Template talk:Oriental

From OrthodoxWiki
Revision as of 20:50, November 3, 2005 by ASDamick (talk | contribs) (Tome of Leo link)
Jump to: navigation, search

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)

Tome of Leo link, etc.

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.

In general, though, I think this whole topic is getting quite bloated on OrthodoxWiki. There is a whole series of often ambiguously-named articles that have been produced here, and there's very little in the way of encyclopedic summary. Rather than include all these articles en masse, I'd much rather have a single summary article for each side of the issue which includes external links. That, it seems to me, should be the goal. Perhaps these articles could be quoted appropriately in the summary articles.

Arbible, your tactic has often been to dump huge amounts of quoted material into discussions; perhaps you can shift your trajectory a bit to something much more focussed. As it stands now, the sheer amount of material we have on this topic here seems to me to be way, way out of proportion for the issue. OrthodoxWiki is not a repository for the debate (or lack thereof) over Chalcedon. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 14:42, 3 November 2005 (CST)