Talk:Eastern Orthodox Church/Archive 8

Here are two of the most official internet pages of the Eastern Orthodox Church - Moscow Patriarchate here and Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople here . The word ORTHODOX is everywhere but the word catholic does not in any in any sense of the word jump in your face .--Septimus Wilkinson (talk) 01:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

This is your own original research. But certainly it does not tramp Encyclopaedia Britannica, which I quoted above. Please check also

WP:RS. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις}

01:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

What!? Have you ever heard of common sense? Trump this and that...So if the Church of England puts officially it's catholicity on paper and starts behind corners calling itself the English Orthodox Catholic Church thats that then. I'm sure if the "firm" would change it's name behind official closed doors the Encyclopaedia Britannica would say that Church of England of course officially calls itself the most right reverend English Orthodox Catholic Church. Of course Encyclopaedia Britannica would comply- It is after all the right of a religious community to call itself 'officially' whatever it wants. The Liberal Catholic Church http://www.thelccusa.org/.--Septimus Wilkinson (talk) 02:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The common name is the present title: I think that's been quite clearly established. As far as the official name, insofar as we can speak of one (the Orthodox Church actually being over a dozen independent bodies), it does seem the term "catholic" figures in. There's the Britannica, as Dr.K. points out, as well as at least a couple of other encyclopedia-type works, here and here. Personally, I don't see a problem with the stable version of the lead: "Eastern Orthodox Church" followed by "Orthodox Catholic Church" followed by "Orthodox Church". All three are significant enough to warrant inclusion at the beginning. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Extremely far from being quite clearly established. This is English Wikipedia not Greek or Romania --Septimus Wilkinson (talk) 02:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Biruitorul for your excellent references. I added them to the article giving you proper credit in the edit-summaries. Don't concern yourself with ignorant and ungrammatical remarks by others. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

GOOGLE this "orthodox catholic church" and you get absolutely NOTHING! Sorry my mistake you get Orthodox-Catholic Church of America, http://www.orthodoxcatholicchurch.org, http://www.theorthodoxromancatholic.com. Sorry but the name is already taken!

That's that for a misguiding, practically and totally useless term. --Septimus Wilkinson (talk) 02:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 4) Please keep your country-of-origin-based remarks to yourself. Especially since you don't seem to understand what is going on. This is the official name of the church in the English language as attested by top-of-the-line English sources. It is of primary importance in this article because it is the official name of the Church. Nice form too. Not. First you canvass Biruitorul to give his opinion then you mention his country of origin when you don't agree with him. As far as getting nothing from a Google search, please read the article again. It has three encyclopaedic dictionaries using that very same term. You may not be able to Google them yourself but I trust you can read them in the article. And the official name of the church is not ... a misguiding, practically and totally useless term. This is just your uninformed opinion. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Dr.K., I'm glad to have been of assistance; thank you for your additions and for maintaining a high standard on this high-traffic article.

Septimus Wilkinson, are you here to discuss an issue constructively or to hurl insults at other editors? Who said anything about sources in Greek or in Romanian? And have you, by any chance, reviewed

WP:GHITS? Google searches, while potentially useful, are not a bulletproof method of research. They need to be combined with common sense and with actual analysis of the sources being unearthed. Please try to be more cooperative, to leave behind your preconceptions, and to listen to what others are saying before throwing out more nonsensical attacks. - Biruitorul ^Talk

03:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much Biruitorul for your kind words, although you supplied the majority of the encyclopaedic sources, so you deserve most of the credit. :) In any case, anyone who can mistake Encyclopaedia Britannica, Merriam-Webster's encyclopedia of world religions and The Encyclopedia of World Religions for Greek or Romanian encyclopaedias needs to seriously reexamine their contributions here. And I have not even considered the intent of the stupid references to the country of origin of other editors. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I've looked at several of the cited sources and agree that some of them do use the name Orthodox Catholic Church in an official way. I am still uneasy with giving this name "official" second billing in the opening sentence of the article, because I remain unconvinced that this name is widely used in sources directed at the general English-speaking population. And for this reason, I don't see much likelihood of a consensus forming in support of the current wording. As a possible compromise in the interests of achieving a wider consensus, I would like to propose the following (with the existing source citations): The Eastern Orthodox Church, also known as the Orthodox Church, and referred to in various official documents as the Orthodox Catholic Church.... Comments on this? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The three encyclopaedias are unequivocal in that this is the official name of the Church. The official name does not have to be a popular name. Being the official name is only uttered much less frequently, but that does not make it any less official. This compromise in the face of the evidence provided by three encyclopaedias and more reliable sources in the article, is simply OR. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Just so we don't forget. Here is the evidence:

Encyclopaedia Britannica. "Eastern Orthodoxy". Encyclopaedia Britannica. "Eastern Orthodoxy, official name Orthodox Catholic Church, one of the three major doctrinal and jurisdictional groups of Christianity. The official designation of the church in Eastern Orthodox liturgical or canonical texts is “the Orthodox Catholic Church.” Because of the historical links of Eastern Orthodoxy with the Eastern Roman Empire and Byzantium (Constantinople), however, in English usage it is referred to as the “Eastern” or “Greek Orthodox” Church. These terms are sometimes misleading, especially when applied to Russian or Slavic churches and to the Orthodox communities in western Europe and America."

^ Wendy Doninger (1999). Merriam-Webster's encyclopedia of world religions. Merriam-Webster. p. 309.

ISBN 978-0-87779-044-0

. Retrieved 2 April 2013. "The official designation of the church in Eastern Orthodox liturgical or canonical texts is "the Orthodox CATHOLIC Church.""

^ Robert S. Ellwood; Gregory D. Alles (2007). The Encyclopedia of World Religions. Infobase Publishing. p. 128.

ISBN 978-1-4381-1038-7

. Retrieved 2 April 2013. "The Eastern Orthodox Churches are properly known as the "Orthodox Catholic Church"

Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 04:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, this is about all I can do here. If anyone else wants to pursue this matter further, I would advise you to go to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard (

Some encyclopedias do make this assertion, and as tertiary sources they are acceptable, though not ideal, sources. The main counter-argument to the prominence currently given to "Orthodox Catholic Church" is the relative silence of most relevant primary and secondary sources. Weighing the significance of silence is generally hard. But in this case the silence seems deafening. For primary sources, check the official websites of the major English language Orthodox Churches (goarch.org, oca.org, antiochian.org). None gives much prominence to the name, if they mention it at all. For secondary sources, see any of the standard texts on the church. For example Kallistons Ware's "The Orthodox Church" - a Google Books search finds only one occurrence of "Orthodox Catholic Church" in the body text of the book, and that is just quoting a particular liturgical text that uses the phrase. I can find no matches in John Meyendorff's book of the same title. I agree with User:Richwales's proposal to de-emphasize the name. The quality secondary sources do not support the degree of emphasis it gets. Mrhsj (talk) 05:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME

. The Church's official name is "Orthodox Catholic Church." This is supported by a number official documents of the Orthodox Church, as well as some (few, but some) secondary sources and plenty of tertiary sources. There is no need to "de-emphasize," since there is no better place for the "Official" name than the lead. I will not repost sources, since a good look at the archives will provide sources (primary, secondary, tertiary) that states the official name.

As for the "Google search" (although that type of arguments are not valid in Wikipedia discussions as you all know), here are several websites (I've only included ten since I don't have the whole day), all sharing the same sentence in one way or another "The official designation of the church in its liturgical and canonical texts is “the Orthodox Catholic Church” (gr. catholicos = universal)."

- Orthodox Dioceses of Eastern Pensylvania - [1]

- Delmarva Orthodox Mission - [2]

- Holy Cross Greek Orthodox Church - [3]

- Holy Wisdom Orthodox Church - [4]

- Most Holy Mother of God (Orthodox ) Parish, which quotes Britannica - [5]

- Holy Ascencion Orthodox Church - [6]

- Info-Service - Serbian Orthodox Church - [7]

- St. Paul Greek Orthodox Church - [8].

- Orthodox Christian Church in Thailand (Russian Patriarcate) - [9]

- (Orthodox Church oriented) bookstore - [10]

If an

WP:RSN is to be started, then there are plenty of references in this discussion page as well as many of its archives that support the accuracy of the "Orthodox Catholic Church" as the official name. They should also be taken into consideration, and not only the three encyclopedia entries.--Coquidragon (talk

) 08:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was pointed to this discussion by Septimus Wilkinson. As far as I can tell, the term "Orthodox Catholic Church" is reliably sourced, and in Greek at least, indeed appears to be used as the formal name of the Church in such things as dogmatical decisions by the Synod of the Church of Greece, theological treatises, as well as a host of other Orthodox publications. I cannot say as to how widespread this use is in the Slavic churches, or whether it is indeed the formal name (I always thought that formally, the OC identified itself simply as the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" per the Nicene Creed) or just one among many. I would certainly prefer a more direct evidence rather than the testimony of tertiary sources, but the notability of the naming is sufficiently established even so, and there is no real reason to doubt Britannica's veracity on this. Constantine ✍ 08:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Kostas and Coquidragon for your analysis and the exposition of more sources which further prove the use of the term. These additional sources, added to the reliable reference of Britannica and the two encyclopaedias of religion, form a decisive set of reliable evidence which cannot be refuted. From the reliable sources provided by Coquidragon, the Most Holy Mother of God Parish at Dover, Florida makes direct reference to Britannica and the name of the Church as Orthodox Catholic Church which is emphasised by the church by italicising the descriptor "official name" and using bolded italics for "Orthodox Catholic Church". It doesn't get any more emphatic than that. Here it is: Most Holy Mother of God Parish, Dover FL:

Here is a basic entry in the Encyclopedia Britannica for the Orthodox Church: "official name Orthodox Catholic Church one of the three major doctrinal and jurisdictional groups of Christianity.

This is a most interesting source from an Orthodox church, which shows that everyday practitioners of Orthodoxy make use of the reliable reference of Britannica when they want to highlight their heritage. The same source also gives prominence and emphasis to the name Orthodox Catholic Church by bolding it, italicising it and emphasising its introduction. I could go on and on analysing all the other sources but I need not. The triangulation of all this evidence is strong and unmistakable and points to only one direction: The importance and wide usage of the official name of the Church. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

With respect, I'm not convinced that the fact that some webmaster of a local parish found no better way to define what they are but to copy Britannica should carry any extra weight here. In any case, my personal impression is that much of this debate is caused by a conceptual confusion between names and attributes. Of course, "Catholic" is an attribute of the church – along with "Holy" and "Apostolic", as defined in the Credo. Hence, "Catholic" occurs in many phrases used to refer to the church in formal registers – but these are formal descriptors, not names in the proper sense, and "formal" (in the sense of a formal stylistic register of speech) is also not the same as "official". In fact, I'd be quite surprised to find (in any serious theological source) that the Church even has such a thing as an "official name". It doesn't need one, because according to its own theology it is an entity sui generis – it's simply "The Church", period. Giving it a "name" only becomes an issue outside its own theological discourse. From what I can see, the collocation "Orthodox Catholic Church" is of course used in many formal contexts, but I am not yet convinced that it has an officially privileged status compared to other, competing descriptors, such as "Holy Orthodox Church", "Orthodox Apostolic Church" and so on, all of which seem to be used in parallel in the same types of contexts. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I do not think it is necessary to continue this discussion, but as other editors have shown, the claim that “Orthodox Catholic Church” is the official name of the Church, is nonetheless supported by reliable sources (including statements made by Orthodox Bishops, such as Kallistos Ware), and we cannot dismiss them, based on our assumptions, that there might not be an official name (even, if that would be true). Cody7777777 (talk) 11:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Ware is careful to speak of a "designation", not a "name". Not the same thing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

This [11] official orthodox service book calls the church the "Holy Orthodox-Catholic Apostolic Church" on the title page, and "Holy Orthodox Apostolic" church further down in the text. So, is "Apostolic" also part of the "official name"? Is any one of the many possible permutations of the elements "Holy", "Apostolic", "Orthodox" and "Catholic" privileged over the others? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:42, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

In many its official liturgical and canonical documents, the Orthodox Church refers to itself with the designation "Ὀρθοδόξου Καθολικῆς Ἐκκλησίας" (Orthodox Catholic Church). This is not the attributes of a Church that is "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic" Church, but the designation that appears in canonical and liturgical documents. Although it is true that the Church also calls itself "Holy Orthodox Church" and "Orthodox Apostolic Church," these are indeed names of the theological discourse. Canonical documents, legal documents, are nor part of the theological discourse, and in these documents, at least in modern times, the designation used when referring to itself is Orthodox Catholic Church.

Now, I agree that maybe the church has no official name as Fut.Perf. well pointed out, but it is true that it has an official designation in as much as the Church refers to itself by one. Accordingly, maybe the lead should read "officially designated" instead of "officially called." What say you?--Coquidragon (talk) 11:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

This phraseology is also used in all three reliable sources. I agree that, on average, it could be used, although Encyclopedia Britannica is explicit about calling it an "official name". BTW my use of the Tampa Orthodox church website was not to add more weight to the arguments, but rather to show that a triangulation existed among practitioners of Orthodoxy about that particular combination of terms. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

What is the proper name for the Orthodox Church?

Source:The Orthodox Church in America

Webpage:http://oca.org/questions/teaching/what-is-the-proper-name-for-the-orthodox-church

Question

What is the proper name for the Orthodox Church? One sees so many, and of such different variety!

Answer

It must be understood first of all that names like Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Syrian Orthodox, Serbian Orthodox, Romanian Orthodox, etc. are all names for one and the same Church with one and the same faith and practice. Of course within these churches there are cultural differences which do not touch the essence of the faith as such.

Sometimes the Orthodox Church is also called the Eastern Orthodox Church, or the Oriental Church, or the Christian Church of the East, or the Orthodox Catholic Church, or the Graeco-Russian Church. But once more, these are all different names for the same Church.

Care must be exercised not to confuse the Orthodox Church with the Eastern Christian Churches in union with the See of Rome: the so-called Uniates, or Byzantine or Greek Catholics. And also there is the distinction to be made between the Orthodox and the so-called Oriental Orthodox or Lesser Eastern Churches such as the Coptic Church, the Ethiopian, Syrian, Armenian, Indian, and other churches which are very close to the Orthodox Church but not part of it.

In America it must be noticed that the new autocephalous (self-governing) Church which used to be the Russian Orthodox Church of America is now simply called the Orthodox Church in America.

- Usersame Comment- The Eastern Orthodox Church and Orthodox Catholic Church names have sources. I was thinking of providing also equally good sources for the Oriental Church, the Christian Church of the East, the Orthodox Catholic Church and the Graeco-Russian Church names. If we have sources there is no argument against a good, fair, historical overview of the different names names of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

ps.

Do the other Orthodox Churches not in communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church accept the sole appropriation of the name Orthodox Catholic Church by the Eastern Orthodox brethren? Is there references to show that the Orthodox Churches also use or lay claim to the name Orthodox Catholic Church? Who has the right to it? Cheers, --Usersame (talk) 09:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The article merely shows how "Orthodox Catholic Church", is used by the Eastern Orthodox, so it is irrelevant if the other Churches, also lay claim to it. Cody7777777 (talk) 10:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Below is the new paragraph based on a newly published academic article from a peer reviewed journal. This page is lengthy, this paragraph is not and is, I believe, the only alternative interpretation of it's claimed history here.Yeoberry (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

As noted above, the Eastern Orthodox Church claims to have inherited it's traditions from the Apostolic Church. John B. Carpenter has challenged that claim by trying to show that icons (see below) were not originally accepted in the Christian Church.^[1] He claims that the early church appears to have inherited the opposition to icons from second temple, Talmudic Judaism. Hence, early Christians were accused of being "atheists" by Romans who assumed the absence of images meant the absence of belief in gods.^[2] Origen (184-254) responded to the charge of "atheism" by admitting that Christians did not use images in worship, following the Second Commandment.^[3] Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira (c. 305) states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” About the year 327 the early church historian Eusebius (c. AD 263 – 339) wrote, "To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error."^[4] Epiphanius (inter 310–320 – 403), bishop of Salamis, in Cyprus wrote, in Letter 51 (c. 394), to John, Bishop of Jerusalem about an incident of finding an image in a church in his jurisdiction: "I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person." He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.”^[5] Carpenter concludes that the issue of icons arose some time after the fourth century and they were originally opposed, only being accepted by the second "Seventh Ecumenical Council" (787) which he says constitutes the true beginning of the Eastern Orthodox Church.^[6] Yeoberry (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Editor User:Yeoberry has added the same information to a couple of Wikipedia articles.

• 1.[12]
• 2.[13]
• 3.[14]

Wikipedia is not the place to break new research per se. And even so this a bunch of vios. One its

WP:undue weight as the section is bigger than say the Trinity section in the article which is a topic that covers well over at least 1700 years of information. Why has this not been treated as a sentence at the end of the icon section for example? I mean there are plenty of critics against the Orthodox and they have more historical significances (Celsus, Porphryr) that this person I have never heard of. But again add it according to policy to the article if its valid criticism as long as it is contextualized properly so be it. LoveMonkey (talk

) 15:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

This is secondary source, an academic article from a peer reviewed journal. You're welcome to make some needed editorial changes but a complete deletion is unwarranted given this meets the guidelines for a source. By the way, Celsus was a pagan critic of Christianity per se. Citing Porphyry would probably be original research, primary source, and so not acceptable. Wikipedia is a tertiary source dependent on peer reviewed secondary sources, that this is.Yeoberry (talk) 15:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The view of a single person gaining so much prominence in the article is a clear case of

WP:UNDUE. It wider acceptance by the academic and theological community is unknown. Until it gains wide traction in academic circles it does not belong in this article. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις}

15:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

It's a peer reviewed, academic article. It's not lengthy given the length of this article and the only alternative history provided. Much of the length is from quotations of primary sources.Yeoberry (talk) 15:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The views of a single author going against the prevalent wide and mainstream academic and theological consensus are a clear case of

WP:UNDUE. They clearly do not belong in the main article of the church. These views do not belong in the article of the history of the church either but I will consider this matter separately later on. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις}

15:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that "the prevalent wide and mainstream academic and theological consensus" is anything other than what is represented in this article? That is, you seem to be assuming that the "prevalent wide and mainstream academic and theological consensus" is equivalent to the EOC view. Any foundation for that? Yeoberry (talk) 18:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The prevalent wide mainstream academic view is certainly different from that expressed in your summary of Carpenter. If you have JSTOR, "The Cult of Images in the Age before Iconoclasm" by Ernst Kitzinger, Dumbarton Oaks Papers , Vol. 8, (1954), pp. 83-150, Published by: Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University, JSTOR is a 70-page start. Or see the works listed at Aniconism in Christianity. Johnbod (talk) 21:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

What Wikipedia is not..

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about winning
• Advertising
• to promote new ideas without context

LoveMonkey (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeoberry has, I believe, a COI in relationship to John Carpenter. When asked on his talk page his answer is to delete the question. He created an article on the church where Carpenter is pastor (deleted by AfD) and one on Carpenter himself with the edit summary "curriculum vita of Dr. John B. Carpenter". That one was speedy deleted (twice). That's in addition to the fact that this is

(edit conflict) Thank you very much Doug. And to think he was accusing me of COI in his edit-summary. This so-called International Society of Christian Apologetics is almost non-existent on Google Scholar and it gets only 14 hits. Its journal gets only one hit. This is clearly not a mainstream theological journal. Meanwhile there is no mention of John B. Carpenter's paper on Google Scholar on which it gets precisely zero hits: [15]. And John. B. Carpenter is also non-existent on Google Scholar. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

If you're interested in the organization and journal, see: http://www.isca-apologetics.org/jisca. Yeoberry (talk) 18:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I can't see it without a subscription. Unless you are very badly misrepresenting it, it is a remarkably uninformed account of a question on which a huge amount has been published by specialists, which I take it Carpenter is not. Johnbod (talk) 21:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Please don't try to skirt the question. Your paper has zero academic and theological impact according to Google scholar and your research is not worthy in the least of inclusion in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not an incubator for hosting controversial and polemical religious ideas disguised as academic research papers of very doubtful academic and theological acceptance. Until such time as respectable academic and theological publications cite your work and accept it, your work is useless academically and theologically and unfit for inclusion in any encyclopaedia including Wikipedia. By the way, I am not going to hold my breath for it. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

(ec)This is very far from being "new research", being very well-worn and unoriginal stuff from Reformation polemics and their long continuation. More balanced sources should be used, and not cherry-picked. It is also too long for this article. I hesitate to point this out, but Aniconism in Christianity is the place for full consideration of this issue. Johnbod (talk) 16:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a tertiary source, relying on well-edited secondary sources, not primary ("new research"). The article is new, published in the April edition of the JISCA.Yeoberry (talk) 18:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Most excellent Doug.. As always it is an honor to see you and your comments Dr K. So another editor comes and starts an editwar. YAH! It seems that what is lost often in these little hit and runs is that heresy means that there is nothing orthodox that there is no orthodox position (what heterodox is). I can say just from what was posted that I would wonder how valid the peer-review is since there are very obvious mistakes in what was being presented by this John Carpenter person. I mean that in a historical evidence kind of way (see for example the Catacombs of Rome and the early Christian paints, images there in (yes just because it is said by someone does not make it true there is actually Christian art before 300AD that can be validated by archeology). As to the rehashing of iconoclasm this person and or the one whom wrote this would do better to address their point in the context of the iconoclast councils. It is a shame that people do this kinda stuff. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

For the record I wonder how this could tie in with an article about this information.

"In 2005 Israeli archaeologists claimed to have found the earliest Christian church when they uncovered a floor mosaic dating from the first part of the third century."[16]

Hey but who knows right? This site, article is dating the mosaic to around 200AD? LoveMonkey (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Art is not necessarily icons. Contact the International Society for Christian Apologetics, read the article, etc. Yeoberry (talk) 18:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you very much LoveMonkey for your kind words. I reciprocate the honour. :) It is also an honour for me talking to a respected editor such as yourself. Thank you also for your well-made comments on the historical background of this dispute. Regarding the proposed addition of the Carpenter paper, I think it is clear that this work is not notable and fails by any possible metric of Google Scholar analytics. The paper does not appear, ditto for the author, the journal is only referred to in only one publication and the society gets only 14 hits. Clearly not a viable paper academically or theologically. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeoberry has added it to

talk

) 17:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I will revert these additions because the reference is not reliable. However I am not familiar with COIN or the specific details of this particular editor's COI. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The bit about Epiphanius of Salamis was already in the article, with more context (ref Catholic Encyclopedia). Perhaps some of the quotes can be used, as the passage is covered in many sources. I have done Icon & Iconography. Family integrated church is at least on Carpenter's home ground, & I think local editors can be left to handle it. Johnbod (talk) 17:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you John. No problem. I think I will be filing a COIN report soon. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

•  Done Per Doug's advice I have created a report at COIN: Multiple religious articles related to Eastern Orthodoxy. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It appears to be a cut-and-dry COIN and UNDUE issue, as Dr. K, Johnbod, LoveMonkey and others rightly point out. Majoreditor (talk) 02:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

On ikons

I was wondering how the issue of pre-Constantinian church art and icons might be added into the Eastern Orthodox article here. As I have from time to time experienced Protestants making very biased and uninformed statements about Eastern Orthodox icon, art history. Case in point the

I think those issues should be addressed in

Icons as they are not specific to Eastern Orthodoxy. Oriental Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and others hold similar views of icons. Mrhsj (talk

) 21:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, also

WP:UNDUE here - the influence of Imperial portraiture & the illustration of literature was more important anyway. While art historians broadly agree with EO that images were used well before Constantine, they don't perhaps agree, or at any rate can't confirm, EO tradition as far as use as early as the 1st century is concerned. Medieval Byzantine literature (round the Iconoclastic period) had stories of the apostles commissioning mural cycles of the life of Christ for churches etc which art & other historians would not accept, seeing them as just a lack of historical awareness & projecting contemporary ways onto the distant past. Not sure what the EO position is on such tales now. Is it true that St Luke is still believed (as a matter of fact) to have painted the Virgin? This was certainly believed in the Western Church once, but now isn't. Johnbod (talk

) 01:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I can see both perspectives here. However ikons are an integral part of what it is to be Orthodox (culturally) and the kissing of pictures or ikons is strangely Orthodox to Western Christians. That meaning that the context here about this subject on this website is Western. So I could see adding EO theologians and those apologies (the tradition that St Luke painted the 1st ikon for example). Being a Western context I think that the Western approach should also be addressed (material not spiritual per se). So I don't think that every objection from any or most Western Christians groups needs to be addressed at least not right now nor should the article be an apology of sorts. It should be informative. Right now as Johnbod pointed out it is ambiguous which is very close to not being informative as ambiguous might clarify a practice but does not really explain the why and or history of the practice. I think to point this out that the section on ikons can be shortened and also that very key theological perspectives about ikons are simply missing from the section right now. Like how the Palamas'

Taborian light and the ikons tie directly to the Eastern use and understanding of the word Halo. I have absolutely no problem sourcing anything that is in the article section right now and if John or MJ wants to go ahead and pepper the section with citations requests I can go ahead and provide them. LoveMonkey (talk

) 14:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The EO and OO churches are not in full communion with each other at this time, despite widespread agreement among both camps that they (now at least, if not necessarily in 451) share the same faith and that the differences between their theologies are more semantic than anything else. Intermarriage is allowed in some cases and there are Copts going to Greek seminaries, etc., so the schism has thawed out a great deal. The main obstacles to full restoration of communion are that 1. the EO commemorate Chalcedon in their liturgy (and anathematize as heretics several men considered saints by the OO), and 2. nothing short of another Ecumenical Council would have the authority to undo those anathemas, retroactively annul the schism, and redact the liturgies as necessarily, 3. the ecclesiological implications of such a council would be staggering since it would essentially endorse a version of the branch theory which many EO theologians have denounced in the past, and 4. if such a council did occur, there would be a lot of Donatist-types who would have kittens, just like after Vatican II. In general, the OO seem more open toward reconciliation with the EO than vice versa, although that might just be my perception. It could have something to do with the fact that the OO have a lot more to lose from remaining in schism, since so many of them (Copts especially) live in Muslim-majority countries and reconciling with the EO would win over the solidarity of Russia, etc. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 02:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The map shows Egypt as having a 'tiny minority' of Orthodox believers at 1% - of course, the figure is closer to 10%, with the Coptic Church. Shouldn't this be fixed? (1tephania (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC))

No. The Coptic Church is not considered Eastern Orthodox, it is considered part of

Oriental Orthodoxy. Mrhsj (talk

) 23:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

The map doesn't show Ethiopia as having any Orthodox believers. While the Ethiopia article states "According to the 2007 National Census, Christians make up 62.8% of the country's population (43.5% Ethiopian Orthodox,.." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.197.39 (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church is Oriental Orthodox, not Eastern Orthodox. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

There is disagreement here over reliability of sources regarding the definition of orthodox, which prompted an editing reversion. I provided an edit based on Timothy Ware's (Bishop Kallistos) The Orthodox Church, which provides the meaning from the specific standpoint of the church itself. The reverting editor claims that the online dictionary.com definition is the more reliable. First, a dictionary definition is naturally more generalized. Second, I don't think an online dictionary has the same gravitas as a published one. Third, the lack of gravitas is evident in this online dictionary in that it has not covered the specific usage of the Orthodox Church itself. Bishop Ware's usage is decidedly current throughout the entire church, and serves as a basis of teaching, as the reference I provided indicates. The online dictionary's lack may simply be due to a western perspective or lack of familiarity with religious orthodoxy. The meaning I provided is used by Greek-speakers themselves (which includes the bishop). It is also possible (though I don't know for sure) that the church usage is based on Koine Greek (an ancient form often employed in the church), rather than current conversational Greek. But surely the usage in this article is not general but is specific to the church, and as such that definition should prevail.

Since doxa is being used here as part of the explanation of how Eastern Orthodox theologians view their own faith, it seems appropriate to use EO sources to explain the meaning of this term in a theological context. This is the English Wikipedia, so we should of course use English-language sources where reasonably possible (though this does not entirely rule out high-quality, relevant non-English sources). However, it needs to remain clear that we are talking about how (capital-O) Orthodox belief is (and has historically been) viewed by the (capital-O) Orthodox themselves. Above all, we need to write in such a way that we are not either promoting or opposing the Eastern Orthodox Church or other (non-EO) churches. This article must be neither apologetic nor polemic in the way it describes the EOC and other branches of Christianity. For example, a term like "schismatic" is loaded, and referring to groups which disagree with Eastern Orthodox theology as "schismatic churches" is not acceptable IMO (unless qualified in a manner such as "churches which Eastern Orthodoxy considered schismatic and from which it chose to disassociate itself"). Even (small-O) "orthodox" — used several times in the article's current text — is problematic on similar grounds, since this article must not take a position arguing that the Orthodox Church is (or is not) "orthodox". — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Ware's etymolgy conflicts with expert etymolical sources" pphttp://www.memidex.com/orthodox+general-adjective], who all give "opinion" as the meaning of doxa, and not "worship". Ware has no demonstrable expertise in etymology, so his opinion is no better than that of any Joe off the street. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Ware is not expressing what doxa means (etymologically) but what orthodox means within the church, including the teaching that belief and worship are inseparable. The "opinion" is not his alone; it is shared throughout the Orthodox Church. I agree with user Richwales as to its propriety in this context. The meaning is specifically theological, and its application to the article could not be clearer (imo), since it falls under the Definition section of an article entitled Eastern Orthodox Church. As for significance of naming, look also at ref#16, where Rev. Alciviadis C. Calivas, Th.D. is quoted regarding the importance of "Eastern" in the title. It seems to me that the importance of "Orthodox" should be at least as important (more so imo). Ware as a bishop has the duty and responsibility within the church to provide correct teachings such as this, and his expression is

WP:RS

, a very far cry from "any Joe off the street". And an online dictionary is simply no match for it either, not in this context. Btw, we have all English sources here; my point was simply that Greek-speakers understand Greek perfectly well.

I seem to have hit a nerve in my use of the word "schismatic". Sorry, no pejorative invective or promotion of Eastern Orthodoxy was intended. The disagreements as to the Christian faith did, however, cause some smaller churches to break with Eastern Orthodoxy (which is the meaning of "schism"), and the break did cause the Eastern Orthodox church to apply the term "orthodox" to its teachings about the faith, as a contrast to those other churches. I see nothing pejorative in that, as there is no implication that the other churches do not have a right to believe in their own way, or to apply the term "orthodox" to their own teachings. Each church asserts its own position, but they do that also simply by existing separately (and one would expect there is some reason for that). "Schismatic" means there was a break in faith beliefs, which is true. The assumption that it means more (where it acquires a pejorative sense) is due to someone's having taken offense about the break or the claim on anyone's part that a belief is correct, or that someone else's is not. That assumption took place in the unidentifiable past, but it has carried over into somewhat common parlance so that many who take no personal offense take it as an indication that the word's user has taken offense. That's a double false assumption. Granted, we must work around it in the article. But let's not allow the workaround (to achieve neutrality) compromise the clarity of the text by using nebulous terms that are not really synonymous. The meaning needs to remain clear, and hopefully concise. I'll look for a better way.

talk

) 20:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

IMO, there is no inherent problem with using the word "schism", since it can connote a split without necessarily taking sides. "Schismatic" is another matter — as is "orthodox" with a small O — because these words are far more likely to imply that one group (what we know now as the EOC) was/is right, and the other groups (which "left" the "true" faith) were/are wrong. We can certainly say (and I doubt anyone will disagree) that this is the viewpoint of the EOC w/r/t the situation, but we must not write in such a way as to imply that Wikipedia either supports or opposes the EOC view. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 07:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

"We can certainly say (and I doubt anyone will disagree) that this is the viewpoint of the EOC w/r/t the situation, but we must not write in such a way as to imply that Wikipedia either supports or opposes the EOC view." Yes, I entirely agree. Thanks also for your suggestions regarding "schism", "schismatic", and small-o "orthodox"; I'll buy in if no one else objects. I don't have a strong view as to what is most likely to cause others to infer a false assumption, simply because I think it a false perception not based on reason. But I do want to avoid having that jangle confuse the issues, and I'm happy you have some sense of what is likely to set it off. Time for bed now, but if there are no other comments when I look tomorrow, I'll make an edit then.

talk

) 07:49, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, new edit in place. I think I got something that should stand as neutral in tone. And I tried to indicate (about "worship") that it isn't a purely etymological sense being indicated in the word derivations.

Quote from the source: This [Byzantine] Empire understood itself to be continuous with the classical Roman Empire, and in the Middle East today Greek Orthodox are usually referred to as Rum (or Roman) Orthodox. Now this edit leaves out that information and claims only the Byzantine Empire as contributing to the Eastern Orthodox Church. If that is true, then I suppose that it should also be said the Eastern Orthodox Church was founded sometime later than 285-330, rather than by Christ in AD 33. If the only Empire to foster the EOC was not founded until after the founding of the Church of Christ, then we certainly have a paradox on our hands. I would suggest that a simpler explanation is true: that the EOC traces her roots through the whole Roman Empire, East and West alike, and that this edit is mistakenly leaving out something that is explained in this source and many others. Elizium23 (talk) 03:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The reference mentions that the Church was "widespread" before Byzantium and that it was "nurtured and shaped" by it. A rewording may be in order. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The Roman Empire was Latin in culture, while the Orthodox Church has its roots in Greek culture of the East (see Greek East and Latin West). For this reason, historians make a clear division between the Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire. Also, don't forget that the Roman Empire was pagan for most of its history. --Enok (talk) 12:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

According to the following books, "Byzantium was in fact the Roman Empire", "it is important to remember that the Byzantine Empire never existed as an institution: it was always officially the 'Roman Empire' right down until the fifteenth century, ruled by Roman emperors in an unbroken institutional line from Augustus to Constantine Dragases.", "Roman history continued to the end of Byzantium", "the Roman Empire endured for another thousand years until the Ottoman Turks captured Constantinople in 1453", "'the Roman Empire did not come to an end until 1453.". And there are also Eastern Orthodox theologians, like

John S. Romanides, who have insisted in their works on the Roman identity of the Eastern Roman Empire. In my opinion, that statement should be rephrased as “The Orthodox Church traces its development back through the Byzantine or Roman empire...” (this was actually the wording used before it was changed on 9 June). Cody7777777 (talk

) 17:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

“The Orthodox Church traces its development back through the Byzantine or Roman empire...” That "or" bothers me. It refers to the fact that the Byzantine Empire may be also considered to be the Roman Empire, which is fair enough. But the point being made by the reference is that the Church pre-existed BE and was widespread before, existing even during the time of the old Roman Empire. So we may need to rephrase. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The "or" bothered me too, which is why I changed it to "and". But for reasons already given above (Byzantine Empire = Eastern Roman empire), I did not expect it to generate discussion. But really, the whole phrase "traces its development back through the Byzantine or Roman empire" is bothersome. When I edited then, I was preserving the existing reference, but I don't consider the ref's point about "Rum Orthodox" to be particularly pertinent here (in an introductory summary), nor is its other point about the church's development, but simply about the political empires. On second view, then, I favor removing the reference entirely, and letting the sentence read "The Orthodox Church traces its development back to the earliest church established by St. Paul and the Apostles." In the ancient world, the Church was the Church, not just Roman, not just Byzantine, and not separated. The Byzantine empire began as what was left of the Roman Empire after Rome was sacked, but that did not divide the Church. The Church developed in the context of Mediterranean history (initially), and expanded from there. There were many cultures involved (not just Roman and Greek), and many political events, but just one faith. It is within that faith that the Church developed (principally), and incidentally within all the other contexts of time, geography, and culture.

talk

) 22:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I understand the “or” version wasn't ideal, and I don't intend to insist on its reimplementation. But we shouldn't give the impression the “Byzantine Empire” was a distinct state from the Roman Empire. Another possibility might be to say “Byzantine and ancient Roman empires” (this doesn't look ideal either, but I find it better than the current). I believe the article's introduction needs to provide a mention about the Byzantine/Roman Empire, especially since the ecumenical councils were held in the Empire. (There were of course, periods when the Empire embraced heresies, and persecuted the Church again, but it should not be ignored.) Regarding “Rum Orthodox”, in previous versions, the mention, along with its reference, were actually located in the article's Typica section, and that's where I believe its place should be (since the national names are mentioned there). Cody7777777 (talk) 11:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

"But we shouldn't give the impression the “Byzantine Empire” was a distinct state from the Roman Empire." Why? There is a reason why historians make this distinction. The Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantine) was very different from the Roman Empire of Augustus and Trajan. Please, be sure to read and understand this page: Greek East and Latin West.--Enok (talk) 01:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

There were obviously cultural differences between those periods, but that doesn't mean it wasn't still the same political entity as the “Roman Empire”. Please check the previous sources more carefully([18],[19],[20],[21],[22][23]), they explain it was still the “Roman Empire” (despite its cultural changes). So if we're doing a distinction here, we should distinguish between “Byzantine” and “ancient” Roman Empire, not between “Byzantine” and “Roman”. Cody7777777 (talk) 13:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 14:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding: Another possibility might be to say “Byzantine and ancient Roman empires”.... How about "Ancient Roman empire and its continuation the Byzantine Empire". Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 15:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your proposal. It is better and more explicit. Cody7777777 (talk) 15:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Cody. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 15:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

And I thank you for your proposal. Cody7777777 (talk) 16:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

You are very welcome. It was a pleasure talking to you. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The "ancient" Roman Empire was totally different from the Byzantine, as we already said. --Enok (talk) 15:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it became very different, and Dr.K.'s proposal does not deny this (it confirms the difference, by stating that it continued after the “ancient" Roman Empire). Cody7777777 (talk) 15:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 15:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I still don't understand why you have to connect the Roman Empire to the Orthodox religion. I can understand the Byzantine Empire, but the Roman Empire (with Latin culture and Pagan religion) has nothing to do with it. --Enok (talk) 21:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Can we connect Jesus to the Orthodox religion? Where did Jesus live? What about His apostles? Elizium23 (talk) 01:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

That's a good question. In addition, as I mentioned above, the reliable source in the article specifically mentions that the Church was "widespread" in the Roman Empire. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Given how this church heavily influences politics in Greece, Cyprus, Serbia, and Russia (mainly stoking resentment against non-orthodox Christians, Muslims, ethnic minorities, etc.), would it not be fair commentary to say that the orthodox church is giving Christianity a bad name? User:Kca-colonel —Preceding undated comment added 15:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide

reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Elizium23 (talk

) 19:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I see that the number of adherents is 225 - 300. That does seem wrong, perhaps it is meant to read 225 - 300 million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.121.15 (talk) 03:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The numbers for adherents in Russia are overblown. Consult the CIA World Factbook, which estmates the number in 15-20 percent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.138.215 (talk) 18:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

There are some official surveys in Russia which estimate the number of adherents is well over 70%. The total number of Orthdox Christians is belived to be between 250-300 million worldwide. Andreyx109 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC).

The introduction to the article includes Croatia in the list of dominantly Orthodox countries, yet Croatia's demographics page indicates that well over 80% of Croats are Roman Catholic. Unless that census figure is wildly inaccurate, Croatia ought to be removed from the list of dominantly Orthodox nations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.93.118.41 (talk) 14:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I removed this, as well as Bosnia and Herzegovina, which is predominantly Muslim. Elizium23 (talk) 15:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's own page on size of the churches disagrees with the statement here it's the second biggest Christian faith. 62.3.72.70 (talk) 13:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Not really. That table shows that there are more Protestants than Orthodox, but also states that Protestantism is a group of faiths rather than a single confession or church. Majoreditor (talk) 18:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

What is the official Greek text of the Orthodox Church(es)? I saw no mention of it in the article or in the Greek Orthodox Church article. This seems a crucial and important piece of information, and (if missing) a huge omission. Misty MH (talk) 07:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean the text of the Divine Liturgy or of the Bible canon? Elizium23 (talk) 17:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

No, I was looking for what Greek text is used for the New Testament. Misty MH (talk) 20:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe a partial answer to my own question: "The Byzantine text-type... is the form found in the largest number of surviving manuscripts.... The New Testament text of the Greek Orthodox Church, the Constantinople Patriarchate edition of 1904, is based on this text-type. ... ¶ ... the Byzantine textual tradition has continued in the Eastern Orthodox Church into the present time." I found no Wiki article for the Constantinople Patriarchate edition of 1904. It deserves one, and is highly notable. (The "Eastern Orthodox Church" is the 2nd largest in the world.) If you have any more information about this text, please post here. Thank you! SOURCE: Byzantine text-type Misty MH (talk) 20:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Notice: A discussion has been started at Talk:Gospel of Matthew#Design of references that has bearings on my intention to improve the structuring of references in this article, and potential for some eventual project-level participation (or higher). Evensteven (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

As things stand, the

Indeed. --24.53.253.165 (talk) 00:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

If it's not in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate, then it's not Eastern Orthodox. "Self-proclaimed" autocephaly is never a good sign either. But the Macedonian church article clearly identifies this status. Also, this article does have a list of churches that are not in communion with Eastern Orthodoxy, for various reasons including irregular or uncanonical status. Macedonia has been in that condition for almost 50 years. That may sound long, but Russian "Old Believers" have been there much longer. Even the great schism took centuries after 1054 to really become final, for there were many peaceful attempts at reconciliation among all the political/military ones. So this is not the outstanding example. I think the list in this article serves a useful purpose, to differentiate what can be a confusing mixture among churches that use "Orthodox" in their title. If this church is to be removed from the list, then I think the only reason that can be made for it is that nothing in the list really belongs in the article and the whole list should go. I think all the status questions are clear as stated. My opinion is that the list belongs in this article, and that the Macedonian church definitely belongs in its current position in the list. Evensteven (talk) 01:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

217.118.95.xxx, repeated unsupported removal of content and sources can be termed vandalism. Returning the article to the content that it has long had, based on those sources is not. The new section is comprised of material that was heretofore included in the article within the footnotes, but was reshaped to become clearer and more explicit. All of it is more than well backed up. It should be quite clear from even a superficial reading that the Orthodox Church does indeed consider itself Catholic and says so, officially, unofficially, and thoroughly enough that non-Orthodox are fully aware of it.

No, this does not mean that the Orthodox Church is Roman Catholic. The claim of the Orthodox Church that it is Catholic is based upon its catholicity, and is the very thing that opposes the claim by the Roman Catholic Church that it is Catholic. Orthodoxy always said the Church is Catholic. That is why it is in the Nicene Creed. When the

It is not Orthodox or Catholic; it is both Orthodox and Catholic. If you are Orthodox and reject "Catholic" in the title of your church, claiming that it means "Roman Catholic Church", then you are acquiescing to the Roman church's claim to catholicity and rejecting your own church's catholicity. That is an error of fact ("Orthodox Catholic Church" is the title) and a departure from Orthodox doctrine (the Orthodox church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church). What is not clear to you about this? Evensteven (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Please note that I have tried to find a more suitable place in the article for the photo of Annunciation Orthodox Cathedral, Voronezh, which I hope meets your approval. Evensteven (talk) 17:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Most encyclopedias and books introducing Orthodoxy include a discussion of catholicity, what it means to the Orthodox, and what "Catholic" is doing in the official church title. It appears from the long-standing condition of the lead sentence that there must have been a considerable challenge to all this material beneath the huge stack of references that ended up grouped after the words "Orthodox Catholic Church". There is still a section on this talk page wanting to claim otherwise.

I have taken that stack of references, and have created a few paragraphs on these topics that use them, in order to move the material into a more visible place within the article. The lead sentence has been relieved of the burden of that stack, with a "see section" reference to back up the official title. The old "Notes" section has been eliminated in favor of the new article section. I expect that we may find related material that might re-structure well into the new section from other locations.

In the process, I have converted or improved all references into "cite book" or "cite web" citation form, expanding information therein where I could trace it. I have verified all URLs, repairing what I could, discarding the defunct. I have deleted references to a couple non-informational websites and to one self-published author with a degree from a diploma mill.

The references work involved in this little project are also the beginning of a re-structuring of all references/citation for the article, coming as I am able to accomplish it, to address the tag at the top of the article. This talk section can serve to contain any comments or concerns the community may have about any of the above. Evensteven (talk) 08:23, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

The article contains a referenced source that is listed as "Bratsiotis, Panagiotis and Florovsky, Georges, Orthodoxy, a Faith and Order Dialogue, Geneva, 1960". Can anyone verify this title or find a page reference? While investigating, what I have found is a book by that title, publisher, and date, written by one Keith R Bridston, a Lutheran seminary professor. I'm wondering if he quotes Bratsiotis and/or Florovsky, or rather if this source is just somehow mangled. If it can't be verified, I'm inclined to remove it. I'll wait a bit before going ahead with that. Evensteven (talk) 22:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I have tracked this down, far enough anyway. It is apparently from the book by Bridston, which references writings of Bratsiotis and Florovsky. The whole is referenced by Bishop Kallistos Ware in The Orthdox Church. The entry into the article is pretty much a botched reference made about a year ago by a newbie editor who shall remain anonymous (that is, "me"). I find it now to be unnecessary, as the base reference to Ware has been there all along. It is gone. Evensteven (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)