Can we put something in the files marked with this template that shows how the non-Chalcedonian opinions expressed are "at variance" with the Orthodox understanding? --Matrona 10:25, 3 November 2005 (CST)
- Certainly! Noting the opposition is always useful and good, ISTM, so long as it is done as neutrally and factually as possible. I haven't been reviewing the articles in question, as I haven't had time between ordination and seminary assignments lately, so please forgive me for that. But all are welcome to work on these articles. The texts of contributed articles needs to remain as submitted, but there's no reason extra sections noting disagreements can't be added. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 13:25, 3 November 2005 (CST)
I removed the link to Leo's Tome, as simply reading it won't give a detailed discussion of the particular difficulties that may be covered in each article. Additionally, I'd prefer to keep this template as compact as possible.
Perhaps we could include an article critiquing OO Christology from the POV of Chalcedonian Christology, which could be linked from this template marker. Further, each article which includes this template should ideally include a section charting the Chalcedonian POV.
- Yeah, I wasn't talking about anything like what Arbible did. What I was thinking of, was a paragraph or link appended to each article (not part of the template) explaining how the article's contents depart from Orthodox Christology. For instance, a non-Chal POV article relating to monotheletism ought to have a link explaining what monotheletism is and why Orthodox reject it as heresy. --Matrona 14:58, 3 November 2005 (CST)
- Actually monothelism is also considered a heresy by non-Chalcedonians, as it includes an element of Dyophysitism. But before discussing the Will of Christ, we should define/agree on what 'will' is/means. A good article to read that touches on these issues can be found at http://www.geocities.com/mfignatius/others/byzantine03.html - You will find that we are not in disagreement with the Eastern Orthodox Christology. The Eastern Orthodox confess one hypostasis, that is one concrete reality in Christ. They acknowledge that it is the one hypostasis of the Logos incarnate who wills and acts.
- This isn't an appropriate place to debate Christology, Arbible. --Matrona 16:27, 3 November 2005 (CST)
- Thanks. I have moved this to the right place. --Arbible
- Hi, I'm new here. I find it interesting to discuss relations between the Oriental Orthodox and the Eastern Orthodox. As an Oriental Orthodox Coptic Christian, I find unity to be highly important (to be frank, the division is more political than theological). But I have one question: if we have a Non-Chacedonian Template, why can't we also have a Chalcedonian Template???
- I see these articles with the Non-Chacedonian POV in some areas, but not all. In contrast, there are ENTIRE articles with the EOC POV. And yet, there is no counterpoint NOR tag. To many, the EOC is the "mainstream", but in my opinion, it is the OOC in terms of correct terminology. But in reality, we are not too different, it's JUST terminology (basically), with more confusion than there should be. My main point is, OrthodoxWiki is an NPOV (at least for both EOC and OOC) and must be treated as such. Please consider to at least create other templates, and together, we can make OrthodoxWiki a better place for all of us. You can check out my user page at User:Troy99. Thank-you!
- Yours truly,
~ Troy 11:30, July 12, 2007 (PDT)
- According to the OrthodoxWiki:Style Manual (Point of View) the OrthodoxWiki NPOV is governed by a Mainstream Chalcedonian Bias (MCB). I think this means that EOC POV is assumed, unless this template is included. I guess that this approach alerts readers about articles that are Non-Chacedonian POV, but nothing alerts readers that the EOC and OCC agree, or if the article is EOC POV only. A Chalcedonian Bias template may be out of place when that entire site is MCB. - Andrew 13:06, July 12, 2007 (PDT)