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.