore, expect me to come to this page at need. I don't mind it at all if someone disagrees with me. I do mind it if someone doesn't justify what they do, or if they dump their own opinions into the article. And I may well spend some time looking through it and finding more material to clear out, because nobody can call this article fit for improved status unless it is documented, and I expect there is still cruft of this kind that has remained too long. Evensteven (talk) 18:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Reference to "atheist secularism" redundant?

@Evensteven: I was just driving by in an attempt to get some general info on the church, but the last sentence of this "Relations with Islam" section as it currently reads was confusing me. So I did a bit of digging back through history and I think I see the problem. I've fixed it (via deletion), but please check that I haven't harmed meaning. The problem is simply the irrelevance of the last sentence to the topic of Islamic relations. The paragraph as a whole begins:

In Russia, Metropolitan Alfeyev stated belief in the possibility of peaceful coexistence between Islam and Christianity as the two religions have never had religious wars in Russia.[211]

It's referencing a reasonable source, so thus far it's fine. But then, referencing the same source, it goes on:

However, Alfeyev stated that the Russian Orthodox Church "disagrees with atheist secularism in some areas very strongly" and "believes that it destroys something very essential about human life."[211]

That---a reference to atheist secularism---seems both completely irrelevant to the Islam sub-topic, and rather incongruous w.r.t. the previous sentence. But I think the explanation is simple. Originally, this section began as "Interfaith relations", and in that broader context the reference made sense. However, later on the name of the section changed to "Relations with Islam", essentially "orphaning" that final sentence. I think the best solution is simply to delete which, being bold, I've done. But I suppose the section title could be changed to "Relations with Islam and Other Faiths" or similar, but since Islam is the only actual faith being discussed (atheist secularism being less clearly a "faith"), I think a renaming approach would be less useful.

Anyway, I am, as I said, merely driving by, so feel free to revert if none of that made sense! Sleety Dribble (talk) 14:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Eastern Orthodox Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110523173437/http://www.hartfordinstitute.org/research/2010-USOrthodox-Census.pdf to http://www.hartfordinstitute.org/research/2010-USOrthodox-Census.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/murati_kled/albanians.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927051409/http://litek.ws/k0nsl/detox/anti-humans.htm to http://litek.ws/k0nsl/detox/anti-humans.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.answers.com/library/Mideast%2B%26%2BN.%2BAfrica%2BEncyclopedia

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eastern Orthodox Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140408220038/http://razumkov.org.ua/ukr/poll.php?poll_id=300 to http://razumkov.org.ua/ukr/poll.php?poll_id=300

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Infobox

Latest comment: 6 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion

@Chicbyaccident: This article does not need an infobox (neither does the Oriental Orthodoxy). Why don't you try to establish the consensus first? I reverted your edit ([8]), so according to WP:BRD, you should have discuss the issue with other editors. Instead, you just inserted it again. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, I thought you were not content with the short content in the first introduction, so I added some more in order to make it more relevant to have an infoxobox. I don't know if there is any consensus against an infobox either. Why would that be? Chicbyaccident (talk) 10:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Because it's useless, and also, it is potentially controversial. Eastern Orthodox Church does not see itself as a "Christian denomination", but as the one true Christian Church. It's also full of misleading data. Eastern Orthodox church does not have "headquarters", nor does it have an "official website". It is composed of several autocephalous churches each with it's own headquarters and web sites. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, there are more than a couple of others such with equivalent pretentions, yet similarly being deemed "denomination" by Wikipedia category tree etc. Feel free to improve! Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with @Chicbyaccident:, I don't see any problems with the infobox.--Jobas (talk) 12:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any problems with the infobox either, but I also don't see any purpose for the infobox. It adds nothing to the article. All the information in the infobox is already present in the article, and most of it is in the introduction, too. So, why add an infobox that will just clutter the screen and make the article harder to read on small screens? I am currently against it. Ohff (talk) 06:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Basically all major Christian denominations keep an infobox. If you are against the system of infoboxes on a general level, which your argumentation seems to indicate, then I would raise that question to a more general level. Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I see what you mean, and I am normally an advocate of keeping things consistent across Wikipedia, but as you know, there is no place where I could raise the question at a more general level. Trying to get something changed across multiple pages at the same time is next to impossible, as we have seen here every time someone tries to get the same consistent naming policy used for this page and for Catholic Church. Every page has its own group of regular editors and therefore its own consensus. There is no place where a general consensus was ever formed about how to organize pages on major Christian denominations. So, just because the editors over at Anglican Communion or Lutheran World Federation or Catholic Church believe that an infobox is useful, that does not mean we have to follow their lead. I do not feel so strongly against infoboxes that I would go and try to persuade the editors of those other articles to change their long-standing consensus. But over here, we do not have a consensus in favour of an infobox right now, and I am against forming one, for the reasons I stated. Ohff (talk) 04:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I also generally think that sidebar templates with a list of related articles are better than infoboxes. I've been wanting to create separate and greatly improved sidebars for the Eastern Orthodox Church and Oriental Orthodoxy for some time, but this project is still only partially finished in my sandbox. I wish I had more time to devote to it. Ohff (talk) 04:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The argument that "All the information in the infobox is already present in the article, and most of it is in the introduction, too" is not satisfying argument against an infobox, since these are precisely the conditions that infoboxes are supposed to follow. Neither is clutting your screen - meaning a subjective aesthetical note - a satisfying argument. Nor is the presence of sidebars disqualifying that of infoboxes, especially not in longer arricles such as this one. If you wish to convince against the use of infobox here, you would have to bring more arguments, please. Chicbyaccident (talk) 07:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok. Here is my line of thinking: What is the general purpose of an infobox? Presumably, it is to present a very concise bullet-point list of the main information about the subject of the article. Therefore, infoboxes are appropriate for articles whose main points can be presented as a list of numbers or names. For example, articles on military battles always have infoboxes, and that is very useful, because the main information about a battle is: who fought, who won, who the commanders were, and how many people died on each side. That is a list of names and numbers. Perfect for an infobox. With religious institutions, on the other hand, names and numbers are a much smaller part of the story. The main information about a religious denomination is not how many members it has or who its current leaders are, but rather the beliefs and practices and history of that religious group. And these are not things that can be summarized in an infobox. Therefore, an infobox is much less useful, and perhaps even useless.

I know that this is an argument against infoboxes for religious denominations in general, and not just for the EOC in particular. As I said, I think all religious denomination articles should probably remove their infoboxes, but I just don't feel strongly enough about this (and I don't have enough time) to go around trying to get consensus everywhere for removing them.

But I also wanted to ask, what are your arguments for adding an infobox? So far, the only argument you have made is that other religious denominations have infoboxes. Is that really a stronger argument than, for example, my argument about cluttering the screen? Both of these are basically aesthetic arguments (arguments about whether an infobox would make the article look better or worse). Ohff (talk) 19:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

No, it's simply following a general consensus on a variation of how information is presented in extended articles. Anyway, I guess someone else will contribute to this discussion later. So far, I guess you'll have your way with having this article on a Christian denomination exceptionately free of infobox for the time being. Chicbyaccident (talk) 06:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

this is not a good argument at all. it is not "useless" it provides information that is quite useful. As for You or Eastern Orthodox practitioners beliving it is "the" one true Christian Church and not a denomination, nearly every Christian Church makes this claim. Certainly the Catholic Church does and many Protestants view their churches as "restoring" the one true church. None of those presents a strong argument for deleting the infobox if they are generally consistent across the orher Christian church articles. deleting the infobox because you believe the Eastern Orthodox Church is "correct" is the antithesis of an encyclopaedic purpose. Consistency across the various Christianity pages makes much more sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.76.66.163 (talk) 02:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Eastern Orthodox Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Catholic Church naming conventions RfC

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is currently an RfC at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Catholic_Church)#RfC:_should_this_page_be_made_a_naming_convention that may be of interest. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 23:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Legal Traditions

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

A new section had been added in a pair of revisions, the latter being https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eastern_Orthodox_Church&oldid=810705982#Legal_Traditions but they were subsequently reverted "16 November 2017‎ Dr.K." with the Edit summary "(Reverted 2 edits by Gturnergilbert (talk): Looks like POV/OR. (TW★TW))".

The additions were well referenced and, IMHO, very accurate and pertinent. The reversion strikes me as quite flippant as I see no "POV" issues with the additions.

I bring this to the talk page, however, to avoid an editing war and to seek the opinions of multiple contributors. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 12:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I have briefly checked these revisions and unfortunately certain WP:NPOV issues came to my notice. These issues are of a political nature and not really religious and should not be accepted to the article, as they are not serving the scope and purpose of this article which is to inform the readers about the Eastern Orthodox Church, its norms and traditions. The most striking issue for me is the following text (copy-pasting it here): the most recent of which was the Pan-Orthodox Council held in Crete in 2016. The exact binding status of the decisions reached at this council is currently debated, with the non-attending churches denying its Pan-Orthodoxy. which clearly is a blatant Russian WP:POV, and this is not hard, for those who are familiar the ecclesiastical affairs and intriques of the last decades between Russian Orthodox Church and the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, to idendify it. I haven't checked thoroughly the entire revisions but clearly they can not be restored wihtout the necessary NPOV rewording and omission of the Russian bias, no matter how well-sourced they are. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 17:40, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The additions were well referenced and, IMHO, very accurate and pertinent. The reversion strikes me as quite flippant as I see no "POV" issues with the additions.: Lol, I don't know what it is with religious articles that brings all kinds of aggressive statements and silly accusations. I remind you of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. You should try to WP:AGF more and have more respect for the judgement of longstanding and good faith editors, instead of making such flippant accusations against me.

Now let me address your ill-conceived remarks. This is the edit in dispute under the title "Legal Traditions":

The Eastern Orthodox Church follows a legal system involving the use of the Canons, compiled within the Pedalion (from the Greek πηδάλιον, "rudder").^[1] The Pedalion is a collection of compiled ecclesiastical laws regulating such things as manner of ordination of bishops, ritual purity, and marriage customs within the church. These canons are derived from rulings made by the Church Fathers, traditions considered to be handed down from the Apostles, and decisions made at ecumenical councils, in accordance with the Church's view of itself as a patristic and conciliar church.^[2]^[3] Only members of the church are considered capable of exegesis and legal interpretation due to the perceived clarity given by communion with the Holy Spirit.^[4] Traditionally, these laws are interpreted by bishops according to the principles of Akribeia and Oikonomia.^[5] The Pedalion is organized such that laws listed earlier supersede laws listed later, with the exception of the Canons of the Holy Apostles, which, while frequently listed first, are not viewed with any particular legal primacy. Unlike in the Catholic Church, where the Pope maintains a high level of legal authority, the Ecumenical Patriarch is considered to be first among equals, and as such is not able to make legal changes without the agreement of all Orthodox bishops. Changes to the Church Laws are determined via councils or synods, the most recent of which was the Pan-Orthodox Council held in Crete in 2016. The exact binding status of the decisions reached at this council is currently debated, with the non-attending churches denying its Pan-Orthodoxy.^[6] While these legal traditions regulate only the Church and have no binding authority over any state in which the church operates, the Eastern Orthodox legal system does occasionally come into a sort of conflict with the secular world. To deal with this, certain laws have included caveats holding temporal law over church law, such as with regard to age of consent.^[7] Because of the national nature of the autocephalous and autonomous churches, as well as the Ecumenical Patriarchate itself, national governments have often exerted a significant amount of influence over the church - notably, the Soviet Union maintained an influence in the church during its time, while the modern Turkish state has mandated that the Ecumenical Patriarch be a Turkish citizen, given their control over Istanbul (Constantinople).^[8] Occasionally, disputes between nations will affect national churches and force certain legal ramifications - for example, the Georgian Orthodox Church was re-granted autocephaly following the end of the Soviet Union and its national return to independence. Attempts at changing the Canons have emerged both from within the clergy as well as the laity, often in response to laws that are seen to be outdated or unenforced. Challenges have arisen in the United States regarding the Orthodox ban on married bishops, with a coalition of laity and clergy pushing for them to be allowed.^[9] Other laws that have been critiqued include questions of women's ritual purity. One prominent voice advocating for re-evaluation of such laws is Sr. Dr. Vassa Larin, a prominent member of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.^[10] Discussions have also emerged over the legality within the Church of gay marriage.^[11]

Let's just start with the title of the section: "Legal Traditions". There is no such thing as "Legal Traditions of the Eastern Orthodox Church". There may be Canonical tradition, but "legal tradition" is not used. The section title is already POV.

The text in dispute states:

While these legal traditions regulate only the Church and have no binding authority over any state in which the church operates, the Eastern Orthodox legal system does occasionally come into a sort of conflict with the secular world.

That's automatically POV, because, this statement has nothing to do with the "legal traditions" of the EOC, but rather it tries to demonstrate that other entities, for their own political purposes, do not accept the canon law and the religious independence of the EOC. This is obviously heavy-handed, politically-driven, POV not in any way related to the canon traditions of the EOC. Observe also the WP:WEASEL construction of the statement: into a sort of conflict. Also the term "Eastern Orthodox legal system" is non-existent. There is no such thing. Just try to Google "Eastern Orthodox legal system". There are no results. If that's not OR/POV, let me know what is.

It gets worse. Because of the national nature of the autocephalous and autonomous churches, as well as the Ecumenical Patriarchate itself, national governments have often exerted a significant amount of influence over the church - notably, the Soviet Union maintained an influence in the church during its time, while the modern Turkish state has mandated that the Ecumenical Patriarch be a Turkish citizen, given their control over Istanbul (Constantinople). This paragraph has nothing to do with the legal traditions of the church but rather it attempts to describe the modern political interference against the EOC. I remind you that this is the article about the EOC, not the modern political reception of its canon law, such as it is. The second sentence about Turkey is just an attempt to advertise, yet again, that the Ecumenical Patriarch's status has faced political opposition in Turkey. This political POV is irrelevant to both the EOC article and the article about the Patriarch.

The exact binding status of the decisions reached at this council is currently debated, with the non-attending churches denying its Pan-Orthodoxy. Just the expression "...is currently debated" indicates the WP:RECENTISM problem of that edit, which makes a mockery out of the purported purpose of the edit that is supposed to detail the tradition of the canon law of the EOC, not the latest news about the Church.

The last paragraph: Challenges have arisen in the United States regarding the Orthodox ban on married bishops, with a coalition of laity and clergy pushing for them to be allowed.[9] Other laws that have been critiqued include questions of women's ritual purity. One prominent voice advocating for re-evaluation of such laws is Sr. Dr. Vassa Larin, a prominent member of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.[10] Discussions have also emerged over the legality within the Church of gay marriage.[11] is just WP:RECENTISM. These are topics that have arisen recently and they are not part of the canon law of the EOC. Also this minute detail is WP:UNDUE for this article which is about the EOC, not its canon law.

In conclusion, this huge POV dump of non-existent terminology, UNDUEWEIGHT, RECENTISM, and political POV has no place in this article, except if drastically reduced and focused on the canon law of the EOC. In addition, there is no article about the Canon law of the Eastern Orthodox Church, although there is about the Canon law of the Catholic Church. I think the reason for that is, that the canon law of the EOC is less defined than that of the CC, a fact that makes dumping all this POV stuff into this specialist article all the more glaring. Dr. K. 18:40, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

References

^ McGuckin, Johnathan A. The Orthodox Church: An Introduction to its History, Doctrine, and Spiritual Culture. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2008. Page 115.
^ The Pedalion. Accessed from The Rudder Download
^ McGuckin, Johnathan A. The Orthodox Church: An Introduction to its History, Doctrine, and Spiritual Culture. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2008. Pages 110-111.
^ McGuckin, Johnathan A. The Orthodox Church: An Introduction to its History, Doctrine, and Spiritual Culture. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2008. Pages 106-107.
^ McGuckin, Johnathan A. The Orthodox Church: An Introduction to its History, Doctrine, and Spiritual Culture. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2008. Page 115.
^ Mihail Matakiev. The Pan-Orthodox Council in Crete (2016) and Russia (In the Context of the Hybrid War. Accessed from: http://bulgariaanalytica.org/en/2016/12/29/%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F%D1%82-%D1%81%D1%8A%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%80-%D0%B8-%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%8F-%D0%B2-%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%82/
^ The Sacrament of Marriage and its Impediments. Accessed from: https://www.holycouncil.org/-/marriage
^ Psomiades, Harry J. Soviet Russia and the Orthodox Church in the Middle East. Middle East Journal Vol. 11, No. 4 (Autumn, 1957), pp. 371-381
^ Steinfels, Peter. “Greek Orthodox Group Backs Married Bishop.” The New York Times, 14 July 1990.
^ Larin, Vassa. “What is Ritual Impurity and Why?” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly #52 (3-4), 2008. 275-292. Accessed from http://www.pravmir.com/article_660.html#_ftn1.
^ The Sacrament of Marriage and its Impediments. Accessed from: https://www.holycouncil.org/-/marriage

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Eastern Orthodox Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Tag recently added, "This article may be too long..."

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I suggest moving to Byzantine Rite these sections:

   4 Worship
   5 Traditions
   6 Holy mysteries (sacraments)

The are big gaps in "Byzantine Rite", e.g., "This section is empty" for "Sacraments and other services performed as needed". If this should result in Byzantine Rite becoming too long, I have ideas of how to break it up also. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 00:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Condensing the article

I condensed the sections about Fasting and Marriage. They were too long and too detailed, although we have separate article on both topics. According to WP:SUBARTICLE, this article should just summarize those topics. I also removed many images (mainly indiscriminate collections of images grouped in galleries). Such galleries just make the article too long but do not help in understanding of the article. Readability should not be sacrificed for aesthetics. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the history sections on the Orthodox Church in Russia, especially this section [[9]] which only covers a 60 year period is way to long.... especially since there is an entire article on the Orthodox Church in Russia. Anyone more familiar with this topic want to move the bulk of that section to Russian Orthodox Church? Sethie (talk) 04:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Intro needs a lot of work

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi

The intro is too technical. In almost every 2nd or 3rd sentence there is a term that I have to click on to find the meaning of it.... An introduction should be an introduction- a broad overview- and specifics can be fleshed out later on. I have begun to address this- feedback, suggestions, collaberation welcome. Sethie (talk) 23:45, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Extra eyes please on Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Kiev Patriarchate‎

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Extra eyes are kindly requested at Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Kiev Patriarchate‎ and its talk page. Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:11, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Russian Orthodox Church as literally break communion from Ecumenical Patriarchate of Con. over Ukraine issue.

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I found news that Russian Orthodox Church as breaking communion from Main church over granting Autocephaly to two Ukrainian Orthodox Churches (Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Kiev Patriarchate and Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church) today. And here couple primary sources BBC and The Guardian as proof. Chad The Goatman (talk) 22:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Chad The Goatman: We have article about that: Schism of 2018. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Good to hear but until EoC responds about this Schismatic crisis and decided their fate will hurt mostly to former (Russian Orthodox Church) than latter of denomination. Chad The Goatman (talk) 10:04, 16 October 2018 (EST)

The number of adherents

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

@Omnipaedista: Greetings. You returned an estimate of the number of adherents from 300 million to 200 million. But if 300 million is an obvious revaluation, then 200 million is the lowest of estimates. From the two sources cited, https://www.thoughtco.com gives an estimated 200 million [10], but http://www.adherents.com gives an estimate of around 218 million [11]. Moreover, the current article Moscow–Constantinople schism gives the number of followers of the Moscow Patriarchate of 150 million. The same estimate is given in the article Russian Orthodox Church. It turns out that 3/4 of all Orthodox are followers of Moscow! Certainly, the patriarch Gundyaev is the rightful master of the whole Orthodox world )) However, according to the ref in the mentioned article Schism [12], along with an estimate of the number of followers of the Moscow Patriarchate as 150 million, the total number of Orthodox in the world is estimated at 260 million. An interesting assessment is given in the book "Atlas of Religions": the total number of Orthodox Christians is estimated as "over 220 million", but the number of members of the Russian Orthodox Church is only 88 million [13]. Thus, the reason is in different estimates of what part of Russian population are actually Orthodox. This is well covered in the note “a” of this article: the myth is widespread that the Orthodox are 80–90% of the population (the total population is 148M), while only 5% regularly attend the Liturgy. In real, after the Orthodoxy from the Moscow Patriarchate became the state religion de-facto, the Russian loyalists soon became Orthodox, just as before they were communists. I believe that this question should be briefly highlighted in the Lead in order to remove discrepancies between the numbers in different articles on similar topics.--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for sorting this out. [14][15][16]--Omnipaedista (talk) 09:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

"Eastern" Orthodox Church?

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I notece there was a confusing RM in 2016 about it. However, I fail to understand the logic behind "Eastern" Orthodox Church when speaking about Orthodox Church. Is there a Western Orthodox Church? A Central one? To make things even worste, Orthodox Church seems to have been separated here on en.wiki into two major branches: Eastern Orthodox Church and Oriental Orthodoxy. I dont get it why isn´t this article titled just "Orthodox Church". I understand that for most Anglo-saxon world Orthodox believers come from the East, but the directional adjective seems quite unecessary for the encyclopedic title of the name of the church. If we were speaking about Christianity, well OK, Eastern Christianity, but Orthodox is already a branch by itself. FkpCascais (talk) 02:29, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

(i) At least one major encyclopedic source calls it "Eastern": "Eastern Orthodoxy," britannica.com; (ii) at least one county's constitution describes the Orthodox Church as "Eastern": "Constitution of Greece", Part I Sec. II ar. 3: "The prevailing religion in Greece is that of the Eastern Orthodox Church of Christ." --Omnipaedista (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Orthodox Catholic? Church

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, Anglicanus. With this edit: [17] you in fact reverted mine: [18] )) In turn, I had decided to make wikification after this edit of an ip-user: [19]. I suppose that for many people who know little about Orthodoxy, Rome is the only Catholic church. I believe, that wikification of "Catholic" as "Catholic (term) should help to clarify the situation for them. What's your opinion?--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your question. I believe it's an MOS issue. Please don't expect me to find where it's mentioned at present, but it is my understanding that the MOS somewhere states that there should not be any wikilinks in any bolded names in the opening sentence and that they should, instead, only be linked at the next appropriate place in the article. In this article that would be in the first "Name and characteristics" section. Anglicanus (talk) 13:28, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much! You are absolutely right and MOS describes this case as a typical error: "Links should not be placed in the boldface reiteration of the title in the opening sentence of a lead"--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:40, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Removal of content about child sexual abuse

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

@Vanjagenije: Can you explain why you removed this sourced content [20] about child sexual abuse in the Orthodox Church? This content needs to be covered in the main article for the Church. Your edit summary said only This certainly does not belong here. - I would like an actual explanation before I open an RfC. Has this been previously discussed?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Seraphim System (talk • contribs) 23:49, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

That kind of material is too detailed for such a broad article like this one. It should be covered in a separate article if it's notable. I explained my position at Talk:Greek Orthodox Church. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:08, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

[Harakas-1] Harakas, Stanley S. "For the Health of Body and Soul: An Eastern Orthodox Introduction to Bioethics". Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America. Retrieved 11 June 2016.

[2] McGuckin, Johnathan A. The Orthodox Church: An Introduction to its History, Doctrine, and Spiritual Culture. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2008. Page 115.

[3] The Pedalion. Accessed from The Rudder Download

[4] McGuckin, Johnathan A. The Orthodox Church: An Introduction to its History, Doctrine, and Spiritual Culture. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2008. Pages 110-111.

[5] McGuckin, Johnathan A. The Orthodox Church: An Introduction to its History, Doctrine, and Spiritual Culture. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2008. Pages 106-107.

[6] McGuckin, Johnathan A. The Orthodox Church: An Introduction to its History, Doctrine, and Spiritual Culture. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2008. Page 115.

[7] Mihail Matakiev. The Pan-Orthodox Council in Crete (2016) and Russia (In the Context of the Hybrid War. Accessed from: http://bulgariaanalytica.org/en/2016/12/29/%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F%D1%82-%D1%81%D1%8A%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%80-%D0%B8-%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%8F-%D0%B2-%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%82/

[8] The Sacrament of Marriage and its Impediments. Accessed from: https://www.holycouncil.org/-/marriage

[9] Psomiades, Harry J. Soviet Russia and the Orthodox Church in the Middle East. Middle East Journal Vol. 11, No. 4 (Autumn, 1957), pp. 371-381

[10] Steinfels, Peter. “Greek Orthodox Group Backs Married Bishop.” The New York Times, 14 July 1990.

[11] Larin, Vassa. “What is Ritual Impurity and Why?” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly #52 (3-4), 2008. 275-292. Accessed from http://www.pravmir.com/article_660.html#_ftn1.

[12] The Sacrament of Marriage and its Impediments. Accessed from: https://www.holycouncil.org/-/marriage

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]