bride of Christ / body of Christ: I think they're epithets, not titles. I'll look into that and report back.
I think the usage for something like pope or ecumenical patriarch or bishop is like the terms mom and dad. If I'm referring to my mom, it's lowercase. If I'm using Mom as her name — e.g., "That's not what Mom would do!" — then it's uppercase. I wish I had my CMOS with me. Better yet, I wish they'd put the CMOS online. --Basil 23:07, 15 Jan 2005 (CST)
- After research, they are indeed epithets. See Dictionary.com for epithet. In addition to the example of "The Great Emancipator" as an epithet for President Lincoln, see also Chicago Manual of Style - Q & A - Capitalization, Titles. The CMOS also prefers not to capitalize nouns like pope unless being used as a title (i.e., with a name): Pope Benign XXI. That's earlier on that same page. --Basil 23:34, 15 Jan 2005 (CST)
Other names (Greek, Russian, etc)
- (especially in the contemporary West) as the Eastern Orthodox Church or the Greek Orthodox Church
In terms of giving examples of other (overly limited) names to the Orthodox Church, shouldn't Russian Orthodox Church be included here? --Dpr 23:38, 12 Oct 2005 (EDT)
While both Greek Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox are terms used to refer to the Orthodox Church as a whole, Russian Orthodox doesn't see that sort of usage. In a real sense, all Orthodox are both "Greek" and "Eastern," though one certainly wouldn't say that they're all "Russian." This is not an attribution that the contemporary West seems to make, either. ——Dcn. Andrew talk random contribs 07:00, 13 Oct 2005 (EDT)
Proposed Addition/Section on Beliefs and Practices
The following points were included on the Wikipedia article on Catholicism. Wondering if this should be added in some form to this article here? (with the addition also of the Nicean-Constinopolitan Creed to the list below). It sounds like it was taken from an Orthodox source to begin with anyways.
- Direct and continuous organizational descent from the original church founded by Jesus. (Mt 16:18).
- Belief that the Eucharist is really, truly, and objectively the Body and Blood of Christ, through the Real Presence.
- Possession of the "threefold ordained ministry" of Bishops, Priests and Deacons.
- All ministers are ordained by, and subject to, Bishops, who pass down sacramental authority by the "laying-on of hands", having themselves been ordained in a direct line of succession from the Apostles.
- Belief that the Church is the vessel and deposit of the fullness of the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles from which the Scriptures were formed. This teaching is preserved in both written Scripture and in unwritten Tradition, neither being independent of the other.
- A belief in the necessity of sacraments.
- The use of sacred images, candles, vestments and music, and often incense and water, in worship.
- Veneration of Mary, the mother of Jesus as the Blessed Virgin Mary or Theotokos, and veneration of the saints. (Catholics do not worship Mary, as is often claimed by anti-Catholics.)
- The use of prayer for the dead.
- Requests to the departed saints for intercessory prayers.
- Angellight 888 21:17, September 23, 2008 (UTC)
January 1, 2010 changes
I see that the Orthodox Christian Church is now like the Protestants It is a bunch of individual churches that did not come into existence until the eleventh century and that are individual churches The changes of January 1, 2010 need to be reverted to the previous text. Where is the earlier history! Wsk 22:37, January 1, 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. These seem to be the edits of someone promoting a Roman Catholic perspective. To say that the Orthodox Church has apostolic succession does not imply that Catholics do not, and this is an article on the Orthodox Church -- I see no reason to have added that the Catholic Church has apostolic succession. --Fr Lev 02:25, January 2, 2010 (UTC)
Labeling the Church "Catholic" or "Orthodox" is historically anachronistic and dishonest. In short, if you call the Church before the Great Schism the "Orthodox Church," you are bearing false witness because that identity did not develop until after the Schism. I believe there is a commandment regarding bearing false witness, or am I mistaken?--Maximustheconfessor 02:31, January 2, 2010 (UTC)
So what do you label the Church prior to the Great Schism -- the Roman Catholic Church? If so, that would be no less "anachronistic and dishonest" than you claim the original article here is. But truth be told, both the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church claim that they are (respectively) the Church founded by Jesus Christ. And it is historically false to claim, not to say anachronistic and dishonest, to suggest that the Orthodox Church did not develop its identity until after the Schism! OrthodoxWiki is an Orthodox encyclopedia and it represents a mainstream Orthodox view by design. This includes the fundamental assumption that today's Orthodox Church is the Church of the Fathers, the Church of the Ecumenical Councils, the Church founded by Jesus Christ. Rome says the same of itself, and I could not fault a Roman encyclopedia for saying as much. To claim that the Orthodox saying as much is "bearing false witness" is an attempt to introduce a polemical spirit where none was intended. --Fr Lev 03:45, January 2, 2010 (UTC)
1. I didn't say that the pre-Schism Church is necessarily Catholic. 2. You introduced the polemical spirit when you said, "These seem to be the edits of someone promoting a Roman Catholic perspective." 3. The Orthodox identity can only be said to exist after the Great Schism since before that time none within the Church thought of themselves as somehow different from Christian believers in the West. The fact that an Orthodox identity developed after the Schism is evident in the slow realization of the division. 4. You will also do well to read Latin documents, which clearly say "Christ's Church subsistit in the Catholic Church"--that is their position in their own words. 5. If you are going to sit here and claim that the Christians faithful to Christ's Church before the Schism in any way thought of themselves in the same way that modern Orthodox Christians do, you are bearing false witness and flat out lying. Consider the argument so often given that people in the eastern Mediterranean, although Greek-speaking, thought of themselves as Romans and did not cease to think of those in the West as also Roman. The situation of the pre-Schism Church was just like that. You might be able to say that the Church was "Orthodox" in belief, but you cannot say it was "Orthodox" in identity because such an identity did not exist.--Maximustheconfessor 04:12, January 2, 2010 (UTC)
You wrote: ' You introduced the polemical spirit when you said, "These seem to be the edits of someone promoting a Roman Catholic perspective."' I intended nothing polemical in that statement, nor is it fair to construe it as such, unless you think "Roman Catholic" is a term of opprobrium, which I do not. I simply inferred that the nature of the edits suggest that the author is promoting a RC view on this Orthodox website, and I don't think it has a place in the article. --Fr Lev 00:35, January 3, 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it would be right to use most of the forms before the new year since they are not faithful to Church history. They are full of anachronism. I'd much rather tell the truth than produce articles that present both an ignorant view of history, and help to create an image of Orthodox Christians as academically dishonest. An Orthodox view would be one that is faithful to history and faith, not one that invents a past to justify a present, a viewpoint Orthodox believers still suffer today.--Maximustheconfessor 03:21, January 3, 2010 (UTC)
- Maximustheconfessor, Just to add a some thought on this - a community is in some part, what it believes about itself. The community that calls itself the Orthodox Church does believe that it the same church as the church of the seven Holy Ecumenical Councils. And that church believed that it was keeping the faith of the first apostles. The Church is became known as the Orthodox Church only after it needed to be call something to avoid confusion.
- This website is about the Orthodox Church. I think everyone wants it to be as accurate as it can be, and even to expose widespread falsehoods. But the website does have a point of view. See OrthodoxWiki:Style Manual (Point of View) .
- As for the change addressed here, the Orthodox Church is one church, it is a local community of believers gathered around their bishop who is of the same mind as his fellow bishops (both in time and in locations). How one can be many, and how many can be one, is just part of The Church. This article is about the Orthodox Church. There are other articles about the churches on this site. - Andy 16:09, January 4, 2010 (UTC)
Maximustheconfessor, please don't change the article to suggest that the Church started in the year 1054, that is both wrong and absurd. - Andy 17:54, April 12, 2010 (UTC)
What is "The Orthodox Church" ?
I am asking for some consensus on this article. It is my understanding (and it seems to be the point of view of the articles in the rest of this web site), the Orthodox Church is the Church. It did not start when one see broke off from the others; it has a history that can be traced backed to the beginning.
There are many areas where this article can be improved, but changing the focus of the article, on how it appeared to “have arisen in parts of Eastern Europe and the Middle East after the Great Schism in 1054 A.D” does not improve it. One can just look at the rest of the website for a whole millennium of church history before the schism.
I do not believe that this article is primarily about the name "Orthodox Church" it is about the Orthodox Church. Am I wrong? - Andy 15:44, April 13, 2010 (UTC)