El directorio enciclopédico desde la Wikipedia.
|
Bold text
[edit] Oecumenical CouncilsWithin the article the following statement is made: Some Orthodox consider two additional councils to be ecumenical, although this is not universally agreed upon (especially the ninth, which occurred after the East-West Schism) My question is this: Who among the Orthodox does not accept the 8th and 9th ecumenical councils? As far as I know everyone in the Church accepts these. This passage also seems to imply that without Rome the council would not be ecumenical. This is, of course, nonsense since Rome was no longer a member of the Church. The Church does not require inviting former heretical members to participate in a council.--Phiddipus (talk) 21:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Once again, Who among Orthodox do not accept these councils? Its not a true statement. All Orthodox accept these councils as valid.--Phiddipus (talk) 15:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
The Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs of 1848 lists the Synod of Constantinople of 879/880 as the Eighth Ecumenical Synod and the Synods of Constantinople of the years 1341, 1347, and 1351 as the 9th. The pronouncements of these councils are dogmatic and absolutely accepted by the entire Orthodox Church. This alone makes them ecumenical. If your argument is that the Roman Catholics were not a part of the deliberation then I would remind you that their presence was not required since they were no longer a part of the church. They were also not the first to break from the Church, you might as well argue that no council was ecumenical after Chalcedon since the monophysites were not invited to any council after that. I really don't see why this is an issue? There are some things that just don't need backing up with the opinion of someone who happened to write it down. Are these councils universally accepted by the EASTERN ORTHODOX CHURCH, yes!. Are they Dogmatic? Yes!, then they are ecumenical by definition. If you want to know why so many Orthodox sources list only seven councils, well, I would say that whatever text they were referencing was probably written in the spirit of comparing our Church to others, specifically the Roman church; to point out similarities. In other words, it was dumbed down for the masses. You can find a lot of pseudo-scholarly work like this. Either that or it was written by a scholar outside the Orthodox Church who chose, for academic reasons to adopt an impartial point of view and look to western history books for his information; which gave him only one perspective (writing about the Eastern Orthodox Church from a Roman Catholic POV). Well, lets try getting our information from the horses mouth instead.
The reality of the situation, to me, seems to be clearly between the two opposing sides of this conversation. Yes, it is entirely true that the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs labels the constantinopolitan council of 879 as the "Eighth Ecumenical Council". This is a document of great authority in the EOC, and as such I think that council should be identified as the Eighth Ecumenical Council. However, while the Fifth Council of Constantinople (1341) is accepted doctrinally by the whole Church, its status as the Ninth Ecumenical Council is much less established and is only championed by a few outspoken clergymen in the modern Church. I may personally agree with them, but I don't think it's anywhere near as evident that it is the mind of the ecumenical Church that the Fifth Council of Constantinople is the Ninth Ecumenical Council. Deusveritasest (talk) 04:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Russian Orthodox Episcopal Ordination.jpgThe image Image:Russian Orthodox Episcopal Ordination.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC) [edit] "Eastern Orthodox Church"Please, note that the church is called in most of the countries where this religion is dominant not under the name "Eastern Orthodox Church" but for example in Russia - Православие, in Poland - Prawoslawie etc. which means "The Law preacher". We should include it in the article as a "Pravoslavie" or something similar(name in the latin alphabet). No one calls it in Eastern Europe "Eastern Orthodox Church"... --Krzyzowiec (talk) 23:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
As far as I know, the official name of the Church is the "Orthodox Catholic Church", however this does not seem to be made clear enough in the article. Also, shouldn't the article Orthodox Catholic Church become a redirect here? (http://books.google.com/books?lr=&q=%22Orthodox+Catholic+Church%22+%22eastern+orthodox%22&sa=N&start=10) Cody7777777 (talk) 21:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Orthodox Church of CanadaI know that there is an Orthodox Chuch of Canada because I attended a wedding at one of their church buildings. There is no mention of it in this article, nor does it have its own article that I can find. They have a web site at http://www.orthodoxchurchofcanada.org . Ronstew (talk) 08:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC) [edit] The Orthodox Church Was NOT Founded By Christ and His Apostles Nearly 2000 Years Ago!There is a major error right in the first paragraph of the article. It states that the Orthodox Church was founded by Christ and His apostles nearly 2000 years ago. This is blatantly wrong. The Orthodox Church was founded in the 11th century after the Great Schism. --PaladinWriter (talk) 10:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I doubt that even Roman Catholic scholars would disagree to the opening statement. The Orthodox and the Roman Catholics were the same Church for the first thousand years of Christianity though there were fairly clear distinctions between the East and West. Both sides (after the Great Schism) consider themselves to be the continuation of that original church and consequently the other side to be in error. This is that churches POV. This article is about the Orthodox Church and so, their POV is expressed here. It is from that perspective that while the Orthodox Church has continued to preserve the traditions and teaching of the apostles and the patristic fathers, the Roman Catholics have radically changed from that original path. I realize that your perspective is probably the opposite. To debate this issue is pointless.--Phiddipus (talk) 01:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC) "The Orthodox Church was founded in the 11th century" Founded by who? In order to say that, you have to agree that Cardinal Humbert founded the Orthodox Church by "excommunicating" 1 patriarch. The whole issue is too complex and to keep this article neutral, we must say the churches split from each other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.172.76 (talk) 03:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Leadership of the Ecumenical PatriarchThere was a recent edit done on the leadership of the Ecumenical Patriarch. The current revision reads: "Later, in the 11th century, because of the split with Rome (the great East-West Schism), the honour of presiding over general councils was transferred to the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, and he was given the title primus inter pares (first among equals), reflecting his administrative leadership and his spiritual equality." The phrase in bold to me sounds a little bit like papal supremacy, and I'm wondering what others here think of it? Deusveritasest (talk) 06:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Correctly stated, the Patriarch, when performing his administrative duty acts as the leader of an ecumenical council composed of all bishops; while spiritually he has no more authority than any other bishop, even the lowliest bishop. No bishop can override another bishop on spiritual matters. So correctly stated the Patriarch has administrative authority and spiritual equality. There is a famous story from the desert fathers that a man, for committing some minor sin was told by his bishop that he could eat only bread and water until the bishop said otherwise. But before the bishop could release the man from his penance the bishop died. The man, in distress, asked another bishop for release, but was told that he could not override the previous bishop’s punishment. So the man went all the way to the patriarch and asked him for release. The patriarch held council with a number of other bishops but in the end told the poor man that unfortunately he would be eating bread and water for the rest of his life because they simply did not have the authority to override the bishop’s instructions. The Pope of Rome however is considered to be spiritually superior haveing authority of all Roman Catholics even other bishops and cardinals. --Phiddipus (talk) 22:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure I understand your objection. The only way to clarify something is to state it correctly. You are correct that the Orthodox Church does not have a Pope who leads the Church in spiritual matters. As far as spiritual leadership every bishop leads his designated see. But if the question is who ranks first in the administration of the Orthodox Church then the answer is the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. When it comes down to it admnistratively the other patriarchs would defer to the See of Constantinople. This arrangement is prescribed by cannons 2 and 3 of the 2nd ecumenical council.--Phiddipus (talk) 00:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
You seem to be confusing administration with spiritual direction. There are two sides to the structure of the Church; one that deals with the preservation and spiritual direction of the Body of Christ, and one that deals with records, meetings, paperwork, finances, and overall administration of the Church. One is spiritual while the other is mundane. The mundane structure of the church is basically laymen, monastics, and the priesthood. Within the priesthood there are deacons, presbyters, and bishops. Amongst bishops there are retired bishops, acting bishops, archbishops, metropolitans, and Patriarchs. There is also a hierarchy among patriarchs with Constantinople on top (originally Rome, but they are out). When it comes to mundane things there is an overall etiquette that less important bishops defer to more prominent ones. In any particular synod most will defer to their president – of course they may decide mundane things by vote but we are talking about when they don’t. The same goes for the ultimate situation of an ecumenical council, the same etiquette applies for mundane things - all would defer to Constantinople. When it comes to dealing with spiritual matters all bishops are equal. Spiritually the Patriarch and a lowly bishop are on the same level. In council each has one vote and the opinion of the one has the same weight as the other. They do not defer to anyone in spiritual matters. If the Patriarch wanted to condemn a particular heresy he could not do it alone nor would his opinion carry any more weight than any other bishops. Yes, Constantinople is often referred to as the “spiritual father” of the Church but this, once again is etiquette. I doubt anyone would consider the heretic Nestorios to have been a “Spiritual Father” of the Church.--Phiddipus (talk) 22:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC) [edit] On MarriageThe central confusion on the Orthodox position is between the condition of a person (currently thought of in terms of "gay" and "straight") and the commission of the sexual act. The Orthodox position on marriage and homosexuality is frequently misunderstood as a condemnation of the person, rather than the act. Furthermore, it IS POV to attempt to hide this fact in a partisan effort to make the Church look bigoted. There is nothing "POV" about making a clarification of the position and citing references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rusmeister (talk • contribs) 04:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
This is close, but not a correct understanding of Orthodoxy. We CAN'T "stop our desires". We can only choose to act on them or not. You can get confirmation by e-mailing Fr John Matusiak at oca.org (the e-mail link is on the website)- he'll cheerfully answer your questions better than I can - but it is critical to understand that Orthodoxy sees EVERYONE as "broken" - just in different ways. We are all condemned by sin - and saved by Christ. This includes alcoholics, homosexuals, and me. We have to repent and fight the temptation to sin. The cross of same-sex attraction is considered a particularly difficult one to bear, imo, but the sin is in giving into the temptation, not in experiencing it. This distinction is critical for understanding that the Orthodox Church welcomes ALL and treats no one different, no matter what they are suffering from - but neither does it try to pretend that they are "all right" and not suffering from anything, and in Orthodoxy, same-sex attraction is an initially good desire bent the wrong way. The article is specific that it is only the act condemned and that people suffering from the desire are to be treated with mercy and compassion. [quote]Men and women with homosexual feelings and emotions are to be treated with the understanding, acceptance, love, justice and mercy due to all human beings. People with homosexual tendencies are to be helped to admit these feelings to themselves and to others who will not reject or harm them. They are to seek assistance in discovering the specific causes of their homosexual orientation, and to work toward overcoming its harmful effects in their lives. Persons struggling with homosexuality who accept the Orthodox faith and strive to fulfill the Orthodox way of life may be communicants of the Church with everyone else who believes and struggles. Those instructed and counselled in Orthodox Christian doctrine and ascetical life who still want to justify their behavior may not participate in the Church’s sacramental mysteries, since to do so would not help, but harm them.[/quote] I'll ask that, as I have provided the references and that they do specify this important point, that you leave it be. There is enough here to establish NPOV; and to erase it indicates a partisan POV. Rusmeister (talk) 18:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
The OCA =/= the Eastern Orthodox Church, and therefore citing the teaching of the OCA does not qualify as a satisfactory proof of the teaching of the EOC ecumenical. Secondly, to bring up the subject of homosexuality all of a sudden right in the midst of a section about marriage certainly does appear to be straying from the topic. Perhaps if the subject were generally about sexuality it would work, but this is not the case. Deusveritasest (talk) 20:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC) This subject is inappropriate here. It is thoroughly delt with in an article entitles the Orthodox view of sin.--Phiddipus (talk) 00:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC) It is obvious that one of the chief topics in the news these days IS the establishment of homosexual marriage. As such, it is entirely relevant to marriage. Why you should have such a strong interest in hiding that connection is beyond me. It is related to both sin and marriage, and as such is relevant to both topics. Deusveritas - you need to identify what precisely you mean by "EOC Ecumenical". Evidently you misinterpret the idea of the unity of Orthodox dogma as the idea that there is a central body, similar to the Vatican that posts internet references binding on all. This is not the case for Orthodoxy. We share common dogma, and the OCA conveniently posts it in English. if this is insufficient, I can post Russian, Greek and other references, but you probably won't be able to read them. As a courtesy to English readers on the English wikipedia I post from the most authoritative sources available in English. There IS no English speaking body more authoritative than the OCA. It is the final court of authority for the Orthodox position and is identical to the position held by Orthodox Churches worldwide. Since on this issue I evidently have to satisfy you personally, and expect that there is nothing within the framework of what is that will ever satisfy you, we are at an impasse. Rusmeister (talk) 05:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC) [edit] Explaining the role of the Great Schism in "founding" the Eastern Orthodox ChurchOK... before everybody jumps on me, I am not going to argue that the Eastern Orthodox Church was founded in the 11th century by the Great Schism. However, after reading the "EOC was NOT founded by JC and the apostles" section above, I realized that this article does a poor job of presenting this important point about the EOC. We fail here by only presenting the POV of the EOC and not that of the Western Church as well. I'm not sure what the EOC believes about the Western church but I will tell you that most of the Western church sees the Eastern church as being schismatic rather than heretical. That is, the Western church (Roman, Anglican and mainstream Protestants) do not see insupreable difficulties in dogma and see the differences as being primarily about church leadership. Thus, the West would NOT argue that it is the only true church and that the East is dogmatically "wrong". The Romans would argue that the East is part of the true church but that its leadership are unwilling to accept the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. (yes, this is a gross oversimplification but I believe it is the essence of the Western position). Yes, there are doctrinal differences such as the "Filioque" but at least some Romans see these as resolvable. I believe that we should not limit ourselves to expressing the EOC's POV in this article but also those of the Christian community as a whole. Clearly, the focus of the article must be the EOC. However, failing to describe the historical context of the Great schism and the EOC's relationship with the Western church today gives the reader an unbalanced understanding. There is a tendency to assert "this article is about the EOC and therefore should be written from the EOC's POV". This is not in keeping with Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. NPOV suggests that we should write about the EOC from an neutral POV, not from the EOC's POV. Of course, a neutral POV would include a description of the EOC's POV but it should also include the POV's of others including the Western church. Most people consider that there was one church founded by JC and the apostles. (Well, some people assert that the early church consisted of a plurality of competing traditions but we can leave that alone for now.) Most of today's churches claim to have inherited the mantle from that original church. Are all those churches dogmatically "correct"? Hard to see how that could be so but, as said by others, it is not Wikipedia's role to determine which church has the correct dogma. I think that the article East-West Schism gives a passable explanation of the origins of the Great Schism (that is, that the one church started to grow apart with the fall of the Western Empire at the end of the 5th century). Does a marriage end when the divorce is final? No. The marriage starts to fall apart much earlier but those seeds of divorce can only be recognized as such when the divorce becomes inevitable. I think these points need to be made in the lead so as to make it clearer that, while the EOC claims to be the continuation of the original church, it is not the only church to make that claim. And, while the EOC may be the continuation of the original church founded by JC and the apostles, it was certainly not called the "Eastern Orthodox Church" in the apostolic era so it might be useful to explain when that name came to be used. --Richard (talk) 01:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
[edit] LengthI really do think that this article is a little long winded at this point and that we should start discussing what content should be moved to another related article or simply dropped. Deusveritasest (talk) 09:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Directorio de Enlaces Directorio dmoz Directorio espejo dmoz Pedro Bernardo | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
