Talk:Russian Orthodox Church Abroad - Provisional Supreme Church Authority

"Slap-Editing"

While this was probably an honest error because it was listed improperly and generically under "jurisdictions" (which is my fault), I must again plead that if Old Calendarist and traditionalist jurisdictions are not regarded as "vagante" so we should do our best to fix pages, but not change the claims of this or that jurisdiction within that "Old Calendarist" subsection.

Applying "soi-disant" on a page for a jurisdiction itself (or worse, the term "vagante") is not educational and of little use.--JosephSuaiden 15:04, December 10, 2008 (UTC)

This is not "Slap-Editing". First of all, the "episcopal" titles that you have listed are incorrect, and I attempted to fix them. Second of all, we have something called "Mainstream Chalcedonian Bias." We should provide our readers with accurate information from the point-of-view of MCB. Now, an episcopus vagans is defined as a "person who has been consecrated as a Christian bishop outside the structures and canon law of the established churches and is in communion with no generally recognized diocese. Also included are those who have in communion with them a group so small that it appears to exist solely for the alleged bishop's sake." The Sekachev branch of the Russian Catacomb Church 1. consecrated bishops outside the structures and canon law; 2. is not in communion with any generally recognized diocese; and 3. has such a small membership that it appears to exist solely for the bishops' sake. Thus, it meets the qualifications of episcopi vagantes. As far as the other "bishop" of the PSCA, it is a convention (also in the RTOC article) to list the ranks of their "bishops" at the time of their suspension by a Mainstream body. If the individual was defrocked, then we should list their secular name, as they have lost any priestly or monastic rank. If the individual unilaterally asserts an additional title, we list that title as "soi-disant" -- self-asserting.

If we are going to cover schismatic entities on OrthodoxWiki then we should give accurate information about them to our readership. If I declare myself as the Metropolitan of St Petersburg tomorrow, that does not entitle me to be listed on OrthodoxWiki as the Metropolitan of St Petersburg. I can, though, be listed as Aleks Andreev, soi-disant Metropolitan of St Petersburg. --Aleks 13:34, December 11, 2008 (UTC)

Bodies such as this have been traditionally treated differently on OrthodoxWiki than those who have no historical connection to the mainstream Orthodox Church. That is the key distinction. A bishop does not instantly become an episcopus vagans by virtue of a breach in communion that is not even two years old. (See: Independent Orthodox churches.) Old Calendarist groups have always been treated differently on OW than episcopi vagantes. Conflating them to be the same thing is a disservice both to them all readers.

Even with bodies that have either no historical connection to Orthodoxy or a long-broken one, we do not treat them as you suggest here, Aleks. (For instance, we do not call the current Pope of Rome simply Joseph Ratzinger.) Remember that we are writing an encyclopedia, not a polemic. It is enough to state simply in the article that the body or person in question is not recognized by the mainstream Orthodox Church.

This standing tradition on OW (not quite a policy as such) is probably worth codifying into an actual policy page as part of the OW:SM. I'll put that on my to-do list. —Fr. Andrew ^talk contribs (THINK!) 15:04, December 11, 2008 (UTC)