Jump to: navigation, search


11,080 bytes added, 20:16, March 15, 2014
Upcoming council
== Confesion ==
Where may I find info abour Confession? I dd did a search for tHat that subject & coldn't fnd it. After a long absence from Church, I returned in February 2012. I've had four o five cnfessions snce then. Every tme I try to confess, I'm often fogettng sins. Dad told me it's okay to say "I can't recall others, but I read that it's not ok
May 12, 2012
Brooklyn, NY
Thank you Irene Nikolsky
:: I think it's good to talk with a priest, but also you might find some helpful resources at or - — [[User:FrJohn|<b>FrJohn</b>]] ([ talk]) 16:34, May 12, 2012 (HST)
== Basic Information ==
Is there a website that helps people and/or teenagers with basic Q&As about our religion? I have teen son, who was baptized Orthodox. Because my church is in Russian he doesn't want to go. I thought if I could find basic info for him, then he'd believe me that there are English speaking Eastern Orthodox members.
Thank you,
Irene Nikolsky
Broolyn, NY
:: Greetings Irene. Of course, there are A LOT of English-speaking (and non-Russian) Orthodox people -- For Q+A, you might try -- — [[User:FrJohn|<b>FrJohn</b>]] ([ talk])
== Orthodox wiki stats ==
Is there a way to look at statistics for various pages by day, week, month, and year? --[[User:Kalvesmaki|Kalvesmaki]] 16:03, May 17, 2012 (HST)
==Diocese evolution in North America==
One aspect that I have had in preparing my contributions to Orthodoxwiki concerns an accurate presentation of the ecclesiastical structure of the Orthodox in North America. While sources concerning the earliest century, notably in the OCA 1975 publication, give a fairly clear picture of the founding of dioceses and vicariates, the last century is blurred.
Various sources seem to present a good picture of the history of the structure of the Greek and Antiochian diocese, but the picture within the Russian based organizations gets blurred as the twentieth century progressed. The history of the Russian mission to North America seems clear to the first decade of the twentieth century when the Vicariates of Alaska and Brooklyn were formed. As hierarchs were installed with sees named Canada, Pittsburgh, Chicago, Winnipeg, Montreal, San Francisco, Detroit, Boston, and others through the time of the Metropolia, apparently as Vicariates of the North American Diocese that commonly was called the Metropolia. The formation of any of these Vicariates as Dioceses came apparently only after the granting of autocephaly to the the "Metropolia" and, thus, bishops of these sees prior to 1970 were apparently "titular/vicar/assistant bishops, not diocesan bishops. A question in my mind is, were the bishops of the "ethnic dioceses" vicars or ruling bishops?
The picture for bishops and dioceses of ROCOR in North America is less clear as to when the "titular" sees ceased being "titular" and may have become real dioceses.
Recent updates to articles about North American dioceses makes necessary a clear understanding of the evolution of the North American ecclesiastical structure so that Orthodoxwiki articles don't imply existence of dioceses before they came into existence.
The above is my assumption of the history of the development of the dioceses in North America. Sources/references and text within articles that clarifies the evolution of the North American structure are needed to assure accuracy in the articles. [[User:Wsk|Wsk]] 05:07, September 12, 2012 (HST)
== GOARCH link URLs format ==
One thing I'm constantly running into (and correcting as I go along) is the format of URLs leading to GOARCH's Online Chapel Saints pages being out of date (and leading to the "that page doesn't exist" message). They have changed formats at least once (maybe twice based on what I've seen here), and unfortunately, they haven't set any redirects, whether programmatically or via HTTP 301. (I've thought about contacting them about it, but haven't gotten up the nerve to do so)
* (old, broken way):
* (current way):
I've pondered a bit about what should be done here. Obviously, one thing -- which I'm already doing -- is making the necessary correction every time I see one on a page. However, that's just a few out of the potentially ''hundreds'' of outdated links there could be. Something else could be developing a bot that would search all pages and update the links automatically. I don't know ''how'' to do that, but I know ''what'' they'd need to do. Anyways, I just wanted to bring it to everyone's (in particular the sysops') attention, as this is (warning: assumptions lie ahead) a widespread problem, and a potential hindrance from people getting the proper information (i.e. not knowing how to get to the right URL, or just giving up and saying "oh well, another bad link"). It may seem like a small thing, but it definitely means a lot to me, as I would hate for people to not be able to easily get to the information they need.
If I can help, other than my edit-one-when-I-see-it method, just let me know. [[User:Paharwell|Phil Harwell (paharwell)]] 08:36, December 11, 2012 (HST)
== Canonicity of Revelation ==
27 January 2013
I am in research on a book dealing with the issues surrounding the acceptance of the book of Revelation into the New Testament. (Definitely not an exegetical commentary – there are many hundreds of them already!) I would appreciate some advice on a specific area of research that is giving me difficulty: the history of Revelation’s acceptance in the Eastern church in the 2nd through 5th centuries, and perhaps later.
In publications I have found so far, there is sometimes a distinction drawn between the acceptance of Revelation in early Western vs Eastern Christianity: acceptance was much more rapid and widespread in the West. I have yet to find, however, much insight into why acceptance was slower in the East. What was the nature of the misgivings that the fathers of the Eastern church evidently had? Who, by name, expressed those misgivings? When, how, and under what circumstances? What finally prompted the Eastern Christian churches to accept Revelation? Did they do so gladly or grudgingly? How do Orthodox Christians tend to see Revelation today? Is it often preached? Were there other issues or background that I seem not to have contemplated? Can you recommend books or articles that address these matters?
To hit only some highlights, these are factors that perturbed the acceptance of Revelation in the Western church; perhaps they were voiced in the Eastern church as well:
• Questions of apostolicity.
o Revelation was probably written about 95 A.D. The disciple John (son of Zebedee) would have been quite old at this time, beyond normal life expectancy. There is reason to believe he died about 70 A.D.
o The Greek language of Revelation is quite different from the Greek of the Fourth Gospel, strongly indicating they could not have been written by the same person.
o John bar Zebedee was not known to have had an oversight responsibility of the seven churches to whom Revelation was addressed.
• Questions of orthodoxy.
o Revelation shares characteristics with many Gnostic writings, especially in its good-evil dualism and its frequent focus on secret knowledge.
o Revelation speaks of the Millennium, the thousand-year period after Christ’s return when all believers live happily with Him on earth before the final confrontation with Satan. This concept is absent from the Gospels and Epistles, and it is one of the reasons that Cerinthus (active in Asia Minor at the time Revelation was written there) was declared a heretic.
o It is not difficult to read in Revelation a theology of salvation by works rather than of salvation by grace through faith in Christ.
Any insights or recommendations on the Orthodox perspective on the canonicity of Revelation would be most welcome. I expect to be in research for the rest of 2013, with writing in early 2014.
Thanks very much
David in
Lexington, VA
[[User:Mullerjrd|Mullerjrd]] 13:43, January 27, 2013 (HST)
:: Hi David, Unfortunately I don't have any resources in mind (you might check more general Orthodox sources on Scripture). Basically, we do accept Revelation as a canonical book, but we do not read it liturgically and so it is relatively unemphasized (but still significant!). We do not accept "millennialism" and are basically "amillennial". I wonder if anyone else knows of specific resources that might be helpful? — [[User:FrJohn|<b>FrJohn</b>]] ([ talk]) 21:43, January 31, 2013 (HST)
== Bible Text ==
I was thinking what if we had the LXX bible on OrthodoxWiki, so you could read the bible used by the Orthodox on this site. -[[User:ShenLazar|ShenLazar]] 02:18, August 21, 2013 (HST)
: Hi ShenLazar, I don't think this belongs on OrthodoxWiki, although it would be a great project for another site. Various versions of the LXX (Greek, English translations, etc.) are available elsewhere. There are links at [[Septuagint]]. Difficulties of putting the text here include the question of which translation to use, as well as copyright restrictions on some of the better ones. A more extensive article with links and a good evaluation of the differences between translations could be helpful though. — [[User:FrJohn|<b>FrJohn</b>]] ([ talk]) 23:20, August 24, 2013 (HST)
== Is Revelations 21:27 a good proof of Purgatory? ==
According to Revelations 21:27, "But there shall by no means enter it anything that defiles, or cause an abomination or lie, but only those who are written in the Lamb's Book of Life"
Q: This verse seems to be supporting the idea of Purgatory that we must be "purified" or "cleansed" before we enter the Kingdom of God. What's the Orthodox belief/perspective of this verse?
== Upcoming council ==
'''Ecumenical''' [ This] upcoming council has been preemptively and prematurely called ecumenical by the press. I'm interested in seeing if this wiki has info on it. I figured that an article here would probably be the best Orthodox perspective. -[[User:Koavf|Justin (koavf)]]·[[User talk:Koavf|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]·[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]] 23:47, March 10, 2014 (PDT)
::No info here that I know of -- I don't think we are great at breaking news. I would just say, however, that there are two senses of ecumenical at play here. I believe the council may be called "ecumenical" in a soft sense, i.e. universal. But this does not automatically give it an authority equivalent to the "Ecumenical Councils" - — [[User:FrJohn|<b>FrJohn</b>]] ([ talk])
Bureaucrat, check user, interwiki, oversight, renameuser, administrator

Navigation menu