What category would Angels go under??--[[User:MariaCrabtree|Arlie]] 14:39, 9 Aug 2005 (EDT)

: It seems to me that [[:Category:Saints]] would be fine, but we might also make a [[:Category:Angels]] for the articles for the types of angels.

: I'm wondering, though, if the various sorts of angels shouldn't all just be included in this one article, with redirects from the various names of angels pointing here. Is there a substantial amount of material for each sort such that it couldn't be included in [[Angels]]? —[[User:ASDamick|Dcn. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Randompage|random]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] 19:31, 9 Aug 2005 (EDT)

-----

I knew also about the fourth dimension, the fourth element (ancients called it "fire", so it's not the latest in scientific discovery), and the many-many dimensions that string-theory attributes to our Universe, the Dirac matrixes and all that (that's what Discovery Channel's for, after all) ... I just wanted to make a paralel : i.e., just like the image of the family (father, mother, son), or that of the sun (disc, light, heat) are used by the very same apophatical Fathers for the Trinity (without harming the Mistery of the Holy Trinity -- "Eu nu ucid corola de minuni a lumii", to quote my namesake). [P.S. : if anyone doesn't like my comparisson he's got my "blessing" to simply delete it at will]. And there's a fifth element also, namely the state of agregation into which atoms enter when they are at a temperature around 0K (-273.15 centigrade).

=No offence taken=
Oh, I don't have a problem with the metaphor at all. I think it's quite a nice comparison. I just was afraid that it would be taken too literally. Do you think I went overboard on the science stuff? I think I'll tone it down a bit.

P.S. Plasma ''is'' a new discovery, entirely different from fire (though the two could be compared, I suppose). Plasma only exists on the sun or other superheated bodies. Also, I believe that the ancients proposed these elements as components that make up matter, not as different phases of the same substance. Although, really, you're right, the parallels between the four elements and four phases of matter are really pretty amazing. Sorry, I like to be picky and had to object. Don't mind me.[[User:Gabriela|Gabriela]] 21:47, July 27, 2006 (CDT)

:Gabriela, "''be cool'', stay in school" -- You didn't offend or hurt anyone. ("''Just relax'': that's what Jesus would do" -- well, not quite, but still...) And Your comments were pretty pertinent, very good, and well-written. I had nothing to object to them. (If You want to re-arrange, re-edit, re-phrase, re-write anything, it's perfectly OK {as in Okay, not as in -270cg :-) }).
:P.S.: I knew that we, Orthodox, believe in "one single source", but I think that was meant with regard to the Holy Trinity, not to the Author of ''The Celestial Hierarchy'' :-) -- he wasn't "the only source", as You've put it, that gives us this information. (What about St. Gregory, the Bishop of Rome?) [[User:Luci83ro|Luci83ro]] 09:32, July 28, 2006 (CDT)

Sup people
Plasma ''is'' a new discovery David Bohm and he said that Plasma is every place and to top it off he said the plasma on this side of the world knows what the plasma on the other side is doing. Quantum theory and Bohm-diffusion well look here the limit is called Sub-Quantum-Physics they see it but can't touch it. Look at it this way Act 7:49 Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest?

How big is the house that holds Heaven the THRONE with Earth as a footstool

::Hmm... Not sure what to say about all of this, especially because there seems to be some piece of discussion missing. Maybe these thoughts need to be more clearly expressed, but personal theories about the meaning of angels don't really have a place here. We're talking about angels in Orthodox theology. — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk])

:::It seems to me like this user is just saying nonsense for the hell of it, as a strange prank of sorts. On one hand, it seems harmless enough because he's not really defacing the wiki, but it's also rather pointless and annoying. Maybe he should be warned. [[User:Gabriela|Gabriela]] 22:35, October 1, 2006 (CDT)

Am I the user who's saying nonsense for the hell of it? If so, then please forgive me; but I REALLY meant it when I said that ANYONE who doesn't like my additions and/or alterations can feel free to change them, or simply delete them, as he/she pleases. I have really nothing against it. :( [[User:Luci83ro|Luci83ro]] 20:58, October 6, 2006 (CDT)

::::No, Luci83ro, I didn't mean you at all. I think you've very much contributed to the article. I was talking about the user MIG who posted the above comment on this page: "...he said the plasma on this side of the world knows what the plasma on the other side is doing. Quantum theory and Bohm-diffusion well look here the limit is called Sub-Quantum-Physics they see it but can't touch it...". Anyway, I was just saying that I thought ''that'' comment was completely incoherent nonsense. Not you at all. [[User:Gabriela|Gabriela]] 22:48, October 6, 2006 (CDT)

::::Ok. Now, ''that'''s relieving. (Phew!) [[User:Luci83ro|Luci83ro]] 06:35, October 7, 2006 (CDT)

Talk:Angels

2006-10-07T01:58:25Z

Luci83ro: /* No offence taken */

Orthodox Church of France

2006-10-07T01:08:15Z

Luci83ro: /* History */

{{westernrite}}
The '''Orthodox Church of France''' (''l'Eglise Orthodoxe de France'', formerly ''l'Eglise Orthodoxe Catholique de France'', a.k.a. ''l'ECOF'') is an autonomous diocese of [[Western Rite]] parishes in France formed in 1936 by the [[Church of Russia]].

==History==
In 1937, the [[Church of Russia]] received a small group under the former Liberal Catholic bishop, Louis-Charles (Irénée) Winnaert (1880-1937), dubbing them ''l'Eglise Orthodoxe Occidentale'' ("Western Orthodox Church"). Upon his repose, the leadership of the Church was turned over to [[Jean-Nectaire (Kovalevsky) of Saint-Denis|Evgraph Kovalevsky]] (1905-1970). Also in the French Church were [[Denis (Chambault)|Lucien Chambault]], who oversaw a small Orthodox Benedictine community in the rue d'Alleray in Paris (as Pére Denis), and the former Benedictine monk, Archimandrite [[Alexis van der Mensbrugghe]] (1899-1980), who favorably viewed the restoration of the ancient Roman rite cleansed of medieval accretions and supplemented by Gallican and Byzantine interpolations. In 1948, he published his ''Liturgie Orthodoxe de Rite Occidental'' and in 1962 the ''Missel Orthodoxe Rite Occidental''.

Fr Evgraph worked for several years on restoring the ancient rite of the Gauls, which came to be known as the [[Divine Liturgy according to St Germanus of Paris]]. After the French church broke with Moscow to preserve the Western character of its liturgy, Archimandrite Alexis remained with the [[Church of Russia]] and was consecrated to the episcopacy in 1960, continuing his Western Rite work under the auspices of the Moscow Patriarchate.

[[Image:Kovalevsky-Maximovitch.jpg|left|thumb|250px|Bp. [[Jean-Nectaire (Kovalevsky) of Saint-Denis]] and St. [[John Maximovitch]] in 1964]]After some years of isolation, Kovalevsky's group came under the [[Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia]] between 1959 and 1966, and Kovalevsky himself was consecrated with the title of Bishop [[Jean-Nectaire (Kovalevsky) of Saint-Denis|Jean-Nectaire de Saint-Denis]] in 1964. During this time, the Eglise Orthodoxe de France received considerable encouragement from St. [[John Maximovitch]] (who was ROCOR's representative in Western Europe at the time), and his death in 1966 was a serious blow to these French Orthodox Christians, who had enjoyed an influential and holy advocate in St. John.

Meanwhile, the Moscow Patriarchate's Western rite withered and came to an end, but Bishop Jean's church continued to thrive, though after St. John's death in 1966, they were again isolated from the other churches. Bishop Jean died in 1970, and then in 1972 the [[Church of Romania]] took the Eglise Orthodoxe de France under its [[omophorion]]. Gilles Bertrand-Hardy was consecrated as Bishop [[Germain (Bertrand-Hardy) of Saint-Denis|Germain de Saint-Denis]], and the restored Gallican rite became the regular liturgy used in the many small French Orthodox [[parish]]es established throughout France. In 1993, after a lengthy conflict with the Romanian holy synod regarding alleged canonical irregularities, the church again found itself in isolation from the other Orthodox churches by the withdrawal of Romania's protection for the church. The Romanian patriarchate established a [[deanery]] under Bishop Germain's brother Archpriest Gregoire to minister to those parishes formed by the priests and laity that chose to stay with Romania.

Some years later, other priests and parishes led by Archpriest Jean-Pierre Pahud left the French Church and formed the ''Union des Associations Cultuelles Orthodoxes de Rite Occidental'' (UACORO) (the Union of Western Rite Orthodox Worship Associations) and began negotiations with the [[Church of Serbia]] to be taken under its omophorion. Talks officially began in September of 2004.[http://www.orthodoxresurgence.co.uk/Petroc/Michael04.htm] The intended outcome of these negotiations is that the UACORO be accepted as part of the Church of Serbia's Diocese of France and Western Europe.[http://www.spc.yu/Vesti-2004/12/14-12-04-e.html]

==External links==
*[http://orthodoxie.free.fr/ l'Eglise Orthodoxe de France] (French)
*[http://www.spc.org.yu/Vesti-2005/03/10-3-05-e.html Pre-Paschal letter of Bishop Atanasije (Jevtic) to the UACORO], March 8, 2005

[[Category:Jurisdictions]]
[[Category:Western Rite]]

OrthodoxWiki:Trapeza/Archive 1

2006-09-06T17:32:24Z

Luci83ro: /* Coptic Christians celebrate the New Year on Sept. 11. */

'''This is an archive of past discussions. Please use the main Trapeza page to resurrect any of these topics.'''
----

'''Anything Goes:''' The name says it all.

== Frappr! map ==

Add your [[parish]] to the Frappr! map. No individuals please, only parishes.

*Go to the [http://www.frappr.com/orthodoxchurch group page]
*Click on [http://www.frappr.com/orthodoxchurch#addyourself Add Yourself]
*Under Name, type your parish name and jurisdiction, e.g. St. John The Baptist Church (GOARCH)
*Under Zipcode, type your parish zipcode (where the parish is located)
*Uncheck the "Create a Free Frappr Account for me." You don't need this.

==Seeking Eastern Orthodox unity in America==
Nice article:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/arbible/message/25758

== Coptic Christians celebrate the New Year on Sept. 11. ==
07:16 PM CDT on Friday, September 9, 2005

* http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/copticchristians.htm

Many mark the day by attending church services in the morning and enjoying special foods. Mark the day yourself by visiting this site to learn more about this ancient branch of Christianity.

"Coptic" refers to the Egyptian Christian church.

Christians represent 13 to 15 percent of Egypt's population; Copts also worship at hundreds of Coptic churches throughout the world.

This site's historic overview tells how the Coptic church traces its existence to the Holy Family's visit to Egypt, as recounted in the book of Matthew. St. Mark founded the church during the first century, preaching until his martyrdom in Alexandria around the time that Nero ruled Rome.

A few interesting tidbits: The Coptic church is credited with creating the first Christian monasteries, an Egyptian tradition with pre-Christian origins. The Coptic Orthodox Church's clergy is headed by Pope Shenouda III, the Pope of Alexandria.

Typical Sunday worship for Coptic churches starts at 6 or 6:30 a.m. and lasts from four to six hours. And you thought Baptist preachers were long-winded.

Mary A. Jacobs (Dallas Morning News News for Dallas, Texas Religion)

:Yes, because what to us is September 11, to them is the 29th of August, the Beheading of St. John the Baptist, which is the equivalent of our September 1st -- both dates being taken from the Early Jewish-Christian Church, Jews celebrating their New-Year on the 1st day of their seventh month (Tishri), the equivalent of which is, offcourse, September (=the Seventh). [[User:Luci83ro|Luci83ro]] 12:32, September 6, 2006 (CDT)

==You know this is a good idea when...==

...you revisit work you did on OrthodoxWiki to help you with your seminary homework.

[[User:ASDamick|Rdr. Andrew]]

...you put up a page on Orthodoxwiki so you can link to it when you're posting to your blog. [[User:Magda|{{User:Magda/sig}}]] 17:40, 30 Jul 2005 (EDT)

==Custom signatures for discussion pages==
Moved to [[Help:Custom signatures]]

[[Category:OrthodoxWiki]]

Archangel

2006-08-15T23:44:40Z

Luci83ro:

The '''Archangels''' are called the great heralds of good news, announcing the great and most glorious. Their service (as St. [[Dionysius the Areopagite]] says) consists in revealing prophecies, knowledge, and understanding of God's will which they receive from the higher orders of [[angels]] and announce to the lower order, i.e., the [[angels]], and through them, to men. St. [[Gregory the Dialogist]] says that the archangels strengthen people in the holy faith, enlightening their minds with the light of knowledge of the holy [[Gospel]] and revealing the mysteries of devout faith.

As it is shown in the Book of the Holy [[Prophet Ezekiel]] throughout (compare with the [[Book of Revelation]]), the first four archangels ([[Archangel Michael|Michael]], [[Archangel Gabriel|Gabriel]], [[Archangel Raphael|Raphel]], [[Archangel Uriel|Uriel]]) are the ones that stand in the four corners of The Great Throne of God (the ''Ma'aseh Merkabah''). Together with them stand the four six-winged Living Creatures (''Ayyot''), the four many-eyed [[Cherubim]]—having four arms, four wings and four faces each—and the four many-eyed Wheels (''Ophannim'') or Storm-Winds (''Galgallim''), which Christians, (according to the example of the Great [[Apostle Paul]] and that of his illustrious [[disciple]], St. Dionysius the Areopagite) call [[Thrones]]. These four archangels are the ones that protected the four camps of the people of [[Israel]] in the wilderness: to the North, to the South, to the East and to the West. They are the angels of the four winds, according to the [[Scripture]] that says: "You, Who make Your angels spirits (winds), and Your servants pears of flaming fire".

The ancient Rabbis allways connected the seven archangels with the seven then-so-called planets: the Sun, the Moon, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus, and Saturn, and the [[Church Fathers]] have allways thaught and taught that God rules this Universe through his Celestial Armies. There are three (irreducible) lists of these seven archangels: one from the [[Book of Enoch]], (which is accepted as [[canonical]] by the [[Church of Ethiopia|Ethiopian Orthodox Church]], which is representative of the [[Oriental Orthodox]] churches, which are all of semitic origins: Armenian, Coptic, Ethiopian, Syrian); the second from the [[tradition]] of the Chalcedonian [[Orthodox Church]], (which, interestingly enough, coincides with that of the [[Gnosticism|Gnostics]]—who were an ancient [[Christian]] sect); and a third from such great Church Fathers as St. Dionysius the Areopagite and St. Gregory the Dialogist.
All of these three different lists, however, agree on the names of the first four archangels: Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, Uriel. The remaining three are given as follows:

#From the [[Book of Enoch]] (Jewish, as well as Oriental Orthodox tradition): Raguel; Sarakiel or Saraqael; (Je)Re(h)miel or (Je)Ra(h)miel;
#From the Eastern Orthodox tradition: Barachiel; Salathiel; (Je)Gudiel or (Je)hudiel;
#From the Western tradition: (H)anael or (H)aniel; Jophiel or Cassiel; Zedekiel or Sachiel.

The explanation and translation of all of these names can be seen below, but the Oriental and Eastern traditions have one more archangel in common, namely the sixth, called Selaphiel. Likewise, it's worth noting that the last three archangels of the Eastern tradition represent the three forms, or types, of prayer: blessing, supplication and praise. Also, Zadkiel is one of two standard bearers (along with Zophiel) who follow directly behind the Archangel Michael as the head archangel enters battle.

== [[Archangel Michael|Michael]] ==
"Who is like unto God?" Dan. 10:13; 12:1; Jude v. 9; Rev. 12:7-8.

== [[Archangel Gabriel|Gabriel]] ==
"The Powerful or Strong Man of God", "The Power or Strength of God" Dan. 8:16; 9:21; Luke 1:19-26. Also called Djibril or Jibril.

== [[Archangel Raphael|Raphael]] ==
"The Healing of God" Tobit 3:17; 12:15. Also called Israfel. He is the one that, according to the [[Book of Revelation]], will blow the trumpet on Judgement Day.

== [[Archangel Uriel|Uriel]] ==
"The Light or Fire of God" A.V. II Esdras 4:1. Also called Sariel, Suriel, or Muriel.

== [[Archangel Selaphiel|Selaphiel]] ==
"The Command, Communicant or Prayer of God", since command and prayer represent the two forms, or types, of communication: the first one being descendant and the second ascendant. Also called Salathiel, Selathiel, Seraphiel, Sarakiel, Saraqael, Zarachiel, Zerachiel, or Zachariel.

== [[Archangel Jehudiel|Jehudiel]] ==
"The Glory, Laudation or Praise of God". Also called Jegudiel or Gudiel.

== [[Archangel Barachiel|Barachiel]] ==
"The Benediction or Blessings of God". Also called Varachiel.

== [[Archangel Raguel|Raguel]] ==
"The Friend of God". Also called Raziel[http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/] (which means "The Secrets of God"—quite possible, if one takes into consideration Jesus' words at the [[Last Supper]]: "For I shall no longer call you servants, but friends, because the servant doesn't know His Master's will"). Likewise, we are not to confound him (Raziel) with Raphael, which is in perfect agreement with the fact that neither is Raguel to be confounded with Raphael.

== [[Archangel Jeremiel|Jeremiel]] ==
"The Compassion, Exaltation or Mercy of God" R.V. II Esdras 4:36. Also called Jeramiel, Jerahmiel, Jerehmiel, Ramiel, or Remiel.

== [[Archangel Anael|Anael]] ==
"The Grace or Joy of God". Also called Aniel, Hanael, or Haniel.

== [[Archnagel Jophiel|Jophiel]] ==
"The Beauty of God". Also called Orifiel, Jouphiel, Zouphiel, Zophiel, Zophkiel, Zaphiel, Zaphkiel, Kaphziel, Cassiel, or Kepharel.

== [[Archnagel Zadkiel|Zadkiel]] ==
"The Justice, Righteousness or Uprightness of God". Also called Sachiel, Tzadkiel, Zadakiel, Zedekiel, or Zedekul.

== [[Satan|Lucifer/Satan]] ==
"The Light-Bearer" or "The Morning-Star" Isaiah 14:12; "The Enemy" Jude 1:9, Revelation 12:9.
Other names for this ''fallen'' archangel (or his companions) are: Azael, Azazel, Azrael, Izrael, Izreel, or Uzziel; Camael, Camiel, Camniel, Cancel, Chamuel, Kemuel, Samael, Shemuel, Simiel, or Zamael; Samiaza; Satanael.

==See also==
*[[Angels]]

==Sources==
*[http://www.sfaturiortodoxe.ro/orthodox/orthodox_advices_angels.htm The Holy Angels]
*[http://www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia, the free Encyclopedia]
*[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen Catholic Encyclopedia]
*[http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com Jewish Encyclopedia]

{{Angels}}

[[Category:Saints]]
[[Category:Biblical Saints]]

Talk:Filioque

2006-07-29T16:02:59Z

Luci83ro: /* Which filioque? */

I originally imported this from Wikipedia, but it seems to me that this article needs a major reworking, if not replacement. Its rhetoric is pretty convoluted and unclear. --[[User:ASDamick|Rdr. Andrew]] 19:50, 1 Feb 2005 (CST)

Update: It has, indeed, been significantly reworked! —[[User:ASDamick|{{User:ASDamick/sig}}]] 12:39, 4 Jul 2005 (EDT)

==No Basilique==
The article said:

Charlemagne called for a council at Aix-la-Chapelle in 809 at which Pope Leo III forbade the use of the filioque clause and ordered that the original version of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed be engraved on silver tablets displayed at St. Peter's Basilica in Rome so that his conclusion would not be overturned in the future.

But in at that time there was no "St. Peter's Basilica".

==Misspelling?==
Do you think it's really necessary to include a misspelled version? It seems that could set a somewhat awkward precedent. I don't see that sort of thing in any encyclopedia with which I'm familiar. —[[User:ASDamick|{{User:ASDamick/sig}}]] 12:39, 4 Jul 2005 (EDT)

: Rdr. Andrew, Please feel free to change anything I do. Let me say...I don't know you in the flesh, but have come to appreciate you and your leadership. Maybe the way to approach this is to insert it somewhere in the text or redirect a filoque page to filioque. I just know that this is a very common misspelling (I've done it!). Whatever the community sees fit to do. Maybe we should start something in the style manual about how to address misspellings. --[[User:Joe Rodgers|{{User:Joe Rodgers/sig}}]] 13:05, 4 Jul 2005 (EDT)

::I don't think we should put in redirects for misspellings - I don't think it makes the site that much more usable, and such redirects could too easily multiply. Besides, why not just let people learn to spell the words in question correctly? [[User:FrJohn|Fr. John]]

:::Yes, I thought that the redirect issue could get out of hand. This is why I thought to include the misspelling on the page. --[[User:Joe Rodgers|{{User:Joe Rodgers/sig}}]] 14:11, 4 Jul 2005 (EDT)

:Perhaps the ''Misspellings'' section could be removed, and the sentence "''Filioque'' may be misspelled as ''filoque''." added to the very end of the first paragraph? Especially in an article of this magnitude, giving a such a brief section to misspellings seems out of balance. —[[User:Magda|magda]] 19:31, 5 Jul 2005 (EDT)

: Ah yes, here is where the discussion was. Filoque is a common misspelling. I guess I thought we could be indexed by search engines and it would point them in the right direction. I still don't know how important this is, but I care. Joe 16:19 26 Nov 2005

::Hmm... the search engine thing is an interesting consideration. Maybe we could put in misspellings in comments, so they don't show for people, but they could for search engines. E.g. at the bottom of the page, near the Categories, we could put <nowiki></nowiki> and so on? What do other folks think about that idea?

[[wikipedia:Wikipedia_talk:Merging_and_moving_pages#Redirecting_from_a_misspelling|This comment]] provides more to think about as well. I like the idea of commenting in misspellings rather than giving them a more prominent place. Any other ideas? I, for one, need to look up "Irene" to find [[Irene Chrysovalantou]], as I can never remember how the monastery's name is spelled. {{User:Magda/sig}} 15:39, November 26, 2005 (CST)

==Conciliar condemnation==
"''There has never been a specific '''conciliar''' statement in the Orthodox Church which defined the filioque as heresy''" ... except that of The [[Eighth Ecumenical Council]], offcourse ... [[User:Luci83ro|Luci83ro]] 09:47, July 28, 2006 (CDT)

: That synod did not define the ''filioque'' as heresy but rather forbid alteration to the Creed. In effect, this precludes the ''filioque'', but it does not define it specifically as heresy, which would instead have involved a standard formula such as "To any who teach that the Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father, anathema." —[[User:ASDamick|Dcn. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Randompage|random]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] 10:24, July 28, 2006 (CDT)

== Which filioque? ==

There are at least two separate issues concerning the filioque. The first is its unlawful addition the the Symbol. On this I don't believe there is any good argument to be made for its inclusion. We might term this issue the "canonical" one.

The second issue is the "dogmatic" one. Is the teaaching of the filioque orthodox or heterodox? That depends upon which understanding of the fiolioque one has in mind. A distinction must be made between the heterodox filioque (the teaching that the Spirit is dependent upon the Son as well as the Father for his origin) and the orthodox filioque (the perfectly Orthodox idea that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through (''dia'') the Son. The latter was taught by St Maximos Confessor and is Orthodox. The former is definitely heterodox. I would shy away from terming it "heretical" in that no council has defined it as such. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 10:44, July 28, 2006 (CDT)
:Please excuse me for asking You this rather silly question, but ... I'm a ''little'' bit confused here: What, ''then'', is "heterodox, (yet not heretical)"? (Do You mean by this an opinion? -- if so, then St. Maximos the Confessor is ''heterodox'', because, in the Church, to say that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father through the Son is only a theologumenon ... or not). [[User:Luci83ro|Luci83ro]] 12:10, July 28, 2006 (CDT)

:: I think the distinction that Fr. Lev is making is that something which is [[heterodoxy|heterodox]] is definitely against the Orthodox faith, whereas something which is [[heresy|heretical]] has been subject to an explicit synodal condemnation of anathema.

:: A [[theologoumenon]] is a theological opinion which is not contrary to the Orthodox faith but has not been dogmatized by the Church. —[[User:ASDamick|Dcn. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Randompage|random]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] 13:22, July 28, 2006 (CDT)

:::Okay. That was very enlightening, I have to admit. And thank You very much for Your prompt response, Father. But I still can't help myself at asking yet another ''Silly question #2a'': how is something "against, or contrary to, the Orthodox faith", yet "''not'' condemned" by the very same Orthodoxy that it contradicts? And yet another ''Silly question #2b'': how does Orthodoxy not contradict something that contradicts Orthodoxy? [[User:Luci83ro|Luci83ro]] 13:50, July 28, 2006 (CDT)

::::Conciliar condemnations are not issued simply because a heterodox teaching arises. There needs to be a sort of "critical mass" of controversy in order for a synod to meet and issue an anathema. If, for instance, a local parishioner had a few bizarre ideas about the Church, they may never affect anyone but for a few of his fellow parishioners. If, however, a bishop began teaching something heterodox and instructed all his priests to do the same, gaining support from outside his diocese, as well, that would be a clear case for a synodal condemnation (assuming, of course, that the heterodoxy isn't something already covered by previous anathema).

::::In short, anathemas really are for pastoral necessity in the Church body, not to keep every person doctrinally pure in every expressed opinion. —[[User:ASDamick|Dcn. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Randompage|random]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] 20:54, July 28, 2006 (CDT)

I think the distinction is rather straightforward. A heresy is a teaching that the Orthodox Church has formally condemned as theological error. Presumably there are many, many heterodox claims that have been made that the Church has never formally condemned. Part of what I was saying before is that the notion of "filioque" is patient of an Orthodox interpretation, as when St Maximos Confessor speaks of the Spirit proceeding "through" the Son. One need not take it in the heterodox sense of taking the Son to be a second, eteranl cause of the Spirit. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 20:22, July 28, 2006 (CDT)

:"''Conciliar condemnations are not issued simply because a heterodox teaching arises. There needs to be a sort of '''"critical mass" of controversy''' in order for a synod to meet and issue an anathema''" ... So, in other words, all the (over) 1,000,000,000 Catholics in the world (all of which are professing the ''heterodox'' Filioque) do ''not'' constitute a <<"critical mass" of controversy>>.
:"''the notion of "filioque" is patient of an Orthodox interpretation, as when St Maximos Confessor speaks of the Spirit proceeding "through" the Son. One need not take it in the heterodox sense of taking the Son to be a second, eternal cause of the Spirit''" -- no, one doesn't need to, ... but, unfortunately, <<one>> does ... <<one>> being the Catholic Church, consisting out of over a '''b'''ilion believers.
:(Isn't it a little bit curious that this has been told to them by St. Mark of Ephesus some over 500 years ago, ... yet still they insisted, and ''insisted'', and '''insisted''' that this DOES mean the ETERNAL procession ... and they very much '''still''' do, now, after half a millenium, ... and don't, in their '''wildest''' dreams, think of making our <<through>> to corrupt their <<and>> -- but, instead, they want it to work the other way around, in spite of a millenium of dialogue??) [[User:Luci83ro|Luci83ro]] 09:36, July 29, 2006 (CDT)

Two points. First, it simply isn't true that all Roman Catholics believe in the heterodox reading of the filioque. In addition to ones I've spoken who reject such a reading, one need only read the Vatican declaration on the filiqoue to see that there are at least some Roman Catholics (at the official level, no less) that reject the idea that the Son is an eternal cause of the Spirit. While the document isn't as clear as it could be (see the commentary by Metropolitan John [Zizioulas] of Pergamon that is readily available on the web), it ''is'' clear that the spirit of the document isn't heretical or heterodox. It represents an attempt to come to terms with what similarities and differences there are between the language of the Symbol of Constantinople and pre-Schism Western theology. Second, the language of the Spirit's procession from the Father through the Son isn't unique to St Maximos Confessor -- we find it in St Basil, the first great theologian of the Holy Spirit, and in St John Damascene, who sought to summarize the teaching of the Church. In other, one finds this Orthodox reading of filioque in the heart of our tradition. A final, personal note: I vigorously reject the heterodox filioque, and I vigorously believe that the word must be removed from the Western translations of the Symbol if there is to be reconciliation between East and West. Further dialogue is needed to bring the theology of the Spirt to greater clarity in the teaching of our Churches. But for our part, we must resist the temptation to simply dismiss our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters as "heretics."--[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 10:25, July 29, 2006 (CDT)

:I've read the thing You were talking about, Father (long time ago), and ... let's just say that I wasn't "impressed" by it. It was simply a re-affirmation of the same old thing (a SICK interpretation of the "through" -- the same for over 1,000 years, "nothing new under the Sun", as the wise man said; TWISTED missinterpretations of Bible-passages having '''nothing''' to do with the subject under discussion -- "because 'one' got high"; and, at the end, the "cherry on the cake" : "offcourse, we should not drop out any ''eternal'' relationship between the Son and the Holy Ghost" -- and, somehow, I'm under the impression that simple consubstantiality between the 3 Persons wasn't quite what they meant by it ...) [[User:Luci83ro|Luci83ro]] 11:02, July 29, 2006 (CDT)

Talk:Filioque

2006-07-29T14:36:32Z

Luci83ro: /* Which filioque? */

I originally imported this from Wikipedia, but it seems to me that this article needs a major reworking, if not replacement. Its rhetoric is pretty convoluted and unclear. --[[User:ASDamick|Rdr. Andrew]] 19:50, 1 Feb 2005 (CST)

Update: It has, indeed, been significantly reworked! —[[User:ASDamick|{{User:ASDamick/sig}}]] 12:39, 4 Jul 2005 (EDT)

==No Basilique==
The article said:

Charlemagne called for a council at Aix-la-Chapelle in 809 at which Pope Leo III forbade the use of the filioque clause and ordered that the original version of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed be engraved on silver tablets displayed at St. Peter's Basilica in Rome so that his conclusion would not be overturned in the future.

But in at that time there was no "St. Peter's Basilica".

==Misspelling?==
Do you think it's really necessary to include a misspelled version? It seems that could set a somewhat awkward precedent. I don't see that sort of thing in any encyclopedia with which I'm familiar. —[[User:ASDamick|{{User:ASDamick/sig}}]] 12:39, 4 Jul 2005 (EDT)

: Rdr. Andrew, Please feel free to change anything I do. Let me say...I don't know you in the flesh, but have come to appreciate you and your leadership. Maybe the way to approach this is to insert it somewhere in the text or redirect a filoque page to filioque. I just know that this is a very common misspelling (I've done it!). Whatever the community sees fit to do. Maybe we should start something in the style manual about how to address misspellings. --[[User:Joe Rodgers|{{User:Joe Rodgers/sig}}]] 13:05, 4 Jul 2005 (EDT)

::I don't think we should put in redirects for misspellings - I don't think it makes the site that much more usable, and such redirects could too easily multiply. Besides, why not just let people learn to spell the words in question correctly? [[User:FrJohn|Fr. John]]

:::Yes, I thought that the redirect issue could get out of hand. This is why I thought to include the misspelling on the page. --[[User:Joe Rodgers|{{User:Joe Rodgers/sig}}]] 14:11, 4 Jul 2005 (EDT)

:Perhaps the ''Misspellings'' section could be removed, and the sentence "''Filioque'' may be misspelled as ''filoque''." added to the very end of the first paragraph? Especially in an article of this magnitude, giving a such a brief section to misspellings seems out of balance. —[[User:Magda|magda]] 19:31, 5 Jul 2005 (EDT)

: Ah yes, here is where the discussion was. Filoque is a common misspelling. I guess I thought we could be indexed by search engines and it would point them in the right direction. I still don't know how important this is, but I care. Joe 16:19 26 Nov 2005

::Hmm... the search engine thing is an interesting consideration. Maybe we could put in misspellings in comments, so they don't show for people, but they could for search engines. E.g. at the bottom of the page, near the Categories, we could put <nowiki></nowiki> and so on? What do other folks think about that idea?

[[wikipedia:Wikipedia_talk:Merging_and_moving_pages#Redirecting_from_a_misspelling|This comment]] provides more to think about as well. I like the idea of commenting in misspellings rather than giving them a more prominent place. Any other ideas? I, for one, need to look up "Irene" to find [[Irene Chrysovalantou]], as I can never remember how the monastery's name is spelled. {{User:Magda/sig}} 15:39, November 26, 2005 (CST)

==Conciliar condemnation==
"''There has never been a specific '''conciliar''' statement in the Orthodox Church which defined the filioque as heresy''" ... except that of The [[Eighth Ecumenical Council]], offcourse ... [[User:Luci83ro|Luci83ro]] 09:47, July 28, 2006 (CDT)

: That synod did not define the ''filioque'' as heresy but rather forbid alteration to the Creed. In effect, this precludes the ''filioque'', but it does not define it specifically as heresy, which would instead have involved a standard formula such as "To any who teach that the Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father, anathema." —[[User:ASDamick|Dcn. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Randompage|random]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] 10:24, July 28, 2006 (CDT)

== Which filioque? ==

There are at least two separate issues concerning the filioque. The first is its unlawful addition the the Symbol. On this I don't believe there is any good argument to be made for its inclusion. We might term this issue the "canonical" one.

The second issue is the "dogmatic" one. Is the teaaching of the filioque orthodox or heterodox? That depends upon which understanding of the fiolioque one has in mind. A distinction must be made between the heterodox filioque (the teaching that the Spirit is dependent upon the Son as well as the Father for his origin) and the orthodox filioque (the perfectly Orthodox idea that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through (''dia'') the Son. The latter was taught by St Maximos Confessor and is Orthodox. The former is definitely heterodox. I would shy away from terming it "heretical" in that no council has defined it as such. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 10:44, July 28, 2006 (CDT)
:Please excuse me for asking You this rather silly question, but ... I'm a ''little'' bit confused here: What, ''then'', is "heterodox, (yet not heretical)"? (Do You mean by this an opinion? -- if so, then St. Maximos the Confessor is ''heterodox'', because, in the Church, to say that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father through the Son is only a theologumenon ... or not). [[User:Luci83ro|Luci83ro]] 12:10, July 28, 2006 (CDT)

:: I think the distinction that Fr. Lev is making is that something which is [[heterodoxy|heterodox]] is definitely against the Orthodox faith, whereas something which is [[heresy|heretical]] has been subject to an explicit synodal condemnation of anathema.

:: A [[theologoumenon]] is a theological opinion which is not contrary to the Orthodox faith but has not been dogmatized by the Church. —[[User:ASDamick|Dcn. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Randompage|random]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] 13:22, July 28, 2006 (CDT)

:::Okay. That was very enlightening, I have to admit. And thank You very much for Your prompt response, Father. But I still can't help myself at asking yet another ''Silly question #2a'': how is something "against, or contrary to, the Orthodox faith", yet "''not'' condemned" by the very same Orthodoxy that it contradicts? And yet another ''Silly question #2b'': how does Orthodoxy not contradict something that contradicts Orthodoxy? [[User:Luci83ro|Luci83ro]] 13:50, July 28, 2006 (CDT)

::::Conciliar condemnations are not issued simply because a heterodox teaching arises. There needs to be a sort of "critical mass" of controversy in order for a synod to meet and issue an anathema. If, for instance, a local parishioner had a few bizarre ideas about the Church, they may never affect anyone but for a few of his fellow parishioners. If, however, a bishop began teaching something heterodox and instructed all his priests to do the same, gaining support from outside his diocese, as well, that would be a clear case for a synodal condemnation (assuming, of course, that the heterodoxy isn't something already covered by previous anathema).

::::In short, anathemas really are for pastoral necessity in the Church body, not to keep every person doctrinally pure in every expressed opinion. —[[User:ASDamick|Dcn. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Randompage|random]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] 20:54, July 28, 2006 (CDT)

I think the distinction is rather straightforward. A heresy is a teaching that the Orthodox Church has formally condemned as theological error. Presumably there are many, many heterodox claims that have been made that the Church has never formally condemned. Part of what I was saying before is that the notion of "filioque" is patient of an Orthodox interpretation, as when St Maximos Confessor speaks of the Spirit proceeding "through" the Son. One need not take it in the heterodox sense of taking the Son to be a second, eteranl cause of the Spirit. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 20:22, July 28, 2006 (CDT)

:"''Conciliar condemnations are not issued simply because a heterodox teaching arises. There needs to be a sort of '''"critical mass" of controversy''' in order for a synod to meet and issue an anathema''" ... So, in other words, all the (over) 1,000,000,000 Catholics in the world (all of which are professing the ''heterodox'' Filioque) do ''not'' contitute a <<"critical mass" of controversy>>.
:"''the notion of "filioque" is patient of an Orthodox interpretation, as when St Maximos Confessor speaks of the Spirit proceeding "through" the Son. One need not take it in the heterodox sense of taking the Son to be a second, eternal cause of the Spirit''" -- no, one doesn't need to, ... but, unfortunately, <<one>> does ... <<one>> being the Catholic Church, consisting out of over a '''b'''ilion believers.
:(Isn't it a little bit curious that this has been told to them by St. Mark of Ephesus some over 500 years ago, ... yet still they insisted, and ''insisted'', and '''insisted''' that this DOES mean the ETERNAL procession ... and they very much '''still''' do, now, after half a millenium, ... and don't, in their '''wildest''' dreams, think of making our <<through>> to corrupt their <<and>> -- but, instead, they want it to work the other way around, in spite of a millenium of dialogue??) [[User:Luci83ro|Luci83ro]] 09:36, July 29, 2006 (CDT)

Talk:Eusebius of Caesarea

2006-07-28T21:53:25Z

Talk:Anti-Orthodox

2006-07-27T23:13:23Z

Luci83ro: /* Roman Catholic Critiques of the Councils */

I think it's worth leaving in the fact that Clendenin knows what he's talking about more than most of the other writers linked here. -FrJohn

: Agreed. I'm gonna "scholarize" the lingo a bit, then. --[[User:ASDamick|Rdr. Andrew]]

:: Great! [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]]

Can anyone find a page in which to insert a link to ''this'' article? At the moment it exists in isolation... --[[User:Matrona|Matrona]] 11:19, 14 Oct 2005 (EDT)

== Non-Chalcedonian Polemics ==
I am concerned seeing the Coptic Orthodox Church listed as Anti-Orthodox under this category.

:I am removing this section/sub-heading, as there are no links or other information. Any links or other information which may come up might better be structured under [[Oriental Orthodox]], or another page relating to the differences between Chalcedonian and Non-Chalcedonian congregations (for instance, [[Christology]] or [[Council of Chalcedon]]). Arbible, it might be a good idea to think of this inclusion as an honest mistake, i.e., give the benefit of a doubt, rather than a signal of "fighting." [[User:Magda|{{User:Magda/sig}}]] 11:40, 21 Oct 2005 (EDT)

:: Thank you v much - God Bless+++

:I most certainly did NOT list the Coptic religion as "anti-Orthodox". I merely provided a category where information on and links to non-Chalcedonian polemics could be added. I would appreciate it if the category was added back. --[[User:Matrona|Matrona]] 13:30, 21 Oct 2005 (EDT)

I think we can both pray for persecuted Christians around the world '''and''' focus on Christology. There clearly is much to discuss, and no '''official''' proclamations regarding the Christological questions between the Chalcedonians and Non-Chalcedonians have yet been promulgated. So it's not a dead question by any means.

In any event, while I do think that putting Non-Chalcedonian polemics against Chalcedonians into this article is probably not the best thing to do (if only because it's a large enough issue to warrant separate treatment), it is worthy of mention that [[OrthodoxWiki:Style Manual#Neutrality and the OrthodoxWiki Bias|according to official policy]], ''Orthodox'' is defined on OrthodoxWiki as a term biased in favor of Mainstream Chalcedonian Orthodoxy. While Non-Chalcedonian material is welcome here, it is as "guests" that such material is welcome and not as "standard." —[[User:ASDamick|{{User:ASDamick/sig}}]] 18:25, 21 Oct 2005 (EDT)

::Thank you. I respect your policy. God Bless+

:::Thanks for understanding. --[[User:Matrona|Matrona]] 21:09, 21 Oct 2005 (EDT)

Just a note to say that I've removed the empty headings here. I think, as regards the non-chalcedonians, that the Christological issues are dealt with adequately elsewhere. This page was envisioned (by me at least) as dealing more with newer/modern polemics. Let me add that I am very happy to have so much Coptic/Non-Chalcedonian material on OrthodoxWiki. I think our hearts are very close. While I do not want to cover over any significant issues which yet divide us (as Rdr. Andrew and others have brought up), I hope that this website could contribute in some small way to the feelings of brotherhood and unity we do have. [[User:FrJohn|Fr. John]]

: Let me add my Amen to what Fr. John has said here. I very much respect and admire the Non-Chalcedonian churches and pray that a full unity may be achieved. —[[User:ASDamick|{{User:ASDamick/sig}}]] 09:07, 22 Oct 2005 (EDT)

==Roman Catholic Critiques of the Councils==

The following from the "'''[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/ Catholic Encyclopedia]'''" :

:"''This is the "Psuedosynodus Photiana" '''which the Orthodox count as the [[Eighth Ecumenical Council|Eighth General Council]]'''''".

And the following from "'''[http://www.catholic.com/ Catholic Answers]'''" :

:"''The Eastern Orthodox communion bases its teachings on Scripture and "the seven ecumenical councils"—I Nicaea (325), I Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431), Chalcedon (451), II Constantinople (553), III Constantinople (680), and II Nicaea (787). '''Catholics recognize these as the first seven ecumenical councils, but not the only seven'''''.

:'''''While Catholics recognize an ensuing series of ecumenical councils, leading up to Vatican II, which closed in 1965, the Eastern Orthodox say there have been no ecumenical councils since 787, and no teaching after II Nicaea is accepted as of universal authority'''''.

:''One of the reasons '''the Eastern Orthodox do not claim to have had any ecumenical councils since II Nicaea''' is that they have been unable to agree on which councils are ecumenical. In Orthodox circles, the test for whether a council is ecumenical is whether it is "accepted by the church" as such. But that test is unworkable: Any disputants who are unhappy with a council’s result can point to their own disagreement with it as evidence that the church has not accepted it as ecumenical, and it therefore has no authority''".

Maybe "''Catholic Answers`s''" full name is actually "''Catholic Answers to Catholic Encyclopedia''" ... who knows! :-)

P.S. : Am I being "''Anti-Catholic''" by adding this here? :-)

[No ill or harm intended ... and sincerely hope none ofence taken].
[[User:Luci83ro|Luci83ro]] 21:07, July 22, 2006 (CDT)

::I've heard someone (Catholic) say that the Orthodox only have seven, and haven't had one since, because ''according to Orthodox theology'' an ecumenical council cannot be held without the Pope (of Rome) present. Amazing, eh? [[User:FrJohn|Fr. John]]

::: ..., offcourse, the fact that neither one of them cute-little-Ecumenical-Synods were ever attended by any Pope didn't seem to bother that certain someone -- Jokes beside, finding something like this sort of flagrant contradictions in '''official''' RC archives, books and/or documents is really ''not'' funny ... and I don't mean it for ''our'' sake. [[User:Luci83ro|Luci83ro]] 18:13, July 27, 2006 (CDT)

Talk:Angels

2006-07-27T22:08:35Z

Luci83ro:

Talk:Angels

2006-07-27T22:07:53Z

Luci83ro:

Talk:Anti-Orthodox

2006-07-27T22:05:42Z

Luci83ro:

I think it's worth leaving in the fact that Clendenin knows what he's talking about more than most of the other writers linked here. -FrJohn

: Agreed. I'm gonna "scholarize" the lingo a bit, then. --[[User:ASDamick|Rdr. Andrew]]

:: Great! [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]]

Can anyone find a page in which to insert a link to ''this'' article? At the moment it exists in isolation... --[[User:Matrona|Matrona]] 11:19, 14 Oct 2005 (EDT)

== Non-Chalcedonian Polemics ==
I am concerned seeing the Coptic Orthodox Church listed as Anti-Orthodox under this category.

:I am removing this section/sub-heading, as there are no links or other information. Any links or other information which may come up might better be structured under [[Oriental Orthodox]], or another page relating to the differences between Chalcedonian and Non-Chalcedonian congregations (for instance, [[Christology]] or [[Council of Chalcedon]]). Arbible, it might be a good idea to think of this inclusion as an honest mistake, i.e., give the benefit of a doubt, rather than a signal of "fighting." [[User:Magda|{{User:Magda/sig}}]] 11:40, 21 Oct 2005 (EDT)

:: Thank you v much - God Bless+++

:I most certainly did NOT list the Coptic religion as "anti-Orthodox". I merely provided a category where information on and links to non-Chalcedonian polemics could be added. I would appreciate it if the category was added back. --[[User:Matrona|Matrona]] 13:30, 21 Oct 2005 (EDT)

I think we can both pray for persecuted Christians around the world '''and''' focus on Christology. There clearly is much to discuss, and no '''official''' proclamations regarding the Christological questions between the Chalcedonians and Non-Chalcedonians have yet been promulgated. So it's not a dead question by any means.

In any event, while I do think that putting Non-Chalcedonian polemics against Chalcedonians into this article is probably not the best thing to do (if only because it's a large enough issue to warrant separate treatment), it is worthy of mention that [[OrthodoxWiki:Style Manual#Neutrality and the OrthodoxWiki Bias|according to official policy]], ''Orthodox'' is defined on OrthodoxWiki as a term biased in favor of Mainstream Chalcedonian Orthodoxy. While Non-Chalcedonian material is welcome here, it is as "guests" that such material is welcome and not as "standard." —[[User:ASDamick|{{User:ASDamick/sig}}]] 18:25, 21 Oct 2005 (EDT)

::Thank you. I respect your policy. God Bless+

:::Thanks for understanding. --[[User:Matrona|Matrona]] 21:09, 21 Oct 2005 (EDT)

Just a note to say that I've removed the empty headings here. I think, as regards the non-chalcedonians, that the Christological issues are dealt with adequately elsewhere. This page was envisioned (by me at least) as dealing more with newer/modern polemics. Let me add that I am very happy to have so much Coptic/Non-Chalcedonian material on OrthodoxWiki. I think our hearts are very close. While I do not want to cover over any significant issues which yet divide us (as Rdr. Andrew and others have brought up), I hope that this website could contribute in some small way to the feelings of brotherhood and unity we do have. [[User:FrJohn|Fr. John]]

: Let me add my Amen to what Fr. John has said here. I very much respect and admire the Non-Chalcedonian churches and pray that a full unity may be achieved. —[[User:ASDamick|{{User:ASDamick/sig}}]] 09:07, 22 Oct 2005 (EDT)

==Roman Catholic Critiques of the Councils==

The following from the "'''[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/ Catholic Encyclopedia]'''" :

:"''This is the "Psuedosynodus Photiana" '''which the Orthodox count as the [[Eighth Ecumenical Council|Eighth General Council]]'''''".

And the following from "'''[http://www.catholic.com/ Catholic Answers]'''" :

:"''The Eastern Orthodox communion bases its teachings on Scripture and "the seven ecumenical councils"—I Nicaea (325), I Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431), Chalcedon (451), II Constantinople (553), III Constantinople (680), and II Nicaea (787). '''Catholics recognize these as the first seven ecumenical councils, but not the only seven'''''.

:'''''While Catholics recognize an ensuing series of ecumenical councils, leading up to Vatican II, which closed in 1965, the Eastern Orthodox say there have been no ecumenical councils since 787, and no teaching after II Nicaea is accepted as of universal authority'''''.

:''One of the reasons '''the Eastern Orthodox do not claim to have had any ecumenical councils since II Nicaea''' is that they have been unable to agree on which councils are ecumenical. In Orthodox circles, the test for whether a council is ecumenical is whether it is "accepted by the church" as such. But that test is unworkable: Any disputants who are unhappy with a council’s result can point to their own disagreement with it as evidence that the church has not accepted it as ecumenical, and it therefore has no authority''".

Maybe "''Catholic Answers`s''" full name is actually "''Catholic Answers to Catholic Encyclopedia''" ... who knows! :-)

P.S. : Am I being "''Anti-Catholic''" by adding this here? :-)

[No ill or harm intended ... and sincerely hope none ofence taken].
[[User:Luci83ro|Luci83ro]] 21:07, July 22, 2006 (CDT)

::I've heard someone (Catholic) say that the Orthodox only have seven, and haven't had one since, because ''according to Orthodox theology'' an ecumenical council cannot be held without the Pope (of Rome) present. Amazing, eh? [[User:FrJohn|Fr. John]]

::: ..., offcourse, the fact that neither one of them cute-little-Ecumenical-Synods was ever attended by any Pope didn't seem to bother that certain someone -- Jokes beside, finding something like this sort of flagrant contradictions in '''official''' RC archives, books and/or documents is really ''not'' funny ... and I don't mean it for ''our'' sake. [[User:Luci83ro|Luci83ro]] 17:05, July 27, 2006 (CDT)

2006-07-23T01:43:43Z

Luci83ro:

I think it's worth leaving in the fact that Clendenin knows what he's talking about more than most of the other writers linked here. -FrJohn

: Agreed. I'm gonna "scholarize" the lingo a bit, then. --[[User:ASDamick|Rdr. Andrew]]

:: Great! [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]]

Can anyone find a page in which to insert a link to ''this'' article? At the moment it exists in isolation... --[[User:Matrona|Matrona]] 11:19, 14 Oct 2005 (EDT)

== Non-Chalcedonian Polemics ==
I am concerned seeing the Coptic Orthodox Church listed as Anti-Orthodox under this category.

:I am removing this section/sub-heading, as there are no links or other information. Any links or other information which may come up might better be structured under [[Oriental Orthodox]], or another page relating to the differences between Chalcedonian and Non-Chalcedonian congregations (for instance, [[Christology]] or [[Council of Chalcedon]]). Arbible, it might be a good idea to think of this inclusion as an honest mistake, i.e., give the benefit of a doubt, rather than a signal of "fighting." [[User:Magda|{{User:Magda/sig}}]] 11:40, 21 Oct 2005 (EDT)

:: Thank you v much - God Bless+++

:I most certainly did NOT list the Coptic religion as "anti-Orthodox". I merely provided a category where information on and links to non-Chalcedonian polemics could be added. I would appreciate it if the category was added back. --[[User:Matrona|Matrona]] 13:30, 21 Oct 2005 (EDT)

I think we can both pray for persecuted Christians around the world '''and''' focus on Christology. There clearly is much to discuss, and no '''official''' proclamations regarding the Christological questions between the Chalcedonians and Non-Chalcedonians have yet been promulgated. So it's not a dead question by any means.

In any event, while I do think that putting Non-Chalcedonian polemics against Chalcedonians into this article is probably not the best thing to do (if only because it's a large enough issue to warrant separate treatment), it is worthy of mention that [[OrthodoxWiki:Style Manual#Neutrality and the OrthodoxWiki Bias|according to official policy]], ''Orthodox'' is defined on OrthodoxWiki as a term biased in favor of Mainstream Chalcedonian Orthodoxy. While Non-Chalcedonian material is welcome here, it is as "guests" that such material is welcome and not as "standard." —[[User:ASDamick|{{User:ASDamick/sig}}]] 18:25, 21 Oct 2005 (EDT)

::Thank you. I respect your policy. God Bless+

:::Thanks for understanding. --[[User:Matrona|Matrona]] 21:09, 21 Oct 2005 (EDT)

Just a note to say that I've removed the empty headings here. I think, as regards the non-chalcedonians, that the Christological issues are dealt with adequately elsewhere. This page was envisioned (by me at least) as dealing more with newer/modern polemics. Let me add that I am very happy to have so much Coptic/Non-Chalcedonian material on OrthodoxWiki. I think our hearts are very close. While I do not want to cover over any significant issues which yet divide us (as Rdr. Andrew and others have brought up), I hope that this website could contribute in some small way to the feelings of brotherhood and unity we do have. [[User:FrJohn|Fr. John]]

: Let me add my Amen to what Fr. John has said here. I very much respect and admire the Non-Chalcedonian churches and pray that a full unity may be achieved. —[[User:ASDamick|{{User:ASDamick/sig}}]] 09:07, 22 Oct 2005 (EDT)

-----

The following from the "'''Catholic Encyclopedia'''" :

:"''This is the "Psuedosynodus Photiana" '''which the Orthodox count as the Eighth General Council'''''".

And the following from "'''Catholic Answers'''" :

:"''The Eastern Orthodox communion bases its teachings on Scripture and "the seven ecumenical councils"—I Nicaea (325), I Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431), Chalcedon (451), II Constantinople (553), III Constantinople (680), and II Nicaea (787). '''Catholics recognize these as the first seven ecumenical councils, but not the only seven'''''.

:'''''While Catholics recognize an ensuing series of ecumenical councils, leading up to Vatican II, which closed in 1965, the Eastern Orthodox say there have been no ecumenical councils since 787, and no teaching after II Nicaea is accepted as of universal authority'''''.

:''One of the reasons '''the Eastern Orthodox do not claim to have had any ecumenical councils since II Nicaea''' is that they have been unable to agree on which councils are ecumenical. In Orthodox circles, the test for whether a council is ecumenical is whether it is "accepted by the church" as such. But that test is unworkable: Any disputants who are unhappy with a council’s result can point to their own disagreement with it as evidence that the church has not accepted it as ecumenical, and it therefore has no authority''".

Maybe "''Catholic Answers''"' full name is actually "''Catholic Answers to Catholic Encyclopedia''" ... who knows! :-)

P.S. : Am I being "''Anti-Catholic''" by adding this here? :-)

[No ill or harm intended ... and sincerely hope none ofence taken].

2006-07-20T15:52:55Z

Luci83ro:

Talk:Feminism in the Orthodox Church

2006-07-20T15:52:30Z

Luci83ro: