Talk:Oriental Orthodoxy

From Academic Kids

OK, I sent you an email about this, but you prefer this page instead.

Which is better? This:

"A centenarian is a term that refers to a living person who is at least 100 years old."

or this:

"A centenarian is a living person who is at least 100 years old."

?

A centenarian is not a term; a centenarian is a person. (Believe it or not, the article titled centenarian actually did at one time begin by saying a "centenarian is a term that refers to ...".)

Other than that issue, I think if you want to explain what Oriental Orthodoxy is, it is better to mention the schism of AD 451 than to say the Oriental Orthodox churches are older than the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, since that is not true. -- Mike Hardy

(Occasionally, of course, it is appropriate to say a certain word is a term that refers to something. In those cases, since one is referring to the term, rather than using the term to refer to something else, one should italicize it, saying "Oriental Orthodoxy" refers to ...".)

Sorry: I didn't get any e-mails. I don't provide an e-mail to Wikipedia, so it would be better if the site didn't offer to let you reach me that way. I take your point about reference to the thing versus the term for the thing, but as you point out, I didn't add the word "term" to my choice of phrasing, so obviously it's easier for me to accommodate your reasonable point about italics. The age controversy is one I hadn't thought of. I was thinking, and I think I'm still thinking, that the problem doesn't come up with proper wording. I mean I presume the "Roman Catholic Church" does aquiesce to the name "Roman Catholic Church," even if it likes to say "the Church" in in-house documents. When did the need for such a name arise? Later than the need for "Armenian Apostolic," that is for sure. I think if we were to go all the way to accommodate your deference to the beliefs of practitioners, we might not even want to say the Armenian Church was created ever. I mean, the first Armenian christians no doubt thought of themselves as Christians, not Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Christians. Same goes for fundamentalists, I suppose. I'll look at the wording again. I suspect we can call some churches older without being inflammatory, but maybe I'll side with you and want just to talk about the time of divergence, which is what one has to do with species in biology. 168... 02:22 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I looked at my version again. I remember now I went with "refers" because there is no easy-to-describe single thing that is "Oriental Orthodoxy." Also, the earlier version misused "comprise." Although I concede your age issue, when I look at the particular phrasing I used, I don't see it as raising the problem. It's understood that all Christian traditions go back to Christ and so in that sense they're all equally old. I think it's also understood that no sect is practicing christianity like Peter or even exactly as Constantine practiced it, and that all the traditions have made changes many times. I think readers will understand that the age in question is the age of the necessity of the concept of the thing (e.g. the "Roman Catholic Church"). Of course, that's just my opinion. 168... 02:42 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I wonder if you're misunderstanding part of what I wrote. The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is a title claimed by both the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church, each denying the other's claim, but before the Great Schism in the 11th century, that title referred to all Christians who were under any of the five patriarchs, eastern or western. When I used the term, I was not referring to Roman Catholicism. AD 451 is the year of the schism in which the Oriental Orthodox churches separated from that large body. I think an accurate history and explanation would say that. The Armenian church was founded no later than AD 301, that being the year when Christianity became the state religion in that kingdom. 131.183.84.166 19:12 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I'm glad to learn of the term "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church," which I hadn't known. As I wrote above, I assumed they would each talk about themselves as "the Church." But my analysis isn't changed just because there exists a longer version of that title that they both lay claim to. I agree it complicates matters. I just don't think it makes it impossible to clearly address age. Meanwhile, I don't understand what point you are trying to argue, if you are trying to argue one, with the info about Armenia. Finally, I think it's a little problematic to write, with the particular the words you used in your last edit to the article and those in your post above, that the O.O. churches separated from the One Church in 451. If all the churches now classified as OO existed in 451 (did they?), then that language is not so misleading (i.e. provided all of the OOs had representatives at the council to return and tell them afterwards that henceforth they were on their own); but even so, isn't the situation that the churches with OO beliefs were kicked out of the Church? i.e. rather than that all parties agreed to separate? 168... 21:13 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The Armenian, Ethopian, Indian, and Assyrian Churches existed before 451, and broke communion with the Chalcedonian churches at that time. The Jacobite and Coptic Chuches were formed in 451 by those within the Church of Antioch and the Church of Alexandria who regected the Council of Chalcedon. - Efghij 22:11 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Is that all of the current OO's? Did they all hear the results of the council in a timely fashion?168... 22:43 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The Coptic and Jacobite Churches were formed in 451, and the Ethopian and Indian churches, who were subordinate to Alexandria and Antioch repectively, split that same year. The Armenian Church, however, took until 506 to formally reject the Council of Chalcedon. The Assyrian split actually took place in 431, after the Council of Ephesus, making them Nestorian rather than Monophysite. - Efghij 02:29 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

131, note that despite the concern you express about obscuring that both the Eastern and the Western churches consider themselves in some sense the "original" and the "oldest" church, nevertheless the language you chose for the current version of the article suggests that neither considers itself the One Church: "the then-still-unified vast communion that called itself the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church... separated into the "Western Church" (Roman Catholicism) and the Eastern Orthodox church." I take the fact that this didn't trouble you (and it doesn't trouble me either) as a demonstration that we can expect readers to know what we mean when we talk about the "age" of the churches and their "separation" and that we aren't in great danger of slandering a denomination. 168... 22:43 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I think the Roman Catholic church considers itself the one true church, and the Eastern Orthodox church also so considers itself, except that they grant some recognition to the pope, considering him one of the patriarchs whose presence and assent at a general council, along with the presence and assent of the Eastern Orthodox patriarchs, are necessary for its infallibility (and no council of that sort can be held unless the two churches first reunify). Michael Hardy 21:59 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

I don't see what's so unusual about the fact that "Oriental Orthodox" and "Eastern Orthodox" are different even though "Oriental" and "Eastern" are similar. After all, "catholic" means "universal", and nobody is confusing the Catholics and the Universalists. It seems to me the article should note the fact, but not make a big "infelicitous" deal of it. --FOo 22:16 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

User:168... - a reversion isn't a 'minor' edit. - David Gerard 00:32, Jan 23, 2004 (UTC)

Point taken. I guess I considered it conservative because I was just putting it back to how it had been moments before and for a long time, and yours had not seemed like a major edit, even though you didn't mark it as minor. Also, you might note that I said exactly what I was doing in the subject line, so I don't see how the big black "M" could laed anybody astray. 168... 01:00, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Because a lot of people hide minor edits when checking what edits have been done.

The intro is ok now though :-) I thought the previous one was particularly clumsily worded. - David Gerard 01:04, Jan 23, 2004 (UTC)

---

I deleted the assertion that Western writers do not distinguish between the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches, lumping them together as "Eastern churches." I think that when Western writers write, for example, that in "Eastern churches, the parish priest chrismates infants immediately after baptizing them," they mean not only Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches, but also Eastern-rite Catholic churches in full communion with the Roman Catholic church, and this is not because of any unawareness of the differences between those Eastern churches, which therefore get "lumped together." Rather, such a statement is only saying that certain traditional practices are used in Eastern churches. In other words, the statement seemed very misleading. Michael Hardy 19:17, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Eastern Christianity

Would it be useful to have an article titled 'Eastern Christianity'? Granted that this is a term from a western perspective, it is used by the 'Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern Christianity', and it might be able to deal with an overview of the complex relation between Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy.

Gareth Hughes 14:54, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Whoops! How silly must I look? I went back to the article and followed the link straight to the page I'm suggesting. It is not at all about lumping traditions together: their shared history already weaves them close enough. Perhaps the small article on Eastern Christianity might be expanded to make this article read a little more easily.

Gareth Hughes 15:11, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oriental "Orthodoxy"

There is already something said about the confusingness of "Oriental," but I wonder if we should discuss the confusingness of the term "Orthodoxy." Because by the standards of the Churches normally called orthodox - the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches - the Oriental Orthodox were decidedly heterodox. It seems to be a relic of the Great Schism, when the terms "Catholic" and "Orthodox" separated in meaning, with the latter term referring to the eastern variant, that leaves these monophysite (more or less) churches referred to as "Orthodox" - that is, a western idea that "Orthodox" essentially means "Eastern." Or perhaps a relic of the creation of eastern rite churches in the near East - the branch that didn't become "Syrian Catholic" or "Armenian Catholic" must, of course, be Orthodox. At any rate, the confusingness of this seems worth noting. john k 00:50, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that ist out task to worry too much about logic in article titles. According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions, two point are to be taken into account: (a) what's the most common term in englich to refer to th esubject, and (b) self-labelling. With an emphasis on (a), but trying to not use derogatory terms. So, maybe, "monophsyitic" is a more commonly used term, but would trigger the "derogatory" expection. So, IMHO, there is only the choice between "non-chalcedonian cgurches" and "oriental orthodoxy". --Pjacobi 10:47, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)

Oriental Orthodox churches often refer to Eastern Orthodox churches as Chalcedonian, but don't often refer to themselves as Non-Chalcedonian, as it is defining yourself by what you're not. The label Oriental is nore or less accepted by members if the communion. Formal cooperation and support is a relatively modern thing: particularly under Pope Shenouda and Patriach Zakka. In the past, although these churches have been united against the Byzantine traditions of the church, each has kept to itself in language, culture and worship. It is felt that a neologism is needed. --Gareth Hughes 15:04, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with using the term Oriental Orthodoxy in the title to refer to the groups, since this seems to be the standard term. When I said I wanted to discuss it, I meant that the issue ought to be brought up in the article, not that I wanted to bring it up in the talk page in order to argue that the article should be moved. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. john k 15:23, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That is to say, I think the article ought to make clear that referring to this group as "Orthodox" is kind of weird and confusing, in the same way that it makes clear that the Eastern/Oriental distinction is weird and confusing. john k 05:33, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This has to be done carefully: saying whether someone is really Orthodox or not is saying whether they are right or wrong. Therefore, even though I understand the intention — the word is confusing, being used for different communions — it sounds as if the orthodoxy of the Oriental Orthodox is being questioned. This should be avoided. This, in fact, is one of the least confusing aspects of the mosaic of Christian denominations in the Middle East. --Gareth Hughes 10:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I concur that we should not say that they are "not really Orthodox." But we should say that the Eastern Orthodox (and other Chalcedonians Christians) do not consider the Oriental Orthodox to be Orthodox, and that likewise the Oriental Orthodox view the Eastern Orthodox (and other Chalcedonians) as heterodox. We should also note that the term "Orthodox" was, until recently, applied almost exclusively to Chalcedonians specifically in order to contrast with supposedly "Heterodox" churches like those now calling themselves "Oriental Orthodox", and that the term "Oriental Orthodox" itself is of relatively recent origin, those churches having previously referred to themselves as Coptic, Armenian, Jacobite, and so forth. We should try to be careful in doing this so as not to take sides. But I do think it is important to note that the original usage of the term "Orthodox" was specifically meant to exclude the Oriental Orthodox, but to include Catholics, and that now the whole thing is reversed. Anyway, I certainly agree that this needs to be done carefully, but I think it's important to mention this stuff in some way. john k 15:03, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)