Open main menu

Talk:Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church


The page saysEdit

The page says "unique to Judaism" near the bottom regarding dietary, but I think it's supposed to say "unique to Ethiopian Orthodoxy", or something of the like. I didn't change it b/c I wasn't sure.

I changed "element [...] God" to "belief (in) [..] God" because God is not an element! thanks

The article on MonophysitismEdit

The article on Monophysitism refers to this Church (with a slight spelling variation / error) with the comment:

(tewahido being an Ethiopian word meaning "being made one")

If anyone can verify this, I think it should go in the article. -- IMSoP

Moving pageEdit

I can't verify the meaning of the word "tewahido" (or "tawahido"), but it does seem that the most common spelling is the former (tewahido). I'm moving the page to Tewahdio. Anthropos 15:10, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Drat! Ok, the right spelling is "tewahedo". Moving once again...

On the meaning of "Tewahedo," I am a little concerned with associating Arabic's "tawhid." Whoever is well versed in Ge'ez might be able to clarify. To "become one" in Arabic would be, "tewehud." That seems closer to the stem "tewahedo." I don't know if the stems are related, so any expertise would be helpful.

IbnBatriq 05:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they both come from the Semitic forms for the numeral "one". "One" in Arabic is "waHad", Geez has "aHad", Hebrew is also similar. "tawhid" meaning monotheism comes from the Arabic stem. "tewahedo" in Geez has a very similar etymology, it literally is a gerundive participle meaning "Having been unified", (verb tewaHade, he / it was made one)l but in this case it refers not to the monotheism; rather to the belief that Christ's nature as God and human is One and Indivisible.

ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 12:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Moved to full nameEdit

I've moved the article to the full English name of "Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church", which should help non-Ethiopians who have mostly never heard of "Tewahedo".--Pharos 08:04, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure you mean well, but the result is that we're now struggling with an even more convoluted name. So do we use the official name (viz. the Tewahedo Church), or the name English speakers may be most familiar with (viz. the Ethiopian Orthodox Church). Frankly, the name I'd guess most English speakers would use -- who are even aware of the tradition of Christianity in Ethiopia -- might be "Ethiopian Christianity". (Although I wouldn't be surprised if there was a significant number who thought the proper name is "Rastafarians".) -- llywrch 04:25, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well, it seems that even some reference materials refer to it (erroneously) as the "Coptic Church." If I've heard it mentioned by someone at all, it's usually just "Ethiopian Orthodox." FWIW, when I've visited Ethiopian churches here in the U.S., the sign outside says "Saint Xyz Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church." Quite a mouthful, but that's how the church refers to itself; I assume the Wikipedia article should do the same. There are already several redirects to this article. But if we must rename the article, I'd suggest "Ethiopian Orthodox Church," but leave the opening sentence as it now appears, with the word "Tewahedo." -- Gyrofrog (talk) 05:22, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The full name for the article is fine with me. Note also the REDIRECTs in action.

  1. Tawahedo Church (redirect page)
  2. Ethiopian Orthodox Church (redirect page)
  3. Tewahido Church (redirect page)
  4. Ethiopian Orthodox (redirect page)
  5. Ethiopian Church (redirect page)
  6. Tewahedo Church (redirect page)

After merging Abyssinian Church, "Abyssinian Church" will also become a redirect.

Pjacobi 13:26, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

Merge from Abyssinian ChurchEdit

I had started the merge a while back, creating a new "Architecture" section and copying text into it. I "modernized" that content at the time I copied it, and was planning to do the same with the remaining content before I moved it here. Then I figured, why not move it now, we can always edit it here, so that's what I've done. Most of the text is in a new section (in terms of all that attention for a 133 year span) — for which I couldn't come up with a better section title than "Jesuit interim." (I wondered about calling it "The Middle Ages," but doesn't that specifically refer to Western Europe?) And it sure is a big section, — now I wonder if that portion could have stood on its own as a separate article, called "Jesuit interim of the Ethiopian Church" or some such. Anyway, it's all here in this article now, with the following exception:

"Fasts are long and rigid. Confession and absolution, strictly enforced, give great power to the priesthood. The clergy must marry, but once only. Pilgrimage to Jerusalem is a religious duty and covers many sins."

I don't think these are already mentioned anywhere in the article but I can't quite unwind my brain to figure out where to place them (or how to re-word them). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 04:00, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You have a statemnt that says " a journey to Jerusalem covers many sins". This maybe what foreigners or non-orthodox ethiopians think, but this is not part of the teaching of the church. You have to diferentiate between what is real and what is fiction. You are encouraged to do 'good' as an expression of your love to the lord but not as a means of accumulating 'credit' in his Kingdom. the preceding comment is by - 15:03, 4 March 2006: Please sign your posts!
The statement was from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica and does not currently appear in the article. It appears in my above comments, but remember this is a talk page and not the article itself. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Second to the Russian Orthodox ChurchEdit

As the Coptic Pope (nor the Ethiopian Orthodox Church) is not in comunion with the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church I don't think it makes much sense to say that it is second in size only to the Russian Orthodox Church anymore than it would be to say it was n in size to x churches. Therefore I'm rewording the beginning of this article.

See: Full communion

Gabe 04:46, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think this makes sense, the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox schisms were hundreds of years apart. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 05:06, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Similarities to JudaismEdit

Regarding the following addition (June 24):

As of 2005, there are many Ethiopian Orthodox churches located throughout the United States. They have services on Sundays and there are surprisingly many common traits and beliefs beetween the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo church and the Jew's Orthodox church. As a basic example visitors to the church and all attendees are traditionally obligated to cover their heads when in the church. Also, while following the Ethiopian service, it is customary to sit and stand as is indicated by the priests, as is similar with the Jews.

Some things here needed to be clarified or corrected, and I think the topic warrants its own subsection. Firstly, only women are expected to cover their heads. Also, while it may be similar to Judaism, it is also customary to sit and stand in many Christian denominations (speaking from my own experience this would include every type of church I've ever visited). There are several other aspects that are similar to Judaism and I have included these in the article. Having said all that, I wonder if my edits might include some generalizations (knowing less about the specifics of Judaism), and I wonder if some of these similarities are actually coincidental. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:07, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Yes, a number of these similarities are purely coincidental, which is most clear with post-Biblical Jewish practices like head-covering and separate seating of men and women in synagogue.--Pharos 00:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Similarities do not mean that they are the same. Remember that Christ was a Jew. The Ethiopian church does have similarities with that tradition because all the original Fathers of faith are jews. If you take out Abraham, Isaac, Jaacob, Moses, Daniel, and David and all the rest of the Giants you have no fath and no Jesus. Remember Jesus is a historical figure as well as the "God of the universe. That is why we refer to Him in the concept of the 'Tewahedo"
I am hoping readers do understand the concept well. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 15:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the article implies they are the same, just that there are similarities (some of which may be coincidental, as previously noted). But these similarities with Judaism are distinctive (as compared to Western Christianity, from which these similarities are largely absent). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
P.S. Please make sure you are posting your response in the correct section. -- Gyrofrog (talk)

Concerning the scarf: Ethiopian both men and women wear it in Church or in churches’ the enclosure. It’s an observation maid in Ethiopia (Addis, North, Tigre) went I traveled there in 2003. Abroad, i.e. in London where I live now, men don't cover their head with a scarf although they often have it. The only thing I have notice between men and women regarding the usage of the scarf it that most women seems, in Ethiopia, to masque their mouth with it. I would be very interested to know why.

I haven't personally seen men covering their heads in church (other than the clergy, who wear hats) in Adama, nor in the U.S. (Your mileage may vary, but I wonder why it would vary from place to place?) I have seen men wearing nateles [sp?], like a cloak or shawl, around their shoulders (I gather that this is expected of everyone, male and female). As for covering one's mouth, they might have done so if they had just taken communion. Though from my understanding, adults typically don't receive communion (our wedding would have been an exception). Children and people older than childbearing age do take communion (if there's a way to verify this, it's probably worth mentioning in the article). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 00:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Seems like this page makes a lot of effort to compare Ethiopian Christian practices to Jewish ones, while the same practices are in Islam (separation of sexes at prayer, head-covering, mixing meat and milk while prohibiting pork) and little or no connection is made. Early formation is only one way that practices get passed, and it would be difficult to believe that being nearly surrounded by Islam for most of its existence did not have a substantial impact on Ethiopian Christian practice and belief. I suggest a new section for Similarities to Islam, or alternatively renaming this section to Similarities to Judaism and Islam.--Zachbe (talk) 07:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Or it may be that Islam has adopted a number of Jewish practices that are independently preserved in Ethiopian Christianity. We know that Ethiopia adopted Christianity before the advent of Islam, & due to the relationship of that faith to national identity it is doubtful that Ethiopian Christians would have adopted any innovations from the Muslim faith. (On the other hand, there is some evidence to suggest that iconoclasm in Eastern Christianity & the Islam prohibition on images were parts of the same intellectual movement.) In any case, the evidence about the details of religious belief in pre-Muslim Arabia is very sketchy, & only a little more complete for early Ethiopian Christianity -- which means almost any theory of intellectual influences in this part of the world can be plausibly made. -- llywrch (talk) 04:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

"Sister church"Edit

I've reverted this edit. --Pjacobi 22:51, July 21, 2005 (UTC) Similarities with Judasim are not coincidence. They have the same source. These similarities are base on both the Jews and Ethiopian Orthodoxes observe the laws of Moses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

"Jesuit interim: 1500 – 1633" vs. "The middle ages"Edit

I had deliberately avoided use of the term "Middle Ages" when devising a section title, because it is specific to a time period in Western Europe (as the article itself explains). (On the other hand, it does involve Portugal... hmmm...) The best I could come up with was "Jesuit interim: 1500 – 1633". Maybe there's a section heading that would be better than either of these but for now I will revert to the former. (I will also edit a reference to Middle Ages that [as I recall] was already in the Brittanica source text.) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:57, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Patriarch of Jerusalem a dissenter?Edit

The patriarch of Jerusalem was removed from this statement, by an anonymous ID with a history that is not dependable:

"The Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem all refused to accept the two natures doctrine proclaimed by the Council of Chalcedon in 451, thus separating them from the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches (which themselves split following the East-West Schism).

Would someone competent in this area of history please vet this statement, which remains in the text. Thank you. --Wetman 05:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I would think the Catholic Encyclopedia would have all the information. If my notes are correct: It was Pope Leo I who proposed the two natures doctrine (Christ is fully human and fully divine at the same time, thus two natures) yet just a single hypostasis in a Tome of 449. This was approved at the Emperor Marcian's Council of Chalcedon in 451. However, Pope Leo I rejected the council in 453, it was later accepted by Rome at Lyons II in 1274. Patriarch Nestorius of Constantinople proposed that Christ was two natures and two hypostases. The Archbishop of Alexandria Cyril proposed two natures but one hypostasis and called it the hypostatic union. Eutyches of Constantinople in 452 proposed that Christ was one divine nature (Monophysite). The Byzantine Patriarch Acacius published a "Henotikon" which opposed Pope Leo's two natures doctrine and the Emperor Zeno approved the Henotikon. In 544 the Emperor Justinianus the Great condemned the two natures doctrine and decreed the Theopaschite Formula at the Council of Constantinople in 553. In 547 Pope Vigilius issued the Iudicatum against the two natures doctrine, however he was excommunicated at the Council of Carthage in 550. Pope Pelagius I endorsed Vigilius' Iudicatum. In 638 the Emperor Heraclius decreed Patriarch Sergius' "Ecthesis" (Monothelites) which was approved by Pope Honorius I (who was condemned at the 6th Ecumenical in 680).
The framing of the dissention as "the oriental churches separating from the establishment of Roman Catholicism" is flawed. It was Pope Leo I (an individual) who came up with the two natures doctrine thus placing him as the dissenter. I say so because, it is a common understanding that whoever stems from what was before is a dissenter. The oriental orthodox churches kept what was passed down from the early days of Christianity as dictated word for word in the bible by Christ and his disciples. Just by the sheer political force of the Roman Empire, the debate about the nature of Christ was overwhelmed and framed in terms of this political force thus framing the oriental orthodox churches as dissenters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC) "The Council of Chalcedon with its dogmatic definition did not put an end to the controversy concerning the natures of Christ and their relation to each other. Many people in the East disliked the term person used by the council to signify the union of, or the means of uniting, the two natures in Christ. They believed that Nestorianism was thereby renewed; or at least they thought the definition less satisfactory than St. Cyril's concept of the union of the two natures in Christ (Bardenhewer, Patrologie, 2nd ed., 321-22). In Palestine, Syria, Armenia, Egypt, and other countries, many monks and ecclesiastics refused to accept the definition of Chalcedon; and Monophysites are found there to this day. (See DIOSCURUS; EUTYCHIANISM; MONOPHYSITISM.)" "The mass of the people of Egypt and Syria rejected the Council of Chalcedon (451) altogether, and found in Monophysitism an outlet for their national, anti-imperial feeling. The three Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem were in schism. The Catholic Patriarch of Alexandria, Proterius, had been murdered in 457; a fanatical Monophysite, Timothy Aelurus (Ailuros), had been elected as his successor. He died in 477; the heretics elected one Peter Mongus - the "Stammerer" - to succeed him; the Catholics, John Talaia. Peter Gnapheus (Fullo), one of the most determined leaders of the heretical party, occupied the See of Antioch; Theodosius, also a Monophysite, that of Jerusalem. Over 500 bishops in these patriarchates were open partisans of Eutyches's heresy."

Iconostasis or mekdesEdit

I was just reading the iconostasis article and realized that this is used in the Ethiopian church as well as in Eastern Orthodoxy (I'm guessing it is also used throughout the rest of Oriental Orthodoxy, as well). I'm told that in the Ethiopian church it is called a mekdes. Both this article and the iconostasis article might benefit from further explanation of the mekdes. Furthermore I am wondering if the concept, as well as other similarities such as clerical vestments etc., originated prior to the Chalcedonian schism. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I believe the word mekdes (መቅደስ) usually translates as 'Temple'... although it can also be an infinitive verbal meaning "to make holy"... (Q-D-S)... The innermost part of the sanctuary is called "Holy of holies"... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


I remember hearing about debtera at one point. I know they are not part of the church, but as a related topic I wonder if it warrants inclusion (if not its own article). A search of Wikipedia indicates that it is mentioned in Catholic Church hierarchy#Religious and Laity (perhaps erroneously -- is there an Ethiopian rite within Roman Catholocism?). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

(Moved from following section) debtera is apart of the church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 21:44, 12 March 2010
Did you mean "a part", or "apart"? -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

why are people who dont know what a "debtera" is writing an article about the ethiopian orthodox chuch? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 19:47, 13 April 2012

If you're knowledgeable about the subject, feel free to help out. Meanwhile, please consider reviewing Wikipedia:Civility. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Oriental Orthodoxy projectEdit

There is now a new proposed project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Oriental Orthodoxy for a group which would focus on articles relating to the Oriental Orthodox Church. Any individuals interested in working with such a group should indicate as much there, to allow us to know if there is enough support to actually begin such a project. Thank you. Badbilltucker 14:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Mistake in Similarity to Jewish Oral LawEdit

"Similarly, pork is prohibited, though unlike Rabbinical Kashrut, Ethiopian cuisine does mix dairy products with meat- which in turn makes it even closer to Jewish oral Torah."

The last part of the sentence, "which in turn makes it even closer to Jewish oral Torah," makes absolutely no sense, 1) because Jewish Oral Law prohibits mixing dairy and meat, and 2) because this very same sentence already stated that mixing dairy and meat is unlike Rabbinical Kashrut. "Rabbinical" here is a reference to the system of Jewish Oral Law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Biblical CanonEdit

My intention in rewriting the section "Biblical Canon" was so the revert war about including or excluding the word "Narrower" ends. If either of those parties wants to correct the list of books, or add to the description of the different canon, do so. jonathon (talk) 02:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

EOTC canon - "lunatic fringe"?Edit

Could any editors here familiar with the Ethiopian Orthodox canon, please read my comments at Talk:Book_of_Enoch#Neutrality_dispute? Dbachman claims that the view calling Book of Enoch "pseudepigrapha", is correct, because he says it is, and anyone who disagrees with that is perforce "lunatic fringe", which would apparently include the EOTC, among others. I am trying to persuade him that wikipedia is not entitled to take sides in such a dispute, but there is a little problem with his definition of "neutrality". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Round ChurchesEdit

The article states "The Rock-Hewn Churches are unique to Ethiopia, as is their circular design, neither of which is found outside that country. The circular design is an art form that is the expression of Ethiopian creativity, and its formula has not been duplicated." Rock-hewn churches may be unique to Ethiopia, but round churches aren't. The Templar churches of England and Scotland are round. The island of Bornholm, in the Baltic, is famous for its round churches. Etc. - Alex Davidson —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


Regular editors of this article may be interested in the discussion about whether or not to merge WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy and WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy. Feel free to add your comments on the discussion page. Thanks. AthanasiusQuicumque vult 14:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Addition of false, biased and POV informationEdit

I strongly oppose the use of this false, biased, POV source accusing and associating the EOTC with superstition and paganism. No argument, there are certainly plenty of such biased sources to be had - for example, you could find a massive amount of them in Italian newspapers of the 1930s. But, they are still POV sources. Does the added material exhibit a discernible "point of view"? Yes indeed, most definitely; in fact, one that is hostile and offensive to the true orthodox teaching. That means that it cannot be neutral. To re-add this disputed material as if my opinion were somehow superceded by yours, also reeks of typical arrogance from those on the outside who utterly fail to appreciate what the Christian faith is really and truly about, and who would prefer to turn to its outspoken opponents for "reliable" information. Yes, there is paganism and superstition in Ethiopia, there is also Christianity and there is Islam. These are three very different teachings, and the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, despite many such accusations by Mussolini and others, have never at any time endorsed or supported the paganism or superstition; to suggest they do, or to discuss paganism and superstition on this article will remain unacceptable, and a violation of neutrality. (Ironically there is much more solid proof that over the centuries, Protestant and Catholic churches have heavily accommodated and merged with European paganism, beginning with their commemorations of pagan gods like Januarius and Eostra, etc. etc. etc. and even the very name "god" which is non-Semitic, but that is also off topic here, except to say that such commemorations are absent in the Ethiopian Church.) (talk) 11:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

First, there's no consensus to speak of on this article, either way, about the material. There is just you -- who is blanking the entire section I added, both the passage you object to & everything else -- & me, who took this information, with some modifications, from the US Library of Congress website. (Which I'd say -- & so would a large number of other experienced Wikipedia editors -- that the LOC is a reliable source.) This section also includes an account of the fasts the EOC expects its faithful to observe (which improves on what this article had before), a mention of the tabot, & a brief account of the theology of the EOC -- all in a readable order.
Second, to create a consensus requires that neither side begins by accusing the other of "arrogance", "hostility". If anyone is showing an attitude about the content, I would venture that it is you: instead of removing or rewriting the passage which you objected to, you removed the entire section -- which does not help lead to a consensus. You might be angry about a few sentences, but I am also angry at your inappropriate response. And when two or more editors let their emotions get the better of them over a passage in an article, the result is an unproductive edit war.
As for the presence of "pagan" elements in EOC, as you pointed out every existing branch of Christianity practiced today has elements that can be described as pagan or superstition in it; why should Ethiopian Christianity alone be exempt from this statement? The section you objected to -- which I admit I was ambivalent about, but because they might better fit in Culture of Ethiopia -- actually has been documented by numerous visitors. Are you denying that one one in Ethiopia believes in the existence of Buda, spirits, or shape-shifters (who usually belong to outcaste groups like the Beta Israel, or Moslem Amhara)? (And we haven't even touched on more relevant examples, such as the possible pre-Christian ritual importance of Mount Zuqualla, which is mentioned by Paul Henze in his Layers of Time, who is otherwise probably too respectful of Ethiopian cultural tradition.) But for the sake of harmony, I'll happily remove the last 2 paragraphs of this section, especially (as I just wrote) they are tangential to the article.
But I am led to wonder if you actually read this entire section, or just stopped at the end of the first sentence, & made a hasty assumption of the rest of the edit. I could have easily found material which was polemical, arrogant, insulting, & condescending: I've worked had to find material which is none of that, while still being informative -- which you would notice if you had read the entire section. -- llywrch (talk) 16:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
"The faith and practice of most Orthodox Ethiopian Christians combine elements from Monophysite Christianity as it has developed in Ethiopia over the centuries, and elements from a non-Christian heritage rejected by more educated church members but usually shared by the ordinary priest." The question to ask yourself is, Does this sentence exhibit a discernible "point-of-view"? The answer is Yes, it should be obvious that this statement has someone's "point-of-view". Is this "point-of-view" neutral? The answer to that is No, not at all. Please don't use your bias in explaining article subjects. Thank you. (talk) 17:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
What I see is a simple statement about faith and practice. And there is nothing wrong with explaining a point of view, as long as it is sourced -- see WP:NPOV. NPOV is not a synonym for a neutral attitude, but a policy to give all significant opinions their proper emphasis. Further, while this is an improvement over your earlier decision to blank the whole section, removing both sentences now results with the section beginning with a non sequitor. "Non-Christian" does not mean pagan, but also includes the undeniable Judaic coloring of Ethiopian Orthodoxy -- which is described at length in the rest of the article. And lastly, I am beginning to find your tone offensive; the points you have been objecting to are trivial & suggest to me that you are simply spoiling for a fight, not seeking to improve this article. (Otherwise you would have seen that your initial rant about "accusations by Mussolini" were irrelevant about the material you objected to.) If you can write a better section on the current practices of the Ethiopian Church -- & provide reliable sources for it -- please do so. My interest in this article is more on the historical side, which it is weak in -- the article currently moves from the 7th century to the 16th, with hardly a mention of either Ewostatewos or Tekle Haymanot -- & I'd rather work on that than arguing with you just so you can tell yourself you're "correcting" someone you wrongly accuse of not respecting this ancient culture of sub-Saharan Africa. -- llywrch (talk) 20:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I am NOT being tendentious as you accused me, and I am now disputing this article, since you do not unilaterally WP:OWN it. Your addition is a blatant violation of neutrality and I will be seeking remedy as I have every right to do. You have no right to add in your own onesided opinion about the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, nor about any religious body, and dress it up as if your opinion were indisputed and factual. (talk) 22:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I invited you to revise the section, as long as you follow Wikipedia guidelines; where am I acting as if I own this article? Ranting about what you believe here & on my talk page is not going to convince me to change my mind. But, to repeat myself, it will make me angry. Since you "will be seeking remedy as I have every right to do", I dropped a note at WP:WQA in hope that a cooler head or two will intervene here & explain to you just how all of this works, & perhaps help us work through this matter. I hope someone does intervene because otherwise you're heading for a short & unpleasant time here on Wikipedia, even if I never make another edit here. -- llywrch (talk) 23:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) Llywrch's addition cites sources. If you think this presents a lopsided view, that's one thing, but to remove it completely is another. The better thing to do would be to cite a source that backs up your assertions, for example "On the other hand, Professor X maintains that there are no influences..." or some such. I can understand why the content might make you uncomfortable, but that's no reason to make it off-limits. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Any point of view can be sourced. The Church's identity and what it teaches cannot be reflected by or represented by some of its believers' practices. According the church....they are not true believers and hence cannot represent an accurate understanding about the Church. This page is not just about its history, it is most importantly about what it is. What we choose to represent and not represent on the page of the Church matters. It is very important to draw a clear line between what some members of the church do and for which the Church stands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Remove tag?

There hasn't been any discussion about the article's NPOV or lack thereof since early June. I propose we remove the {{NPOV}} tag from the article (I would have simply removed it, but figuring there should be some consensus for doing so, I thought I'd at least mention it first). The person objecting to the material has not made any edits since June 3, and that edit was another in a series of content removals. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It's been four months since the issue arose and two months since I proposed removing the template. As there has been no further discussion, I am removing the tag from the article. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 03:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
If you will look carefully, a comment was added after yours just above yours. The bias is still there; it doesn't miraculously fade with time. Nice try, though. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


I was modifying Aksumite Empire#Ark of the Covenant to read as follows

According to regional tradition,[citation needed] the Ark of the Covenant was brought to Aksum by the son of King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba, placed under guard, and remains at Aksum in the Church of Our Lady Mary of Zion, heavily[vague] guarded by the priests there. The building claimed to contain it is said to be accessible[vague] only to one "guard priest", and requests to enter are denied.[citation needed]

The Ethiopian Orthodox Church is as of 2008 also the only[citation needed] Christian church anywhere in which reference to the Ark of the Covenant is an integral part of each edifice of worship , each having its supposed replica of the Ark of the Covenant and its tablets as a symbol representing presence of God. Each year, at the feast of T'imk'et, the replicas are taken in procession to be blessed by the bishop, before being returned to the church. The Church's adherents who pass on of its churches bow and cross themselves, facing in its direction, as a sign of the reverence expected.

when it dawned on me that the modern practice attributable to ancient events bears too little relation to the dead empire to be discussed in such detail on that page, and that the material at Aksumite Empire#Religion was (if not necessarily perfect) certainly sufficiently detailed to obviate the separate section.
I'm moving on to other topics, haven't looked in the accompanying article for either anything missing that's in what i removed or parallel need for tags or rewording, and don't want to be the one to work on it if such problems exist. But it's bad to throw away the substance of contribs just bcz they're in the wrong place.
Hope someone will note, in response, their evaluation either that the above moved content suggests needed on the accompanying article, or that it indicates nothing remaining to be done. (Unless specifically asked, it seems like it would be a waste to state my reasoning for each of about a dozen changes longer than one word, besides the {{As of}} & CU tags, each of which i am prepared to argue the need for.)
--Jerzyt 05:25 & 05:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Abbot GeneralEdit

Years ago I read about some sociological factor that led to mass ordinations of unsuitable people, including small children, to the priesthood in Ethiopia, and that this led people to turn to the monasteries for competent priests, and since these circumstances had eroded the patriarch's ability to discipline the church, the abbot of one of the principal monasteries was created abbot general, creating a second and more effective disciplinary network. Does anyone know about this? J S Ayer (talk) 03:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


I don't personally know what the EOTC view is on the Trinity-- and we can drop it all if you want.
I do know that "God appearing in three forms: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" is called Sabellianism or modalism. It is not POV-- it is just what it is called. It is not called strict anything Trinity. That would be more than a bit POV. Just read the articles. Carlaude:Talk 23:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The Ethiopian Orthodox Church specifically rejects Sabellianism as a heresy. Please do not add misinformation without understanding the situation first. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Since the NPOV policy does insist on attribbutation for contentious viewpoints, please find a source specifically rejecting Sabellianism and or what they do hold. Carlaude:Talk 23:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Blanking the information is not a good idea either, why do you not want readers to know that the Trinity is one of the most important concepts in Ethiopian Orthodoxy? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
See above. You have no cited source for your view on the Trinity and Trinity is very well sourced. Carlaude:Talk 23:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I can hardly believe you are a serious editor and engaged in disruptive editing for the sake of disruption. Your mincing words has actually caused you to falsely accuse the Ethiopian Church of practicing Sabellianism! This clearly shows you are in unfamiliar territory, yet you wish to pontificate that the EOTC is "Sabellian". The Ethiopian Orthodox Church are strict Trinitarians, and there are ample sources that will verify this for you if you really need them. The word-mincing apparently comes from the fact that the sentence as it now reads in English, happens to have the word "forms", when it could just as easily have read "persons" without making a great deal of difference to most people. Since this clearly must make a great deal of difference to you, I will change the word "forms" to "persons". If there is any other divergence from whatever you hold to be the "strict trinitarian" view in that wording, then please indicate what it is so it can be corrected. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
By the way this works better (and follows Wikipedia policy) if you talk here first before undoing all my edits.
Is English not you second langage? If so then I will seek to show more patience. This is however an English Wikipedia so if we cannot communicate an idea correctly in English then we best leave it out. Theologians "mince" words to others people sometimes. This would be another advantage of giving references to whatever view the Ethiopian Church has on the Godhead. We can then see the words other people have used. It is of more concern to me the use of "appears" than "forms"-- but would be best if you tell us what is different in the Ethiopian Church view, so I can see what is not different. How do you consider non-Ethiopians not "strict Trinitarians"? Do you consider other Oriental Orthodox to hold a like view? Carlaude:Talk 00:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the reference in your last edit. It makes clear that Ethiopian Orthodox are Trinitarians- but in that case we should not say that they hold God "appears" in three persons-- the reference does not say that. I changed it to "united in" three persons. Again sorry for any impatience on my part.
Please tell me if you can though-- why the state that Ethiopian Orthodox are "strict" Trinitarians at all-- rather than just Trinitarians? Carlaude:Talk 00:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
The concept of Trinity (ab wowold womenfes qiddus) is one of the most significant to the EOTC, and it is one of several Churches that adhere to the strict Nicene position on the Trinity. English is my first language, but I confess I still do not understand why it would be incorrect to say they hold God "appears" -- but if you are happy with it as it reads now, so am I. Sorry for any bad faith on my part. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

For the record, both of you violated WP:3RR over this matter. While I'm glad both of you managed to resolve this issue, may I suggest both of you stay away from this article for a day or two? Just so neither of you get caught doing it again by an Admin eager to block people. -- llywrch (talk) 04:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. For the record, I disagree with your math. To violate WP:3RR I would have to have had four revert actions. I did have five edits, but they were:
  1. At 11:28 I changed theology label to "modalism" (new action-- not a revert)
  2. At 19:22 I removed theology description (revert)
  3. At 19:43 I kept all the theology label text but added the tags "{{dubious}}" & "{{fact}}" (new action-- not a revert)
  4. At 20:30 I re-added these tags. (revert)
  5. At 20:52 I changed the theology description to "is united" (might possibly be considered a revert of action number 2)
So at most, that is only three revert actions. Carlaude:Talk 06:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
If you want to argue over whether you violated 3RR, I'm not going to respond to that. The fact is that both of you were reverting each other vigorously before you stopped & talked the matter out; what both of you should have done was stopped shortly after the first pair of edits & discussed the matter. Not only is that policy, it's easier on yourselves to follow that route, neither party vilifies unnecessarily, & you have a better chance of avoiding WikiBurnout. -- llywrch (talk) 16:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


There are monks and nuns in Ethiopian Orthodoxy, but it seems that older women who are widowed (or no longer married) may also become nuns, although they do not join a convent. I think it is more of an honorific in these cases. However, this is all based on my own observation, and there's nothing mentioned along these lines in the nun article. (I can only assume that elderly males may similarly become monks.) Can anyone point to a good source of information regarding this? -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You are correct that it is similar honorific for males; as you yourself no doubt already have heard of, this is a tradition for more than one of the historical emperors, after leaving his throne. Cheers, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Schism disputeEdit

I guess this is considered a schism; see the Recent history section of the article. The archbishops in Ethiopia and North America each claim to be the head of the church. It appears that this dispute has spilled over into the article content, e.g. changing websites from one church to the other. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

This has happened again, including changing from "Paulos" to "Merkorios" in the infobox. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I've made such a revert again (diff). Regardless of which side is "legitimate", which one do the other Oriental Orthodox churches consider official, and/or recognize, and/or have in communion etc.? -- Gyrofrog (talk) 04:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Redirect to this pageEdit

An SPA has created Ethiopian Tewahedo Church, which I changed into a redirect to this page. The SPA keeps reverting it without responding to my discussion request on the other article's talk page. I've made a request for that page to be protected temporarily, but I realized that editors familiar with this article might be able to confirm whether I am correct in redirecting Ethiopian Tewahedo Church to here. Singularity42 (talk) 12:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

You were correct in making it a redirect. It's a redundant fork, see Wikipedia:Content forking. I've warned the editor in question. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

East / West Schism between Romans and Greeks not due to dispute over nature of ChristEdit

"who themselves separated from one another later on in the East-West Schism (1054)"

Yeah, but not over the nature of Christ. Can we clarify this please? Otherwise, in the context here, it can be misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks like you've already taken care of it, so thanks. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 00:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Official websiteEdit

Back in November 2014, I removed the links from this article. I have strong doubts that the website has any official status; please see my explanation at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive Based on this I have just removed the link from the Infobox. I have restored the link to the (EDIT: ostensible) Patriarchate's website, but as it isn't in English (there used to be an English version), I'm not sure it belongs in the Infobox either (other than being the official website, at least for the governing body of the church). There are any number of websites for individual churches abroad, but none of these serve as an official website for the entire church. I should have mentioned the issue on this page back in November, although I did bring it up at WP:ETHIOPIA and WP:OO (in addition to RSN). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I should also note that while the website at least claims to be official, it's hosted in the US, and the registrant info gives both Addis Ababa and Virginia as locations. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, the Patriarchate website seems like it may instead be the official one. It also apparently has an area for members. Middayexpress (talk) 21:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

A disambiguation page about the Ethiopian Church?Edit

There is another entity called the Ethiopian Church, the Ethiopian movement. Yet the Ethiopian Church redirects here instead of the disambiguation page. Could it be created?--Adûnâi (talk) 04:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 04:38, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Pew reportEdit

(Cross-posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy) This might be of interest to editors who work on this article: "Orthodox Christianity in the 21st Century" (PDF), released by the Pew Research Center on 2017-11-08. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 01:15, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

"Meskel and the Ethiopians" -- EOTC Publication CommitteeEdit

If anyone has better access than I do to these sorts of things, I was wondering if someone could direct me to where I might find the "Meskel and the Ethiopians" source cited four or five times in this article. Specifically, I'm wondering whether it is a small pamphlet or more of a full book, whether page numbers might be found for the claims it makes, and whether it is an English publication. The information in it looks like it could be usefully complemented with references to the sources that "Meskel and the Ethiopians" presumably cites its information from. Alephb (talk) 22:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Reformation Connection OverstatedEdit

I don't have a Wikipedia account so I am not sure of the protocol, but I am a priest in the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church and I think the section on the influence of our Church on the Reformation might be misleading. It should be noted that the Ethiopian Church never endorsed the Reformation nor would it ever admit a Lutheran to communion or permit one if its faithful to commune in a Lutheran Church. The Lutheran Church (Mekane Yesus Church) exists in Ethiopia and it is totally separate from the Orthodox Church in every way. Whatever inspiration Luther might've drawn from the Ethiopian Church, it was not reciprocated. This needs to be more clear in the article. Can someone with knowledge of Wikipedia fix this? Thank you and God bless.

Hello. If you do want to get a Wikipedia account, it's free. And even people without an account can edit, although there's a lot to learn here.
One aspect of Wikipedia protocol is that everyone needs to have a reliable source. So, for example, if you know of a reliable, published sources that address these questions, there's a good chance the section could be revised. Right now it only quotes from a single author's articles on the internet. Alephb (talk) 05:32, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
After looking over this just a little, the references here are to a writer who is well aware that he falls well outside the scholarly mainstream on this issue. He (Daniel Davis) also hedges his broader claims quite a bit here and there. This could definitely use some review. I'm not convinced this "influence on the Protestant Reformation" section even belongs here, but if it does, it should be based on more reliable sorts of published sources, and not one person's claims on the internet. Alephb (talk) 05:53, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Ethiopan Orthodox Church is not in communion with Protestants. It is part of Oriental Orthodox Communion, and their sacramental theology recognizes Real Presence of Christ in Eucharst (Orthodox-Catholic doctrine, but not Protestant). Warszawiak22 (talk) 09:31, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I have no doubt that you're right -- the Ethiopian Orthodox Church is not in communion with Protestants. The question is, was there a period of greater friendliness between the two churches during the Reformation? It would help if we had a reliable source that demonstrated what the actual relationship was between Martin Luther and Ethiopian Orthodoxy. My guess is that there was no real connection between the two, but it would really help if we could find a reliable source that rules more definitively on the issue. Alephb (talk) 02:58, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Return to "Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church" page.