Talk:Oriental Orthodox Churches/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Catholic Church"

A recent change was just made in the article from the phrase "Roman Catholic Church" to "Catholic Church". Is it really appropriate to be identifying the Roman Church as simply "the Catholic Church" in the midst of speaking about a church that identifies itself as the Catholic Church and denies Rome's claim to be the Catholic Church? Deusveritasest (talk) 22:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

LOL. Now someone removed the entire paragraph where that phrase was even found. I wish people would post in the discussion area what the hell they're doing in the article. Deusveritasest (talk) 23:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: the change, usage of "Roman Catholic"Church upon this community, within this article (and actually everywhere else) is in fact derogatory. The origins of the title/term comes from separatists in the West regardless of whether one thinks those in the East are being omitted from the claim to Catholicity. To counter, one who is belonging to Western Catholicism could as easily insist the removal of "Orthodoxy" from any title belonging to Eastern communities! Usage of "Catholic" Church alone is most appropriate as it is and has been always the official title of Western Catholicism.

Finally, one would never address a Greek Catholic, Ukrainian Catholic, Melkite, Marionite or any of one the other <a href="/wiki/Catholic_particular_churches_and_liturgical_rites" title="Catholic Church Eastern rites">23 Eastern rites of Catholicism</a> fully united under the Western Patriarch as a "Roman" Catholic or Latin.

Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church

Is it really correct to be saying that this body is in communion with the rest of the Oriental Orthodox when it has been officially excommunicated by the Patriarch of Antioch? Deusveritasest (talk) 21:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for comment on this. My understanding is that there have been schisms between the head of the Syriac Orthodox Church and the Malankara Orthodox Church, the most recent in the 60's being over the autocephaly of the Malankara Church, and that this schism persists today with the Syriac Patriarch even creating a parallel jurisdiction in Kerala alongside the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. Deusveritasest (talk) 06:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry of the late reply. However your are correct —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.99.99.15 (talk) 05:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I will wait for further input here before making changes to address the POV that is evident in sections edited on 2 Dec 2014 by user 71.21.95.105. While those edits contain POV, it is clear that the preceding text also contains a POV. The POVs together show the viewpoints of the two sides of the excommunication mentioned in the first comment in this section some six years ago. I believe a resolution needs to be made in a neutral manner, and that perhaps both views need some visibility in the article, lest further edits flip from one view to the other as this one has done. Suggestions and information are welcome from the editing community, as I am not as qualified as I would like to be in this area. But I alone can do better than what is there now, and will proceed alone within a week unless there is some input. It seems little attention has been given over six years, so this is a request for comment by interested persons. Evensteven (talk) 08:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm... that is a sticky wicket indeed. I would suggest removing the edit since it is unsourced, but do think the section needs some work in general and needs to reflect the excommunication. I wish I had more time to devote to this, but unfortunately I am unable to do much more than comment. ReformedArsenal (talk) 13:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

If it is the "Malankara Syriac Church" listed as one of the six members of the Standing Conference of Oriental Orthodox Churches here, and I think(?) it is, I would assume that it is reasonable and legitimate to classify it as an Oriental Orthodox church. John Carter (talk) 16:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you. Both items were in my thoughts also. And the prior article text was unsourced as well, so I don't give much preference to either viewpoint. I think a minimum of two sources would be good, at least one from each view. The classification as Oriental Orthodox seems certain, as its origins and full history are clearly there. Evensteven (talk) 20:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Archiving

There needs to be some archiving done on this discussion page. Deusveritasest (talk) 21:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. Carl.bunderson (talk) 08:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you :) Deusveritasest (talk) 00:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Oriental Orthodoxy navigation template

I am in the process of trying to create navigation templates for each of the core articles of the Christianity WikiProject. One such template has recently been created for this topic at Template:Oriental Orthodoxy2. If anyone has any suggestions for how to change the template, they are more than welcome. I personally think they would most easily be seen if added below the link to the template at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Templates, and would request that the comments be made on that page below the template. Please feel free to make any comments you see fit on any of the other templates on that page as well. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 18:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

An ecumenism issue

"Recent declarations indicate that the Holy See now regards itself as being in a state of partial communion with the other patriarchates; while full communion has not been restored, the mutual excommunications between Constantinople and Rome were lifted by Pope Paul VI and the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I when they met in Jerusalem in 1964." I fail to see how a reference to the Balamand Agreement, exclusively between Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox parties, belongs in an article about Oriental Orthodoxy. Deusveritasest (talk) 06:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Theoria and hesychasm

The article should maybe mention whether Eastern Orthodox notions such as theoria and hesychasm are also included in Oriental Orthodox doctrine. ADM (talk) 03:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it should. Unfortunately I've never gotten a straight answer as to how the Orientals relate to the Hesychastic definitions of the Byzantine Church of the 14th century. Deusveritasest (talk) 20:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The Nature of Christ

Why exactly is it necessary for this document to be quoted in the article? It seems a little long winded. It increased the size of the article by about 50%. I would just as well drop it. Deusveritasest (talk) 22:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProjects

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

Removal of Chart Showing relationship of Indian Christians

The chart which is depicted here is erroneous and was pasted here without any discussion. Requested in Wiki Commons to have this chart to be deleted. See the discussions in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Nasrani_Evolution.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.99.95.201 (talk) 04:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Better Picture

The picture of Kadamattom Church, India, do look not look so attractive. The church is not painted. If a better picture of another church is required, please let me know. Fyodor7 (talk) 11:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Please find the new pic, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kottayam_Orthodox.jpg, details in http://www.cheriapally.com/home/home.html. Fyodor7 (talk) 11:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Changed the Kadamattam Orthodox Church pic , with Kottayam Orthodox Church.. Just because this pic looks much better. Thanks Fyodor7 (talk) 06:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Distinguishing Oriental Orthodoxy from Non-Chalcedonianism

I notice that some articles link "non-Chalcedonian" to Non-Chalcedonianism whereas others link to this article. But I'm wondering if those two are different enough to be separate articles? If they are significantly different, what criteria could we develop to determine when to link to each? Case in point: I created a redirect page for "non-Chalcedonian Christianity" and linked it here, but only because that's where "non-Chalcedonian Churches" links--but I wondered if both those should be redirected to "non-Chalcedonianism" instead. Or if the two existing articles should be merged. Help, please? Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 20:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm no expert on the subject, but apparently Non-Chalcedonianism seems to deal with the split itself and its immediate consequences while Oriental Orthodoxy deals with the (most important?) parts of the church rejecting Chalcedon including those parts of their history and organization not directly related to the split. Non-Chalcedonianism claims that there are other non-Chalcedonian churches besides the Oriental Orthodox ones; if that's the case, we should definitely keep both articles. Non-Chalcedonianism could possibly be renamed Chalcedonian Schism (similar to Nestorian Schism) or something like that without any change to that article, but I can't tell whether that's the correct name for the event. If a merger is appropriate, I'd suggest merging into this article; it's by far larger, better sourced, and the name seems both more appropriate and used more often (it beats Non-Chalcedonian 3-2 on Google Scholar and 2-1 on Google Books). Huon (talk) 23:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Perhaps we could leave both articles but put some sort of dab or see-also tag at the top that clarifies their differences? That would certainly be simpler than merging. Meanwhile, the Non-C. article could use more information regarding the non-oriental-orthodox churches. Aristophanes68 (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Isn't it like how we have both Catholicism and Catholic Church, or Nazism and Nazi Party? john k (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Good point. How do we determine when to link to one or the other? For instance, which of the pages that link to Non-Chalcedonianism would be better served by linking to the Oriental Orthodoxy article? Aristophanes68 (talk) 19:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Don't have time to go through the list right now, but I'd say that references dealing with the ecclesiastical institutions should link here, while ones dealing with the theology should link there. john k (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good, but unfortunately Non-Chalcedonianism doesn't actually cover the theology at all, though it probably should. While I'm neither knowledgeable enough nor motivated enough (read: too lazy) to do so myself, I'd suggest moving the current Non-Chalcedonianism article to something like Chalcedonian Schism and writing a new article under that name that actually covers the theology of the non-Chalcedonian churches. Huon (talk) 21:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Non-Chalcedonianism is indeed terrible. Perhaps it should just be merged with something else. 13:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Non-Chalcedonian is a lable that covers more than just "Oriental Orthodoxy" or "Monophysitism". It is also used to refer to groups like the Church of the East (it split before Chalcedon), and in theory, applies to any of the many groups that are not Chalcedonian-- like the LDS. şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 19:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
It is certainly never used for groups like LDS. As far as I'm aware, it normally refers to groups that accept the first three ecumenical councils but reject the fourth one - so that the Church of the East, which is Nestorian, and thus rejects the third ecumenical council, is not included, nor are, say, the Arians, who rejected all the ecumenical councils. Can you provide examples of the use of "non-Chalcedonian" in reliable sources to refer to groups other than Monophysitish ones? john k (talk) 19:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

About the Middle Eastern Oriental Orthodox Common Declaration

The following paragraph is misleading:

In 2001, certain theologians of the Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox traditions concluded that they had always believed in the same Christology, but differed over how this was to be formulated. This conclusion became the basis for healing the schism between them, and the two groups jointly issued a "Middle Eastern Oriental Orthodox Common Declaration."

If one reads the link provided at the end of the paragraph, one realizes that the phrase "the two groups jointly issued" is wrong. The "Common Declaration" is a declaration of the member churches of the Oriental Orthodoxy alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enaskitis (talk • contribs) 11:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Even worse, the Common Declaration doesn't compare Christologies at all. The entire paragraph wasn't supported by the given source; I have removed it. Even if a better source substantiating that paragraph could be found, it should arguably not be part of the introduction anyway. Huon (talk) 14:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Defunct Oriental Orthodox churches

I definitely remember having see some listings of the bodies included in the broad field of "Oriental Orthodoxy" which have since apparently gone defunct, but I see no reference in the article to these groups. Is there any particularly good reason why? John Carter (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


Removed Link to Protestant Polemic from External Links

Somehow, an anti-Orthodox polemic written from an Evangelical Protestant perspective appeared in the external inks section. I've removed it. TruthfulPrince

I have added that link because even if it is a very critical article I regard it as sensible to have also such an approach in this section to the understanding of "orthodoxy". It really contains "strong" expressions but I would not call it polemic. I think that criticism (almost) always serves objectivity and every criticism can be disproved. Others can say whether they see it good to include here also critical websites. Nikil44 (talk) 07:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Only reliable sources or important primary sources should be external links. This is just some obscure evangelical website. And it has nothing to do with Oriental Orthodoxy, specifically. It seems to be an attack on the Eastern Orthodox Church, if anything. john k (talk) 23:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree with john k that this website is not a reliable source; adding it to the article would be a violation of WP:UNDUE. Besides, I'm rather skeptical of the "discussed from a Biblical perspective" title, which suggests that other perspectives aren't Biblical (including the Orthodox perspective itself); I'd call that non-neutral. Huon (talk) 03:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Also, this article is not about theology but about a group of ancient churches and related traditions. IMO, even mention of "Miaphysite" is unnecessary in the intro, as the churches themselves reject that particular label. Theology is a fascinating and serious subject, but mostly does not belong in this article. 2A02:587:3810:1B33:8D2E:C774:9C58:910C (talk) 20:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Justin I

I have moved this conversation from User talk:Elizium23 to the article talk where it belongs; further comment from experienced editors is welcome. Elizium23 (talk) 22:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I have never used this talk page before-I do not know if I am doing it correctly. At any rate, a quote from Oriental Orthodoxy page: "In the years following Chalcedon the patriarchs of Constantinople intermittently remained in communion with the non-Chalcedonian patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem (see Henotikon), while Rome remained out of communion with the latter and in unstable communion with Constantinople. It was not until 518 that the new Byzantine Emperor, Justin I (who accepted Chalcedon), demanded that the Church in the Roman Empire accept the Council's decisions.[5]" -- When you say Justin demanded that the Church in the Roman Empire accept the Council's decisions - it sounds like you are saying that he demanded the Roman Catholic Church accept the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon, which the Roman Catholic Church did. Please clarify your statement. 74.203.63.50 (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC) A.

The article goes on to say, "Justin ordered the replacement of all non-Chalcedonian bishops, including the patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria.". Antioch and Alexandria were both firmly within the (Eastern) Roman Empire at this time of history. I don't understand how Justin could demand that anyone outside of his jurisdiction should accept anything. I am not so sure that the Catholic Encyclopedia article is clear on this point, but you propose to reverse the meaning of this sentence into something that no longer makes sense. How do you justify doing so? Elizium23 (talk) 00:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I suppose I misunderstood your initial meaning. However, it sounds in your article as if you are accusing the Roman Catholic Church of not accepting the Council of Chalcedon, but it was not the Roman Catholic Church who did not accept it. If one person thinks that what you are saying, there are likely many others who also interpret it that way. So perhaps you could clarify your statement. The point of wikipedia is to enlighten people who know little or nothing about the topic, is it not? Therefore should you not be clear in what you say? Expanding your statement to be more specific as to whom he demanded accept it could not hurt anything. I do not propose specific changes, merely clarifications. I'm sure you know that there are few people today who understand what exactly comprised the Roman Empire at this time in history, or at which point in history the Roman Empire became the Holy Roman Empire ruled by the Pope's. All I'm saying is that a little clarification could go a long way. 74.203.63.50 (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)A
First of all, this was in the sixth century; there was no such thing as the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, or the Oriental Orthodox Church. Secondly, I think it is clear in the quote I offered in my last comment. There were non-Chalcedonian bishops scattered throughout the territory of the Empire, including the patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem. By non-Chalcedonian we mean bishops who did not accept the Council. The article also says that Rome was out of communion with "the latter" - it is unclear if that term means only the patriarch of Jerusalem or the three non-Chalcedonian patriarchs. So it seems that the article as it is implies that Rome did accept the Council. I do not see how it can be interpreted otherwise. I also do not see how your introduction of the word "not" solves anything. Elizium23 (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Well - I am merely trying to point out to you that this article can be easily misunderstood by people, other than you, but since you do not agree and seem to only be interested in arguing, then the conversation is apparently over. The point of wikipedia is to inform the uneducated masses, not to tell the educated masses what they already know. Informative articles ought to be clear. This one is not. 74.203.63.50 (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Demographics!

Nowhere in the article is the total number of Oriental Orthodox Christians discussed! This should be corrected immediately. Even if per chance I missed this number, it should be placed in a prominent location, such as the lead section or in the "geographical distribution" section. --Zfish118 (talk) 12:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Um ...

The introduction tells us the following: "The Oriental Orthodox communion comprises six churches: Coptic, Ethiopian, Eritrean, Syriac and Armenian Apostolic churches". Is it just me or are there only five churches in that list? Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Good catch! No idea why the sixth was missing, I added it. Jeppiz (talk) 17:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

"Biblical Canon" Section Proposal

I am proposing that a section of this article should be devoted to canon lists of the Oriental Orthodox churches. There is a great opportunity to expand this article in this area. Does anyone agree or disagree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syriac Syrian (talk • contribs) 20:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this would be of interest in this article. You may want to start at Biblical canon#Eastern Church where there is a little bit of information and some citations. Please make sure that all information is verifiable by Wikipedia policies and can be found in reliable secondary sources. Elizium23 (talk) 20:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Introduction Talk Section

So I have decided I am going to devote my life (in the near foreseeable future) to the Introduction of this article and so decided to create a talk section just for it. This is going to require some collaborative effort, so a talk section devoted entirely to it is just what this article needs.

First item of business (for me) is the comparison between Oriental and Eastern Orthodoxy somewhere in the middle. I suggest we locate a paragraph near the end of the Intro entirely devoted to comparing and contrasting Oriental Orthodoxy from other church bodies with similar names (e.g. Eastern Orthodox Church, Church of the East, Eastern Catholic churches, and so on). While I do not object to having mention of reunification efforts in the Intro, such a subject may require its own paragraph, again with the focus being on Oriental Orthodoxy's reunification efforts with the rest of ALL OTHER Christian bodies.

The goal should be to have a comprehensive SUMMARY of Oriental Orthodoxy, informing readers of what to expect from the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syriac Syrian (talk • contribs) 13:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The grammar of the first sentence must be addressed in the Talk Page since User Elizium23 maintained a persistent disagreement with me on verbal agreement in the English language. Most specifically, the instance of subject-verb grammatical conjugation of "communion" (sing.) with "recognize" (pl. when conjugated with plural nouns) in the sentence, "Oriental Orthodoxy is the communion of churches in Eastern Christianity which recognize only the first three ecumenical councils . . ." I maintain that the verb must read as "recognizes" in grammatical verbal agreement with "communion" whereas my fellow editor maintains that the verb must read as "recognize" in perceived grammatical verbal agreement with the noun "churches." His argument has been "the Churches recognize the Councils," posted 01:08, 23 February 2016‎ in the Revision history.
I understand that there exists an adjectival prepositional phrase located in between the noun and verb at question here, but this is irrelevant in English grammar. The adjectival prepositional phrase at question here is "of churches in Eastern Christianity." This adjectival prepositional phrase modifies the noun communion. The following verb recognize relates to the noun communion as well. This is the only thing they share in common.
Since I have displayed my grammatical argument here, I am going to adjust the verb in question to the appropriate grammatical conjugation. In response to any further questions, comments, or concerns regarding this grammatical edit, I will refer to this section of the Talk Page. Thank you, Elizium23, for your continued contributions to the Eastern Christianity portal.Syriac Syrian (talk) 20:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
"Oriental Orthodoxy is the communion of churches in Eastern Christianity that recognizes only the first three ecumenical councils". "Communion" is the subject; it should be "that recognises", not **which recognise". Ogress 03:38, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I would not object to such an edit.Syriac Syrian (talk) 04:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I am uploading a revised Introduction section. This sudden and drastic change includes the following features: concise, relevant facts with as many verifiable sources I could locate (more sources are always desired, the more the BETTER) while keeping as much relevant content as possible from previous contributions. If I have left something(s) out that you feel belong(s) in this section, this is the place to discuss it. Please keep in mind, however, that much information relevant to Oriental Orthodoxy ought to find a home somewhere in the article's body instead. Please take my revision kindly and no information is ever permanently lost; anything and everything can be deleted, revised, and updated as we please. Just please discuss it here. Since I have been announcing a change to the Introduction, I believe that there is no other way to approach this problem other then a complete revision. Again, all comments and suggestions will be considered if kindness in tone and helpfulness in spirit are offered. Let us continue to work together to introduce the world to Oriental Orthodoxy. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syriac Syrian (talk • contribs) 02:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I feel that far too much of the new introduction is devoted to... lists. The introduction lists all the alternative names for Oriental Orthodoxy (instead of placing them in a note). Then it lists the first three Ecumenical Councils with their full names. Then it lists the churches that are part of Oriental Orthodoxy (also with their full names). Then later, in the second paragraph, it lists the full names and years of the Councils that Oriental Orthodoxy rejects! There is very little information left about Oriental Orthodox beliefs, or organization, or much else.
I understand you wanted to improve the introduction, and I thank you for your effort, but I think the information you removed was actually more important than the information you kept and expanded. It is more important to tell people what Oriental Orthodoxy believes (i.e. to briefly explain miaphysitism in the introduction, and its opposition to Nestorianism and relationship with monophysitism), rather than to list in detail what historical Councils are accepted or rejected by Oriental Orthodoxy. Ohff (talk) 19:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Seeing no comment on this for several months, I will proceed to restore parts of the old introduction, and try to merge them with the current introduction, while trimming the lists. Ohff (talk) 10:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Done. Ohff (talk) 12:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 0 external links on Oriental Orthodoxy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Consensus on Wikipedia on groupings of Christian denominations

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

the premise is flawed. Many Christians, belonging to the largest groups, don't use the word "denomination" to describe themselves, and so using the term is imposing a foreign paradigm more suitable to American Protestantism. The opening line of this article is problematic in part because of this. "Oriental Orthodoxy, also known by several other names,is a Christian denomination in Eastern Christianity ...." a) no, it is not a denomination. The Wiki article on the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria says "The Coptic Orthodox Church belongs to the Oriental Orthodox family of Churches, which has been a distinct Christian body". "Family" and "body" are much better b) it is not a denomination "in Eastern Christianity". That is just confusing. We distinguish between Eastern and Oriental Christianity/Orthodoxy. One is not a subset of the other. c) "also known by several other names". "Oriental Christianity" is a catch-all, a phrase used to delimit to a group of Churches who only accept the first 3 councils. These are not names but descriptors. For example the Church of Egypt is --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 03:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Infobox

There is a discussion concerning this article at Talk:Eastern Orthodox Church#Infobox. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Oriental Orthodoxy is a communion of some Churches?

I am curious know whether Oriental Orthodoxy is a communion of few churches or it encompasses all churches that follows Oriental Orthodox faith (miaphysite) in the world? ThanksMandrake_the_Magician (talk) 05:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Dear Wiki Admins & Editors, already a discussion on this topic is in progress here: Oriental Orthodox sidebar talk. Please provide your opinion there. Thanks - --171.48.29.171 (talk) 06:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
This discussion is related to this article and should stick to this page.

What is my opinion is Oriental Orthodoxy is a Christology like Nestorian or Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. It is not just about communion of some churches that follow that Christology. The communion or ecumenical relationship only developed recently. Oriental Orthodoxy is a branch of Christianity (separated from the main branch after the Council of Chalcedon in 451).Thanks Mandrake_the_Magician (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Oriental Orthodoxy= a communion of 6 autocephalous churches which follow Oriental Orthodox faith? OR

Oriental Orthodoxy= a chirstological belief of churches separated in Council of Chalcedon in 451 CE?

What is the difference between Oriental Orthodox & Oriental Orthodoxy? ThanksMandrake_the_Magician (talk) 15:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

The christological belief of Churches that separated after the Council of Chalcedon already has its own article: Miaphysitism. This page is about the communion. Miaphysitism is about the belief. Ohff (talk) 18:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
What is my opinion is that:

If this article is about some 6 churches which are in communion, What about the other churches who follows this Chistology? Do we need another Wikipedia article to encompass them? Oriental Orthodoxy is a synonym for Miaphysitism. Also I would like to ask another question. What is this Oriental Orthodoxy? For me it is nothing but a a synonym for Oriental Orthodox.And Orienatal Orthodox is a synonym for Miaphsite Christology.Thanks Mandrake_the_Magician (talk) 21:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Oriental Orthodox is a geo-locatory classification. Miaphysite is the christological classificaton. ThankMandrake_the_Magician (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

"Oriental Orthodox is a geo-locatory classification." Who said its a geo-locatory classification. A Church is referred as Miaphysite or Monophysite only when we talk about the Christology only, otherwise it is referred as Eastern Orthodox,Oriental Orthodox etc. ---171.48.29.171 (talk) 22:05, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

A classification based on Chistology is the valid one. As per this the recognition, these churches are Monophysite/Miaphysite. Please go through valid published resources. ThankaMandrake_the_Magician (talk) 22:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Where are the valid published resource references? First present them and give time for other users to validate and if that correct pls change every Eastern and Oriental Orthodox article, not just in two articles. Until then we need to keep the original form---171.48.29.171 (talk) 22:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia article about Miaphysite. This is the Christological formula/theory / belief followed by these churches. When you may go through this article you could see many references. ThanksMandrake_the_Magician (talk) 22:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Dear Kokkarani, pls note the Wikipedia policy, one Wikipedia article can not be used as reference for another Wikipedia Article - --171.48.29.171 (talk) 22:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Which are the references we need to take from Miaphysite article to validate your argument? ---171.48.29.171 (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Also please present references for your remark "Oriental Orthodox is a geo-locatory classification." ---171.48.29.171 (talk) 22:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Please give me any earliest reference calling these Monophysite/Miaphysite Churches as Oriental Orthodox Churches? I am just curious to know when people started calling this Monophysite/Miaphysite church as Oriental Orthodox Churches. ThanksMandrake_the_Magician (talk) 23:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

For about geo-locatory classification, the term oriental is geo-locatory. ThanksMandrake_the_Magician (talk) 23:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Answer to your first question - Oriental Orthodoxy is a communion of some Churches? YES. Please read this from Encyclopædia Britannica : The other main branch of Orthodoxy is constituted by the six national churches of the Oriental Orthodox communion: the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, the Syriac Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East, the Malankara (Indian) Syrian Orthodox Church, the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, and the Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church. Link- https://www.britannica.com/topic/Christology/Eastern-Orthodox-Christology#ref1228673 .
Another reference from New Catholic Encyclopedia: http://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/orthodox-and-oriental-orthodox-churches . Thanks - --171.48.29.171 (talk) 00:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

What ever you say is about communion of some churches. While I am talking about the Christology- Oriental Orthodox-Miaphysite/Monophysite. ThanksMandrake_the_Magician (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

These ecumenical communion occured recently, while Monophysite/Miaphysite christolgy emerged in AD 451.ThanksMandrake_the_Magician (talk) 00:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Thats not true. After AD 451, it took some time to form as a Christological formula. OO Churches are referring their Christology as Miaphysite. Catholic Church and Eastern Churches used to refer OO churches as Monophysite churches ---171.48.29.171 (talk) 00:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

In its early stage, this christology was perceived and called as Monophysite by other churches even they rejected it. Later they used the term Miaphysite after explaining the doctrines in this christology. The term Oriental orthodox is a geo-locatory classification. There are Oriental Churches which is a geo-locatory classification. Again they were classified based on their Christological position/Doctrines. Thus emerged the Oriental Orthodox. ThanksMandrake_the_Magician (talk) 15:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
You are talking about two different things that have a lot of overlap. Compare Europe with European Union. Europe is a continent. European Union is an organization that includes the great majority (but not all) of the countries on that continent. And of course the European Union developed much later than Europe. But that doesn't mean that the EU is irrelevant and we should just say that countries are part of Europe (the continent) and not mention the EU.
It is the same with Miaphysitism and Oriental Orthodoxy. Miaphysitism is like Europe in the comparison above. Oriental Orthodoxy is like the European Union. The vast majority of churches that hold Miaphysite beliefs are also part of the Oriental Orthodox communion, although there are some exceptions. Oriental Orthodoxy is not a "geo-locatory classification" because it's not about geography. Not all churches in the "Orient" are Oriental Orthodox. And if you live in Europe or North America, you can still be Oriental Orthodox even though you are not in the Orient. The French Coptic Orthodox Church, for example, is part of the Oriental Orthodox communion, because it's a subdivision of the Coptic Church. Being Oriental Orthodox is about being a member of a specific organization. Ohff (talk) 18:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

To summarize: the beliefs that a church holds are one thing, the communion or umbrella organization that this church is a member of, is another thing. Often there is a lot of overlap between the two things (i.e. most Miaphysite churches are part of the Oriental Orthodox communion), but that doesn't mean that the two things are the same. Ohff (talk) 18:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Miaphysite could encompass all Oriental Orthodox churches. However Oriental Orthodoxy couldn't encompass all Miaphysite churches. Thus we could see that Oriental Orthodoxy is a subset of Miaphysite/Monophysite churches(Oriental Orthodox churches). Thats why I point out that Oriental Orthodox denotes a belief of Monophysitism/Miaphysitism. How ever Oriental Orthodoxy denotes an ecumenical communion of 6 oriental orthodox churches. ThanksMandrake_the_Magician (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

As per my opinion What you are doing is a FALLACY. Oriental orthodox means Miaphysite. It is NOT a communion. ThanksMandrake_the_Magician (talk) 00:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


Also there is a wrong argument/movement going on in Wikipedia about Oriental Orthodoxy. Oriental Orthodoxy is a synonym for Oriental Orthodox which is a synonym for Miaphysite/Monophysite churches. How ever some people knowingly/unknowingly tries to define Oriental Orthodoxy is a communion of 6 Oriental orthodox churches..What a pity!!!!

Please refer this :

orthodoxwiki.org/Oriental_Orthodox

to see whether Oriental Orthodox is a communion or churches that follows Miaphysite christology. ThanksMandrake_the_Magician (talk) 23:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


Hello Kokkarani/Mandrake,
What are you trying to prove by above Orthodox Wiki page? Did you not get any valid reference till this time? I have already provided references from Encyclopedia Britannica and New Catholic Encyclopedia which clearly says Oriental Orthodox is a communion of six churches. It is not defined by some people here in Wikipedia. It is the Fact!! I would like to add some more references below. Please read carefully and refrain from edit wars and petty arguments:
1. Christians & Jews in Dialogue, Mary C. Boys, Sara S. Lee,SkyLight Paths Publishing, Page 156, Link: The six Oriental Orthodox churches (Christian Coptic Church of Egypt, Eritrean Orthodox Church, Ethiopian Orthodox Church, Indian Orthodox Church, Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch and Armenian Orthodox Church), each independent but in communion with each others.
2. The In-Between People: A Reading of David Bosch through the Lens of Mission History and Contemporary Challenges In Ethiopia,Girma Bekele,Wipf and Stock Publishers, Page 153, Link : "The six Oriental Orthodox churches are: Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch and all the East, Armenian Apostolic Church, Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church of India and Eritrean Orthodox Church.
3.Church Schism & Corruption, Achim N Maseko, 2008, ISBN 978-1-4092-2186-9, Page 159, Link: Oriental Orthodoxy is the communion of Eastern Christian Churches that recognizes only three ecumenical councils.....The Oriental Orthodox communion comprises six groups: Coptic Orthodox, Syriac Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox, Eritrean Orthodox, Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church and Armenian Apostolic Churches.
4.Celebrating a Century of Ecumenism, John A. Radano, 2012, Page 305, Link ..the largest separate communion of churches today that resulted from the early Christological controversies is known as Oriental Orthodox. It is composed of six churches, each of fully independent and possesses many distinctive traditions. Thanks. Anonym---122.167.13.127 (talk) 15:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion

Oriental Orthodoxy is the body of Christians who followed the Miaphysite Christology. They followed the faith and practices that were defined by the first three ecumenical councils.

Could you define Orthodoxy? Orthodoxy is a doctrine or belief. It is NOT a communion of 6 churches(It is not restricted by that ecumenical communion of 6 churches).

Oriental Orthodoxy is a body of Christians that follows Oriental Orthodox ( belief/Doctrine/Miaphysitism). ThanksMandrake_the_Magician (talk) 18:45, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Can you please provide some references for validating "your" opinion? -122.167.154.137 (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I ran across your discussion, and I have a few questions. The following may seem like the same question, and may have consistent answers, but then again, they may not. First, do the Monophysite/Miaphysite churches that are not in the Oriental Orthodox communion self-identify as "Oriental Orthodox", do they claim to be OO? Next, it seems that the Oriental Orthodoxy page itself is unclear on whether it represents the tradition, or the communion. So, my next question is, are the churches of the communion and those outside it identical or very similar (i.e. with respect to theology and practice?) And finally, relatedly, and with respect to terminology, is Oriental Orthodoxy (the tradition, not the communion) a true synonym for Monophysite/Miaphysite? I did see Mandrake's answer on this one. Anyway, I was curious about these, and also hope they might provide some food for thought. Thanks. Peacedance (talk) 16:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

The supposed "supremacy" of the Coptic Orthodox Church

I do not know about other churches, but the Armenian Apostolic Church does not recognize the Coptic Orthodox Pope of Alexandria as Primus inter pares. Why assume that he is the (symbolic) head of all Oriental Orthodox churches? Does anyone care to add a source? And why is Cairo's Saint Mark's Coptic Orthodox Cathedral listed as the Headquarters of Oriental Orthodoxy ?--Երևանցի talk 13:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I recommend removing the infobox at all. The Eastern Orthodox Church article does not have one. It's really redundant here as well. --Երևանցի talk 14:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I would advocate infobox for summary as the article refer to a Christian denomination in the form of a communion. What would be your suggestions of improvements? Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
The infobox has several major inaccuracies (some of which I've listed above) and does not contribute to the article in general. My suggestions of improvement would be removal of the following:
  1. Pope Tawadros II as Primus inter pares
  2. Saint Mark's Coptic Orthodox Cathedral, Cairo, Egypt as Headquarters
  3. Pope Dioscorus I of Alexandria as Founder
  4. 451 Alexandria, Egypt, Byzantine Empire as Origin date and place
--Երևանցի talk 18:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
I have argued on the Talk page of the Eastern Orthodox Church article that an infobox is not a good idea. I don't think an infobox is a good idea here, either, and I believe that it would be best to remove it. There is almost nothing that an infobox could say that would be straightforward and uncontroversial, except perhaps the number of Oriental Orthodox adherents. Everything else is either complicated, or controversial, or both - in any case not suitable for a simple bullet-point presentation in an infobox. For example, all of the points that User:Yerevantsi has mentioned are, indeed, controversial. The Coptic Pope may or may not be seen as a central symbolic leader, depending on which sources you consult. His cathedral in Cairo is almost certainly not considered the main cathedral of Oriental Orthodoxy by anyone (certainly no source that I've ever seen). As for the founder and date of origin, the Oriental Orthodox themselves would of course claim that they are the original Church founded by Jesus Christ, not an offshoot founded by Dioscorus of Alexandria. But notice that after we've removed these things from the infobox, there isn't much info left. That's why I don't think we should have an infobox at all (neither here, nor for any other branch of Christianity with origins in antiquity). Some things just can't be summarized in a bullet-point list. Ancient Christian groups are one of those things. Ohff (talk) 10:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
It might be complicated, but how complicated? Too complicated for an infobox? When does that argument stretch WP:NPOV? All other major Christian denominations have articles fairly summarised in infoboxes for the convenience of readers - the function that infoboxes on Wikipedia are for. There might be cases were infoboxes aren't applicable or useful, such as in very short articles. However, they are indeed useful especially to summarise more or less complicated content. If these two extended articles should be part of the exceptions, I would expect finer arguments. Chicbyaccident (talk)
Did you even read our comments? Major parts of the infobox are inaccurate. How does it contribute to the article? --Երևանցի talk 12:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
"All other major Christian denominations have articles fairly summarised in infoboxes for the convenience of readers" - Actually, I think many of those other infoboxes suffer from similar problems too, but no one has bothered to point them out or argue about them so far. As I said in the discussion on the Talk page of the EO article, I don't personally think that infoboxes are useful in articles about religious groups in general. Well, maybe they are suitable for Christian denominations formed in the modern period, which have a clear NPOV founder and starting date and so on. But for Christian groups with origins in antiquity? No, I don't think infoboxes are suitable for them, at all. There is too much ambiguity. An infobox demands clear-cut numbers and dates. And when it comes to Christian groups with origins in antiquity, it is impossible to provide clear-cut numbers and dates in a NPOV fashion. Ohff (talk) 14:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Let's take, for example, one concrete question: When was Oriental Orthodoxy founded? There is no NPOV answer to this question. There are several different answers from several different POVs. Therefore, it is impossible to include a specific founding date in an infobox. Ohff (talk) 14:51, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The main different perspectives (usually limited to two) are already reflected in the founder date, person and place variables in said infoboxes. There was a bit of a huzzle of getting the face of the current infobox of the Catholic Church in shape, but now it has been there for a while, as has for instance that of the Church of England. I have a hard time seeing why simplified infobox data couldn't serve readers in other articles. Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, the Catholic Church infobox solves the problem by simply adopting the Catholic POV (though, granted, it does label it as such). I suppose we could do that for Oriental Orthodoxy as well. But this leaves us with the second problem: the lack of precise, quantifiable data to fill the infobox. What I mean is, if we tried to replicate the model of the Catholic infobox here, most of it would have to remain blank. Think about it:
Head: disputed (either the Coptic Pope, or none). Administration: no single central administration. Dioceses: unknown. Parishes: unknown. Headquarters: none. Clergy: unknown. Official website: none.
You see the problem... the lack of a single centralized leadership also results in a lack of centralized statistics. Look at the infobox as it stands now. I'm sure you agree that it is clearly inadequate in its present state. I would say it's not worth keeping in the article unless we expand it. But I don't see any way to expand it. Ohff (talk) 05:21, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
I disagree. Even if the infobox would be limited to its current design, I maintain it would be helpful. All what you say can be indicated briefly in an infobox. I'm afraid you're coming from an extensively rigid position on the prevalence of infobox(es), and I'm not sure why. Chicbyaccident (talk) 07:23, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
I just think an infobox is inherently pointless here, since it only repeats information already present in the article's introduction. I believe an infobox is only useful in articles whose main points can be easily summarized as a series of numbers and/or names. I know this is a personal preference, which is why I'm trying not to push too hard for it... The Catholic infobox at least has a lot of numbers, so it's more useful. If we had similar statistics for Oriental Orthodoxy, I could see the usefulness of the infobox here. Ohff (talk) 05:11, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
But I also want to say that if you have an idea for improving or expanding the infobox, please go ahead with it. I'm certainly not going to unilaterally revert you; I haven't edited the article to remove the infobox even though I think it should be removed, because I'm waiting to see what other people think. Ohff (talk) 05:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Jeppiz, you reverted my revert: [1]. But, as you can see, this information is not a "recent IP-addition". In fact, the latest time the claim that the leader is Tawadros II of Alexandria was added by TheTexasNationalist99 23:53, 12 August 2019: [2]. I'm not familiar well with Oriental Christianity, and found no confirmation of this information, but I also didn't see the denials. Maybe we should find out together?--Nicoljaus (talk) 15:30, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Nicoljaus, and thanks for starting (or reviving) this discussion! Happy to work together! I do know a thing or two about Oriental Christianity. Perhaps more importantly than my own knowledge, to avoid any OR, I also have several references works at hand. Despite having read quite a bit about Oriental Christianity, I have never come across the claim that all other churches (Ethiopian, Armenian, Syriac etc.) would give supremacy to the Coptic Pope. The idea even seems absurd, in all honesty. These are different churches, not one church like the Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox. Still, happy to discuss. I'm sure you agree that it's impossible to prove a negative (we would not claim either they see the Dalai Lama as supreme just because no source explicitly denies it), so the default position would be that such a claim is not made unless it can be sourced. Again, unlike Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, we are dealing with different, independent churches here. Jeppiz (talk) 20:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello again, Jeppiz! I not fully agree, the Catholics indeed have one plenipotentiary leader and their Church is completely united. However, Eastern Orthodoxy consists of a large number of independent, autocephalous Churches. However, these Churches are in Communion with each other, and the patriarch of Constantinople from ancient times has the privileges of the Primus inter pares (first among equals, although this status is often disputed). I know that the Churches of Oriental Orthodoxy are also in Communion with each other (like churches of Eastern Orthodoxy). I think that there is nothing strange if one of the patriarchs has a formal primacy, even if not all other Churches agree with this. After all, the Patriarch of Alexandria did retain the title “Pope,” as in Rome. But I have found a source that solves this dispute:

These six Churches, while being in communion with each other are completely independent hierarchecally and have no equivalent of the Bishop of Rome or Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople.[3]

So, I think you are right.--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:35, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

"Great Church"

I came across this in the Chalcedon article and saw it again here. I don't think this term is especially helpful to the average reader and that it also has some NPOV implications: all of the branches of Christianity that practice apostolic succession see themselves as the successors to the period of a united Church. In this article it almost always refers to Chalcedonian Christianity, and I think it is clearer to just say that. Unless there are objections, I will go ahead and do it. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, I don't have any strong preference between the terms "Great Church" and "Chalcedonian Christianity", although I do think the term "Great Church" has one advantage: There was a period of time, roughly from the Council of Chalcedon to the reign of the Emperor Justin (so, from 451 to about 518), when both pro-Chalcedonian and anti-Chalcedonian factions existed within the same, mostly-still-united, "Great Church". So it's a bit improper to speak of the Oriental Orthodox breaking away from "Chalcedonian Christianity", as if the Church that they broke away from was 100% Chalcedonian immediately after 451. Rather, what happened was that, over the course of many decades, the anti-Chalcedonian groups were either expelled from the main Church or left of their own accord; and only after they all left, did the main Church become fully Chalcedonian. So I might have a slight preference for using the term "Great Church" because of this... But only a slight preference. Ohff (talk) 17:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
I made some changes that I think take that into account. Schism with the "adherents of Chalcedonian Christianity" takes into account what you brought up, while making it more clear to the reader what we are talking about in my opinion. Chalcedon Christianity by itself I think is proper to discuss the East-West Schism of 1054 in this article. Did this per WP:BRD so anyone if free to undo. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
I like it. I can support these changes. Ohff (talk) 18:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Infobox Theology

Please stop modifying the theology to "monophysitism." It's made very clear even within the article itself that they do not affirm monophysitism, but miaphysitism. Vypr (talk) 01:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

"oriental"

Is the term "oriental" appropriate, or it would be better as "of the East" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.210.29.64 (talk) 08:49, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 22 August 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Move to Oriental Orthodox Churches. There is no consensus for the proposed form but we have rough consensus that plural "Churches" is preferable to the present name. Cúchullain t/c 15:30, 30 August 2019 (UTC)


Oriental Orthodoxy → Oriental Orthodox Church – The name of this article should be consistent with Eastern Orthodox Church. Also that way it will be clear that all Oriental Orthodox Churches are in full communion with each other. In reliable sources the name "Oriental Orthodox Church" has no less spread than current name "Oriental Orthodoxy". Servansky (talk) 15:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

  • As the links I posted below show, it isn't the common name. Srnec (talk) 21:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The plural upper-case form "Oriental Orthodox Churches" is most common per this and this. This jives with the how and when the terminology originated. Just in case anybody is wondering: the situation with the Eastern Orthodox is not the same. Srnec (talk) 01:00, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
    Even yours graphs show that "Oriental Orthodoxy" is clearly less popular than "Oriental Orthodox Church". Then we can discuss should we use singular or plural form of name, but that is another question. There is also some arguments against plural form, but that can be another discussion, let us not discuss it here. --Servansky (talk) 08:59, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:PRECISE. We should be able to afford this in order to distinguish from independent denominations called of Oriental Orthodox orientation who are not part of the communion. PPEMES (talk) 15:45, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Any denomination that is Oriental Orthodox can be called an Oriental Orthodox church, so that hardly makes sense. Srnec (talk) 21:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Servansky, I hardly think that's the case. Do you have readily verifiable sources? The Addis Ababa conference of 1965 was a major milestone toward the unity of Oriental Orthodox Churches. Please check its resolutions available at www.scooch.org/about/about-addis-ababa/joint-resolutions/. All resolutions start with, "We, the Heads of the Oriental Orthodox Churches"; meaning multiple Churches with its own head. I couldn't find sources on the Oriental Orthodox communion declaring itself as one single Church or even considering to acknowledge and elevate one of its Patriarchs to the apex of its hierarchy. Nonetheless, that is one easily identifiable, indispensable discipline on which the Oriental Orthodox communion has not reached the level of the Eastern Orthodox Church or other similar communions. I'm not splitting hairs here, but let's not overstep the evolution of Oriental Orthodoxy and call it one Church, yet. The present title which is suggestive of a single family of homogeneous churches looks more suitable to me.Macinderum (talk) 14:59, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The Oriental Orthodox communion is indeed not a single "church" as the Eastern Orthodox—or more precisely—Orthodox Catholics, are. They are often referred to as the Oriental Orthodox Churches for the reason mentioned above, therefore "Oriental Orthodox Churches" is perfectly suited instead.TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 04:54, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Remove autodirect for "Anti-Chalcedonian", it should lead to "Non-Chalcedonianism"

Two autodirects leading here, anti-Chalcedonian and Anti-Chalcedonian, are inaccurate. Now that we have the article Non-Chalcedonianism, the two autodirects should be leading there, not here. That article makes it clear enough that "The most substantial non-Chalcedonian tradition is known as Oriental Orthodoxy" (linked here). As things are standing now, we have a theology, anti-Chalcedonianism, automatically linked to a set of denominational institutions, the Oriental Orthodox Churches. Apples and oranges. Two different categories. Whereas anti-Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian are pretty much synonymous, no logical conflict in linking them through an autodirect. Please do the right thing, now users who are looking up a concept, possibly in a 5th-6th-century context, end up on a page dealing mainly with a set of modern Church denominations. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Arminden: done. Veverve (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oriental_Orthodox_Churches/Archive_2&oldid=940632084"