User talk:Phiddipus

Reply

Theodoulos,

I certainly understand your arguments and agree with them to some extent. However, I stand by my assertion that the section was entirely stilted in favor of the POV of the Churches in Resistance and ought to make note of the majority view (even if it is wrong).

The reason why I did not add the POV of the CiR to the rest of the article is that that section is the locus, as it were, of the dispute. Given the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia, from the POV of scholarship, at least, it would be redundant, ineffecient and unnecessary to note "But the CiR think that this is wrong" on numerous other assertions throughout the article. Doing so would also require expressing that disapproval from every other opposition group, which would again, be unnecessary and redundant. It is enough, it seems to me, to characterize the dispute in the section regarding the particular group in question.

Also, as a point of fact, I used the term "mainstream," not "mainline" (which has certain Protestant connotations), and you and I both know that this is simply a descriptive term referring to the majority of modern-day Orthodox Christians. It is not meant to be a POV judgment on the correctness or Orthodoxy of that majority, just simply an expression of their being the majority. This is by no means a statement on the rightness or wrongness of the majority, just simply that they exist and tend to have certain views.

In XC,

Andrew (A.S. Damick 18:42, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC))

Claims of the Orthodox

Hey,

Yes, indeed, the RCC acknowledges that the Eastern Orthodox churches are witnesses to the traditions of the apostles. However, the paragraph, as you had written it, contained many statements that the RCC would certainly not agree to.. Saying that Eastern Orthodoxy is the modern name for the church established by the apostles is certainly not going to fly with Catholics. As the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, Lumen Gentium states, "This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd, and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority, which He erected for all ages as 'the pillar and mainstay of the truth'."

From the Catholic perspective, the RCC is the modern name for the Church established by Jesus Christ and the Apostles, and the Orthodox are schismatics—certainly their patriarchates may go back to the time of the Apostles, but they have separated from the Church.

No doubt you disagree with this all. :P But Eastern Orthodox Christianity (also called Greek Orthodoxy and Russian Orthodoxy) is the modern name for the historical church founded by Christ Jesus and the Apostles nearly 2000 years ago.' is certainly not something a Catholic would agree to either.

An addendum

Sorry, I forgot to note this earlier. It looks like you're getting your information on Vatican II from this website. What might not be entirely clear from that website, though, is that the decree in question—The Decree on the Catholic Churches of the Eastern Rite deals with the Eastern Rite churches in communion with Rome, not Eastern Orthodoxy. When it refers to the Eastern patriarchs as being cardinal-bishops, it refers not, for instance, to Ignatius IV, but rather to Ignace Pierre VIII Abdel-Ahad.

The RCC certainly does recognize EO orders, but this doesn't really mean much. Old Catholic orders are also recognized, but certainly no one believes they're the original church! The RCC holds to the Augustinian view of sacramental validity, not the Cyprianic.

I have also posted this to Talk:Eastern Orthodoxy, as other people may want to voice their opinions on this. Maybe we should hold our entire discussion there.

--Xiaopo ℑ 00:00, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

A few personal notes

First of all, I'd like to express my respect to you, despite the fact that we disagree. It's obvious that you are well educated, and you give me the impression of a very strong idealist. In my personal life outside Wikipedia, I'd more likely agree with you rather than with Christodoulos. I'm a secular person and I believe that we should "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" and be tolerant. Tolerance is not an exclusively christian virtue, and it's sad that the leadership of the Church is so blatantly intolerant.

A side remark: There are many things that have gone the wrong way in our country and its dominant religion. It would be better if those involved accepted their share of responsibility instead of using "papacy" and "westernisms" as an excuse for their eastern problems.

Anyway, it was a pleasure disagreeing with you. :) -- Etz Haim 13:26, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

PS. I suggest that you may add yourself to the lists of Greek Wikipedians and Multilingual Wikipedians.

Phiddipus, let me welcome you wikipedia. I'll say that, I am glad we have such eloquent and well educated Greek people here. I will second what Etz said and add that I wish people such as yourself and the bishop of Corfu had the upper hand in the Greek Orthodox hierarchy, meaning, educated, open minded people. The last two occupants of the Archbishopship of Athens have been a dissappointment. They resemble Army officers who are about to be discharged, so, they try their hardest to tend to their followers and not their flock - See such matters as the destruction of movie theathers while Scortzeze's "Last temptation of christ" was playing, the religion of national ID arguments and the ban of books and comics imposed by the greek church. OK, I think this is gonna be fun ^_^ . again, welcome Project2501a 21:47, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Phiddipus, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

Nepenthes

Hi Theodoulos

I have uploaded your very nice pic of Nepenthes alata to Commons: [1] Regards Malene 06:28, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I like the picture, and I wonder whether you had a version of it with 1) higher resolution 2) no text added on top. It would be really neat on commons. Thanks! David.Monniaux 06:42, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Priesthood

I know that there are three levels of the priesthood in Orthodox Christianity, the deaconate, prebyterical and episcopal. The thing is, I don't know when it is appropriate to use each. At my parish one refers "Father" as "the priest" and then you have "Father Deacon" for the "the/a deacon." When I say it one way (for example, "Bishop, Priest & Deacon"), I am often corrected by someone such as yourself who states that there are three priesthoods: Deacon, Presbyter and Bishop. If I state it the opposite, I am corrected to say "Bishop, Priest & Deacon." How do I know when to use each? --Michael Karazim 20:34 22 June 2005 (UTC)

A lot of the difference depends on which traditions your church follows, Greek or Russian. To make a general statement there is one priesthood with Christ as the high priest. It is usual for a bishop to have passed through the priesthood from Deacon to Presbyter to Bishop. Likewise, Presbyters had to spend some time as Deacons. It is tempting to say that the deaconate is merely a step toward the priesthood and in many ways this is true, but many choose to remain deacons for life, so it is more than just a step. Deacons are technically assistants to Bishops and Bishops rarely travel without Deacons. A Bishop cannot serve in a hierarchical service without a Deacon. As to how to address them, here is an excellent article: Church Etiquette

--Phiddipus 19:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm... I've actually seen (with my own eyes) a bishop celebrating a hierarchial liturgy with no deacon present (served by Metr. Christopher of the Serbian Orthodox Church, at Sts. Constantine and Helen Orthodox Church in Galveston, TX, on June 6, 2003), so it can be done if the bishop so desires it, although it's certainly not normative. YBeayf 19:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nun image

The image that you added to Nun#Eastern Orthodox Christian has a warning on its page that it does not have information on its source. Since you were the one to add it, could you provide public domain or licensing info, to ensure that it does not get deleted? It's a great photo and it would be a shame to lose it. JHCC (talk) 30 June 2005 15:24 (UTC)

Good News!

There is now a stub template for Eastern Orthodox Christianity-related articles in need of expansion. Please add {{orthodoxy-stub}} to articles. You can also go to the Category page for Eastern Orthodox Christianity-related stubs and click the "watch this page" link in the sidebar, so that you can see new stub articles as they appear. Spread the word! JHCC (talk) 6 July 2005 15:06 (UTC)

Keep up the Good work

Keep up the good work, Phiddipus!!! I think you are doing an excellent job. In Christ the sinful monk Maximos--frmaximos 21:28, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Monks.jpg

Greetings Phiddipus.

You have uploaded a nice picture of a group of Orthodox monks, but not provided its source or copyright status. Would you kindly provide the missing details to it, so it can avoid deletion? Regards --Valentinian 20:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Denominations

I don't know whether English is your first language or not, but I think perhaps you misunderstand why Orthodoxy is not a denomination, while Protestantism is many denominations. Denomination bears with it the idea in English of multiplicity with legitimacy—that is, there can be many denominations, yet all are legitimate and equal.

Contrasted with Church, denominationalism is precisely the belief that there is no one Church. To label Orthodoxy as a denomination is to place it on the same level as all the various Protestant groups that regard each other as legitimate, yet practice wildly varying things and have divergent dogmatic ideas.

Communion is a much better term to refer to specific religious bodies, while grouping is perhaps the best one can do for Protestantism, which is many denominations, many religious bodies. —A.S. Damick ^talk ^contribs 19:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spiritual mothers/fathers

1. How is it a title? Yours is the first usage I've seen of it capitalized (and you seem to capitalize quite a bit more in general than most books on Orthodoxy I've read; I often find the edits you make to be grammatically and syntactically idiosyncratic, to say the least).

2. The paragraph was speaking specifically of confessors. Women cannot hear confessions in the sacramental sense. —A.S. Damick ^talk ^contribs 02:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Modernist," etc.

Your comment is addressing something I wasn't, and its tone and wording are what I think most folks would regard as insulting.

For whatever it may be worth, I am quite aware that women act as spiritual advisers, but they are not referred to in English at any rate as "confessors" (which is the term used in the article).

Sir, given the nature of your most recent contribution to my talk page, I am disinclined to discuss anything further with you. I've despaired of being able to work with you on articles. I request that you please do not contact me again. —A.S. Damick ^talk ^contribs 02:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monasticism revert

First problem is that, while some monasteries may have been training centers for clergy, and this may be the modern practice for some, historically candidates for the priesthood lived with the bishop and received instruction from him personally. I suspect (although I don't know, and I doubt you do either) that the modern practice of sending clergy to monasteries, done in some places (although by no means all, not at all) is actually a substitute for this. (I did not raise a "seminary question", so you're making a straw man argument here. I was not proposing the seminary as the historical norm, and I don't know why you think I would short of some absurd prejudice against those you label "modernist".) Actually, in many places it's still the tradition to send newly-ordained clergy to a cathedral for a period, where they serve all the daily rounds of services for a fixed time (sometimes as long as 40 days) as the final step in their training.

Second, moderation is in the eye of the beholder, and also varies from place to place. There are some coenobitic monasteries where it would not make any sense at all to characterize them as "moderate" or "beginners-only" kind of institutions. (That latter may not be what you meant, but it is what you wrote.)

Third, I had serious problems with the style. You made the eremitic lifestyle sound like the Dragon Ball Z Super Saiyan power level of monasticism. It needed to be more soberly written. Between that and the capitalization and spelling errors, it was more sensible to revert since not much of your text would have remained by the time I was done fixing it anyway.

Fourth, your edit -- particularly your claim about clergy training -- was unsourced as I said.

Fifth, your edit summary: "the end paragraph is removed see discussion" was misleading as I said. You didn't cut the end paragraph with that edit, and there was no discussion. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I shouldn't have to point out -- but I will -- that information gathered from "direct contact" is exactly what is excluded from this encyclopedia as original research. It is not verifiable. And I'm sorry, but the information you have here is askew: bishops by and large do not live in monasteries and mostly never did. Yes, there are a few who do and did, but the life in a coenobium is by and large incompatable with the responsibities of the episcopate. That bishops almost always (now and in the past) live outside of a monastery is why there's often this perceived tension between the priestly the prophetic sources of authority. Were most bishops under the obedience of a monastery, they would be indistinguishable.

And you misunderstand my anime comparison: it was not the information you gave but the manner in which it was presented that was objectionable. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Polystavrion.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Polystavrion.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Stan 13:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Icon copyrights

I thought I should let you know that I've begun a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights about how we might correctly use scans of newer icons on Wikipedia. A couple of examples you uploaded were right in front of me so I used them to illustrate the problem as I see it, but I'm sure there are others. The purpose isn't to go after anyone personally, but I think the copyright issue isn't at all clear in this case and some discussion would be beneficial. See Wikipedia talk:Copyrights#Orthodox icons. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how the law would treat it but, in my opinion, Icons are not copyrightable. All icons are copies of (almost always) unsigned works. Photographs of non-copyrightable material is also not copyrightable. Icons do do not have the same qualities as "artwork" especially original artwork. Icons are not created to be owned by the artist nor even ascribed to him (usually). The rare exceptions of famous Icons are much too old to be copyrighted and their creators wouldn't have done such a thing anyway.--Phiddipus 06:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you in principle, but the civil law may look at it differently. I think that's what we need to find out about. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greek altar servers

Phiddipus, I wonder if I might ask your input as I don't have enough information to know whether or not I'm correct here -- but I suspect I'm wrong. I know that altar servers in the Greek tradition wear oraria, and I am given to understand that they do in fact receive some kind of chirothesis, or at least a tonsure -- but I am unclear about what it signifies. Is there still a distinct rank of "taper-bearer" as mentioned in the ordination to anagnostis (at least in the Slavic tradition)? Or is this something else? TCC (talk) (contribs) 18:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, it was helpful. It sounds as if the tonsure is of the same kind as (for example) church singers used to receive, back when choirs were always all-male. I know that the sticharion alone is the older usage (and is normal in the Slavic tradition) but it's also current practice in Greece itself, at least in some places. I remember seeing a photo in National Geographic years ago of a service on one of the islands, and that's how the altar servers were vested. Their peculiar way of wearing it is to wrap it around the waist and crossed over the back like a subdeacon, but with the ends hanging parallel in front. Here's the only online example I could find; it's from an American site. But as you suggest, it may not be a universal tradition. I hope it's harmless. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problems

Thanks for uploading your various images. However, in many cases, I notice the files' description pages don't provide evidence as to who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. Since you have not created these files yourself, there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia. You also need to specify where each was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

Furthermore, in many cases you appear to indicate that you believe that the nature of the work is sufficient to date it. This is not necessarily the case. Orthodox icons are created to this day, and many are sold. While they may be based on preexisting works, minor stylistic differences are sufficient to merit copyright. It cannot be assumed that they are in the public domain; we need specific evidence of this. It should be simple to find images from, e.g., museum websites that are explicitly stated to be ancient. Images without sufficient proof of date/authorship are:

Furthermore, you have uploaded two images that you created yourself, but the tags on them indicate that no alteration is permitted. This is not good enough for Wikipedia. At some point in the future, an editor may decide that the images could be improved upon, and if you're no longer around, improvement would be impossible. Generally speaking, prohibition of alteration is against the entire point of free content. Please clarify that alteration is permitted at Image:Orthodox-church.jpg and Image:Polystavrion.jpg.

Finally, there is one image you have uploaded — Image:OrthodoxMonks.jpg — where you mention that "I believe it is one of Gregory Kokolov's pictures originally for which I did obtain permission to use any of his work for the Wikipedia". Again, you have provided no evidence of this, and the fact that many people use it on the Internet does not justify our using it. Furthermore, redistribution by third parties is also key to free content; Wikipedia has many mirrors, and it's not acceptable for an image to be given to us to use but prohibited to them, even if many are for-profit. While I'm not aware of what roles monks play in Orthodox Christianity, it would hopefully be easy for an Orthodox Christian to take photos of some personally.

Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion, and most of these images will likely have to be. However, don't be discouraged; we value your contributions, and in the future you will know to check for evidence of dates a little more carefully before uploading your valuable images. If you have any questions, you can respond here. Thanks. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Chalice.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Chalice.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Pentecost-icon.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Pentecost-icon.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---Response to Image from Kroksg---

A scholar is trying to figure out the provenance of this image. Where did you get the image? Who created it?Kroksg (talk) 18:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)KroksgKroksg (talk) 18:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your picture of Nepenthes alata

Hi Phiddipus. I am sorry to tell you, that your picture of N. alata does not show the true species, but a hybrid plant, Nepenthes x ventrata. I have corrected this in all matching articles, so this is just for your knowledge. Denisoliver 11:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who split from whom?

Concerning whether the Roman Catholic Church separated from the Orthodox; at the time of separation there were hundreds of bishops scattered throughout the world. There were 5 major patriarchates, Constantinople, Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem. One side changed, one didn’t. No action was taken by the Orthodox, they remained as they always were, without change. Rome changed. They made the move, Orthodoxy did nothing. Isn’t it more correct to say that one Roman bishop and a few followers broke away from the vastly larger body of hundreds of bishops than to accuse the body that didn’t change?--Phiddipus 17:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all I think this needs to be discussed in the article talk page. Secondly, I am not that knowledgable about the subject, but to me this is not a sufficient argument, in article it should be more descriptive and present the facts so it doesn't appear like a POVish claim. I think it should present the facts without qualifying them, for example it should detail who took the decision and why, and what followed, not simply state that Rome left Orthodoxy or Orthodoxy separated by Rome. -- AdrianTM

Honestly, in the context of Wikipedia NPOV, I don't think we should seek to provide the answer as to who was the schismatic party in the Great Schism. While I personally believe it to have been the RCC, I don't think this is the place to be claiming that as if it were unquestionably proven. Deusveritasest (talk) 22:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it is proven. The Orthodox Church follows the same tradition that was followed much earlier than the 11th century, while the heterodox churches made many alterations, and that is said by many orthodox or heterodox scholars alike.--Michael X the White (talk) 11:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctuary

We may be seeing a difference in ethnic practice, although I have the impression -- please correct me if I'm wrong -- that the thronos in the nave on the right is occupied by the bishop only during services where he is present but not actually a celebrant, such as Vespers or the Hours. This throne is not present in Slavic churches, where for such services the bishop occupies his seat on the episcopal ambo in the center of the church (before Liturgy after the vesting) or a seat somewhere out of general view. This often behind the templon but facing the altar, just behind the icon of the Savior. I assume the seat at the High Place is reserved for the bishop in the Greek churches as well as the Slavic, but he occupies this only when the services call for him to be both vested and seated in the altar, as during the Epistle reading.

I must admit I have never seen a Greek bishop being vested, so I could be mistaken here. Of course, vesting the bishop is one of my duties.

I believe that the relics in the holy table are preferably those of a martyr -- it may be worth mentioning that the practice arose from the custom of celebrating the Divine Liturgy over the tombs of martyrs during the Roman persecutions -- but can be those of any saint if a martyr's relics are unavailable. I'll try to track down a reference. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's it then. Slavs will place a small platform, what I called the "episcopal ambo", in the center of the church, and an eagle rug is placed on it. After the bishop is vested there and blesses with trikirion & dikirion to "Eis polla..." a temporary throne is placed and he sits for the Hours. He stands at the beginning of the Liturgy for "O Heavenly King" etc. and remains on the ambo until the Small Entrance. During Hierarchical liturgies the Protodeacon reads the Gospel from the platform, minus the eagle rug of course, but flanked by dikirion and trikirion which accompany the Gospel book as it is brought out and back. If an elaborate throne is used as the Greeks have in the nave, it is at the High Place, but this is considered optional equipment for a parish church.

No doubt the passage in the Apocalypse refers to the existing liturgical practice (as does much of that part of the book). TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which reminds me: Details of the altar table itself are covered in altar. You might want to have a look at the Orthodox section to see if there's anything important missing. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection I still don't understand the Greek practice. Is there a throne for the bishop at the High Place, and is it ever elaborated? Is the middle of the High Place itself at least reserved for the bishop? TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Do you think this calls for any adjustment to that section as it stands?

There may have been some national competition in the Slavic countries about the size of their temples, but that hardly represents the typical church building any more than Hagia Sophia is an example of a typical Greek church. Remember too that during the decline of the Empire and the Turkocratia, the Greeks simply could not afford or were forbidden to build very large churches even if they wanted to. My own parish is quite small, and is roughly the size of a small Russian village church. Some votive churches are very small even in the larger Russian cities. (This would be a church constructed by some wealthy person, usually of the nobility, as a thank-offering for blessings received. The most elaborate of these is probably St. Basil's in Red Square. This is not in fact one church but a series of connected smaller chapels. It's very large for a votive church, but it was built by a megalomaniac tsar and is very atypical.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Thoughts on the John Chrysostom Article?

Hi, Phiddipus. I was wondering if you could look at the John Chrysostom and make or suggest improvements.  Thanks. Majoreditor 02:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Orthodox Church

Hi, I disagree that how orthodox churches view other churches has nothing to do with their organization. You perhaps meant to say that it is not a determinant of their organization. But there is a link in the opposite direction: the organization of EOC determine how they view others. For example, they do recognize Roman-Catholic Church as a church body with only minor deviations, but they (we) certainly only regard RCC just as another sister-church, not as a supperior or universal church. I am not insisting on the exact wording of my edit, but I think that something of the information there should be present somewhere in the article. My aim was for more clarity, especially since the article would be mostly read by outsiders who know something but mix many things. I suggest that you and me discuss this edit a little bit on our talk pages or in the article talk page, and maybe find some 2-3 sentences worth including somewhere. :Dc76 11:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the things we have discussed in the past by Orthodox contributors to the article is the question of comparison to other Christian denomination. We decided long ago to avoid making comparisons unless they were directly related to the subject (e.g. The Great Schism). We wish to present what the Orthodox Church “Is”; not what it “Is not”. It is easier for the reader to make comparisons in his head between the text presented and his own beliefs than for us to present how the Orthodox Church differs from each denomination.

There were a number of reasons I removed the following paragraph:

Orthodox Churches regard other Christian churches and communities as deviations (of different degree) from the orthodox, i.e. traditional, or apostolic Christianity. While following different traditions from these, the theological differences with Catholic, Eastern Rite Catholic, Anglican, Old Catholic, and at least some Oriental Orthodox churches (such as Armenian Apostolic Church) are minimal, as they all share the common belief in Eucharist, and, if one disregards modern-day simplifications, have an almost identical liturgical structure. The differences with Protestant denominations vary in degree according to whether the latter are emphasizing national autonomy (e.g. Anglicans), which Orthodox do not regard necessarily as schisms, or different theological dogmas (e.g. emphasis on the Bible more than on the Apostolic link and tradition), which Orthodox regard as schismatic.

First off, it split one of the concepts presented. Bishops are all equal spiritually, administratively they are not.

Second, the section was about how the Orthodox Church organizes itself internally; not their relationship with other churches.

Third, and in direct contrast to the above paragraph: What is imagined a minimal difference between Catholic, Anglican, Coptic, Armenian, and Eastern Orthodox are, in fact, major fundamental theological concepts – so major that they label those who follow them, heretics. Because of these differences one cannot make the statement, “They all share a common belief in the Eucharist” when the very nature of Christ is in question. Similarities between them are completely superficial; it’s the theology that counts.

Forth, The Orthodox Church believes itself to be the original church, directly linked back to the apostles. It existed before there were any differences and its members have fought and died to preserve the integrity of its beliefs. It has always regarded any group which differs theologically to be outside the Church. It does not recognize the validity of their priesthood or their mysteries (Sacraments), or even their baptisms. At the same time, it does not condemn them for their mistake, nor does it imagine that such a mistake keeps them out of heaven. All it recognizes is that such deviants are not Orthodox.

Finally, In this modern age, in this age where communication is easy, and dialogs between people of different beliefs are common; It has become necessary to invent a language of diplomacy as we are neighbors, and it is a sin to offend ones neighbor. So we tend to point out the similarities between our beliefs in the hopes of cooperation and friendship. We tend to try and ignore the differences. Let’s all just get along. But this has nothing whatsoever to do with what we really believe. Anyone believing anything not supported by the Orthodox Church is, by Orthodox definition, a heretic. The deviation of an inch is as good as a mile. This is not a popular thing to say, it offends almost everyone. But it shouldn’t. All it means is that they aren’t Orthodox. All it means is that their beliefs fall outside the Orthodox Church. And since we Orthodox believe You Do Not Have To Be Orthodox to be saved; we condemn no one for their beliefs. --Phiddipus 17:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, as I happen to have this page on my watchlist. I concur with Phiddipus here, if for no other reason than that external relations is a distinct subject from internal organization, but he's correct otherwise too. I think it particularly erroneous to lump the Anglicans in with the others. While all separate themselves from the Church in one or another facet of the Faith, the Anglicans have become highly deviant in recent decades, and in the developed countries are getting even more so. The Third World churches of the Anglican communion are more conservative, but even some of Anglicanism's founding documents such as the Thirty-Nine Articles are problematic to the Orthodox in their details. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cu adevarat a inviat! (please note, it is Hristos is modern Romanian, sometimes also spelled Christos in older texts; but anyway I am impressed.)

Don't worry about any tent of "focefulness" of the argument. I can distinguish an "academic" discussion from a rude reply. After all, people only discuss the issues where they disagree/don't understand. When they agree, it is somehow self-understood.

0. I did not know about a previous agreement on how to talk about other Christian churches in this article - I am sorry. I do not completely agree with the agreed approach, although I do understand at least some of its advantages. Let me just say what I disagree (you assume that the rest I agree): I think that the "comparison" is not for the sake of other Christians, but also for non-Christians. If we assume that the article would be read only by christians, then they have little to learn from a comparison, for they know (even an ordinary and not very well read person) at least approximately where they stand - they would better learn information, just as you say, from a description of what Orthodox "are" not what they "are not". However, imagine a Chinese, a Japanese, or an Indian, who do not even know well what means protestant, and what is eucharist, although those individuals are not ignorant, but simply did not have the information readily available. So, I want to say that some kind of comparison must be present in the article (in my oppinion). Not necessarily, maybe not even close to what I wrote - it was simply a first attempt. Can you try, please, to re-write that info as you would have written it, i.e. here, without intruducing it in the article. Maybe we can give it a better thought when we have a better quality edit than mine.

1. Actually I did not notice that I split the argument! (otherwise, obviously I wouldn't have) Maybe you should consider writting in more simple phrases, and explicitely include: "Bishops are all equal spiritually, administratively they are not." or something like that. One expects an encyclopedia to be as simple as possible in explaination - it is being addressed to a much wider audience than scientists or theologians. (again, just my oppinion)

2. Do you think maybe the relationsship of orthodox churches to other christian churches desearves a separate article, which can be citied here?

3. But let me just make one observation that if clarified can simplify some further discussion. When you say "Orthodox Church" (singular), what do you mean, the spiritual Church, or a "legal" body?

I am not a theologian, and maybe this is also part of national specifics, but my understanding is this: there is one Christian Church (singular), transient, started by Jesus Christ, a church that never siezed or will seize to exist. Then there are church bodies, like Bishopric of Antioch or of Rome, now they are called churches (plural). They are not subordinate to each other, but they can have different local traditions without that be in any way an impediment to communion (if other things do not prevent communion). Christian denominations differ in having or not preserved the appostolic linkage and (in various degree) in theological dogmas (in the positive sense of the word "dogma"). I must conceed to you: the lumping together of the churches on the sole principle of accepting or not eucharist resulted as you have legitimately noted in some strange associations. That dispite the fact that this is perhaps the most important issue that does not have a overwheling majority (although clearly a big majority) among Christians in one direction or the other. That said, I call orthodox church bodies that respect the three items in the very begining of this WP article. And, thanks God, they are in communion.

But the difference in "theological concepts" varies from case to case. I can understand that when speaking with a Coptic you can not say we “share a common belief in the Eucharist” when the very nature of Christ is in question. I perfectly understand you, although practically speaking I was in the situation of speaking with Ethiopians and Armenians, and we could not fugure out how those differences descend to the individual level (and I was speaking with very inteligent and honest Ethiopians and Armenians). Same experience with Anglicans - they are more versatile in theology, but still nothing of that theology was impreemed in people's personal beliefs and concepts (which by far where not limited to blindly attending mass). But, let me conceed to you here, because maybe in my experience I did not try hard enough to find the disagreements and differences. I can perfectly admit that there can exist theological differences that ordinary people (=laics), no matter now much they try, will never understand or make sense of in practical terms.

But let me go to a much clear to me example: Romano-Catholics and Eastern-Rite Catholics. I can not call tehm heretics, especially when they show signs of giving up Filioque, and seem to try to accept that Roman church should just be one of the sister-churches. Of course, not all catholics do, but that's a different question. Not all Orthodox are tolerant (in the christian sense) either.

My point is, when one says "Catholic Church", one should actually say "Roman Church", and when one says "Orthodox", one should say "Churches" (plural). Singular can be use (in my oppinion) only in reference to Christ's Church or if there is only one main church body. Maybe I am educated in a different tradition, but I feel abnormal that there I can say "You Do Not Have To Be Orthodox to be saved". For me "orthodox" is sinonimous to "ture", "rightious", "truth". And I cannot dissociate between "salvation in Jesus Christ" and "truth", I cannot understand one can do the first and not the second. My mind goes to a scene from Mel Gibson's movie, the dialog between Jesus and Pilate: "Veritas?" To crumble the whole structure of Roman establishment he just needed one word. Whatever is said or written about him, Pilate was inteligent enough to understand that what was going around (and in general) was the opposite of "veritas". He tried, he tried, but what he could do, was just to mumble "what is truth? what is truth?". I can tolerate the existing situation in the christian church, but i can not call it normal and be complacent. I feel that every Christian has a duty in this regard.

Is my oppinion abnormal?

4,5 next time:Dc76 19:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. One of the greatest problems in attempting to write and article for an encyclopedia is that it requires a simple form, so that the broadest collection of readers can understand it. When read, the reader naturally makes comparisons with knowledge he has already gained. If a Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, Atheist reads the text, each will draw his own comparisons. It doesn’t seem likely that a person looking for information will simply find Orthodoxy and stop, without reading other articles and gaining some perspective. All we can do, as Orthodox, is present our beliefs as plainly as possible. If I were to speak directly to a Hindu, for instance, I would make comparisons in order to help him understand. But because our readers could be anything, I think they will have to do the comparison work themselves.

2. If we did a comparison of religious beliefs I think it should be handled in a separate article; yes. I also think that such an article would be a monumental undertaking.

3. When we speak of the Orthodox Church we mean she is one single church. It does not matter whether you are Greek, Russian, Romanian, Arabic, etc. We are all part of the same church which was founded by Christ and has never faltered or ceased, as you said. It is a single entity. But the extent of that body only includes Orthodox Christians. Any other variation is cut off from the body. The Roman Catholics were once part of the body; they are not any longer. The problem is that after 1000 years of separation, neither side will concede. They are free at any moment to return to the Orthodox Church but in order to do so they will not only have to throw out the Filioque clause, but Papal supremacy, and all the substructure that has developed since then. There are other differences too. There are a thousand years of divergent philosophical ideas that ultimately are incompatible with an Orthodox mindset. This is complex, almost beyond reasoning and would take another 1000 years or more to fix. Likewise the heresy that separated the monophysites and the Orthodox is still strong enough to keep us apart.

But, as I said, in the end it doesn’t matter. Salvation comes from God as a gift. There is nothing we humans can do to force God into action. If one keeps all the practices, If one lives a sinless life, If one is perfect in ones every action, it does not guarantee that God will allow him into heaven. No person deserves heaven. It all rests in God’s infinite love and mercy. That is why I say, “You do not have to be Orthodox”. A good Muslim, or Hindu, or even Atheist can be saved by God. That is not to say that the truth does not matter or that we should not preserve the truth. We preserve the truth because it is a good and holy thing. We preserve it because it is the most effective path – not to salvation – but to theosis, becoming like God. We are called to become little Jesus Christs within Jesus Christ. Goodness for the sake of Goodness, not because of some reward. And this love is open to all mankind. Pontius Pilate’s confused belief that one cannot discern truth is really quite a profound statement on our greatest flaw. Man’s confusion may be his greatest gift, because it allows God to easily forgive mistakes.--Phiddipus 22:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Phiddipus, Thank you very much for your answer, and I am very sorry I did not get to reply to you earlier. Let me summarize my oppinion of your last comments:

1. agree

2. agree

3. agree, except the follwoing 2 subissues, both expressed here:

The problem is that after 1000 years of separation, neither side will concede. They are free at any moment to return to the Orthodox Church but in order to do so they will not only have to throw out the Filioque clause, but Papal supremacy, and all the substructure that has developed since then. There are other differences too. There are a thousand years of divergent philosophical ideas that ultimately are incompatible with an Orthodox mindset. This is complex, almost beyond reasoning and would take another 1000 years or more to fix.

a) I don't think that Catholics have to throw all the substructure that came after 1054, only that that is deviant. Ditto for the philosophical ideas. Even the ones developed by the Orthodox churches after 1054 have to be revised, since what came later is an addition that people somehow did not need before for 1000 years. Much of this "structure" is not theological, but can be atributed to cultural differences. Only what is theologically different has to be renounced. 90% is cultural difference, no theological. Let me remark that between different national (orthodox) churches there is a lot of difference in small tradition, which gives a distinctive cultural character, and is very good, but it does not alter at all the core theological principles, which are few but essential. A check for the latter, think by some miracle one of the apostles comes for a day into the future - God forbid we find him deviant because he does not share something that we culturally (not theologically) added during the last 2000 years.

b) (where) Do you find mistake in the following reasoning?

I don't believe there is anything like Orthodox mindset. I consider myself first of all Christian, then I consider myself non-deviant from the theology of the apostolic tradition. And that's it, period. I learn that that kind of Christian is called by the society Orthodox, therefore I am Christian Orthodox, not just Orthodox. Orthodox for me is an adjective to the noun Christian, not a noun by itself.

By tradition of the country being born in, ethnicity and language being educated in, I am member of one of the Orthodox churches. Or better, let me use ad hoc "major Bishiprics". I am obviously in communion with all other 13/14 "major Bishoprics", despite the fact that some cultural stuff is quite different. I simply do not share with them the particular methods of painting the icons, choice of brightness of colors, construction of the church buildings in differnt styles, or other such stuff, sometimes even small fests (like Sânziene in Romania, which was a pagan pre-Christian national fest in origin, and then was stript of all its components that contradicted Christianity, leaving a cultural heritage <-- historically, it was easier for the church to trasnform the fest into a Christian one than to ban it, and the result of 1700 of doing so is that it became a Christian cultural fest, not shared with other Christian Orhtodox).

The Bishop of Rome (Pope) is also one of the Bishops that never broke the appostolic link. The fact that some particular persons who were Bishops hundreds of years ago were greedy I see as no obstacle in treating different individuals nowadays with no strings attached to the past in regard to personal feelings. They would have to renounce whatever inventions their predecesors put in place to brake the theological link between us and them, but they are welcome to keep all cultural things. The major theological invention was Filioque. If they renounce only that - I consider it already a miracle and an act of the Holy Spirit, not a human one. The pope was traditionally the first among the equals, just like Peter was the first among the appostles. Obviously I would never agree to "Peter's supremacy" or other such non-sense, but I have no reservation to call him the first among the equals if he renounces "supremacy". Ditto papal infailibility. Obviously it is not for me to tell, I am just an ordinarry sinner when he is a priest of an exceptional quality. But exactly because of that exceptional quality he would understand to say that the councils (like the orriginal seven), and not the Pope rule. Appart from that, I live it to the theologicians to settle the minor points. I don't think it is necessary 1000 years. All it's necessary, is one moment of clarity of mind, piety, sense of duty, and responsibility for towards the forfathers of the church, responsiblity to keep it united, strong, and always open to anyone in need. Yes, that probably would be a small miracle moment. So, let me conclude with a classical saying in science: "Don't believe in miracle, base on them."

Again, thank you very much for you time.:Dc76 17:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Megaloschema.jpg

There is an issue with the image Image:Megaloschema.jpg that you have uploaded. It says that you drew the image but the name listed seems to be someone different. More important is the fact that the description of the usage right in the description does not match the tag beneath it. If you are in fact the creator you need to fix either the tag or the description, if you are not the author then you need to fix the tag to reflect the creator's wishes. - DNewhall 07:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Category

Just dropping a line on some people to let them know about a new category of Wikipedians I've created--Category:Wikipedians who like Dune. Cheers! Urania3 04:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Nuns001.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Nuns001.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 20:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

orthodox eschatology

Hi there...

some months ago I made an addition in the eschatology section of Eastern Orthodox Church which was reverted. I am afraid it was not clear. I was mentioning religious Orthodox teams (at least in Greece) with some dispensationalist beliefs. When I wrote it I didn't mean that the religious teams warn AGAINST the validity of Apocalypse but against 'New Order' and other stuff (related to conspiracy theories) that menaces spirituality during these 'imminent End Times'. ELKIS is such a religious organisation in Greece, fundamentalist (as in conservative, not protestant fundamentalist) but you won't find anything about it online since they are against technology. I am really ignorant about their relation to OFFICIAL orthodox church. Pictureuploader 11:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Although it has been some time, I'd really like a response to this paragraph, concerning the additions I once did on the article on Orthodoxy. I would like to have some discussion with you about it. If I was not clear, please tell me. Pictureuploader (talk) 08:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Spider

I am asking (if you return) to maybe come over to the History of the Eastern Orthodox Church article and help me out there. God Bless you. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John 1:1

Do you have any clear resources from a Greek-knowledgeable perspective on the translation (and mistranslation) of John 1:1? I remember having a great source on this, but I can't find it now.

There's a rather tendentious editor on Talk:Nontrinitarianism who has been violating policy left and right, and has reached a new low by completely misunderstanding what information is displayed in a diff and using his own flawed analysis to attempt to accuse me of hypocrisy. Whatever- the issue at hand, however, is that he is annoyingly implying that he knows Greek, and for this reason he supports a particular interpretation of the passage (which I think you'll find is pretty much straight JW Watchtower Society type-stuff).

The irony, of course, is that I've seen a bevy of scholars who criticize the JW interpretation (and therefore this own user's interpretation as well) as being a display of "complete ignorance of Greek grammar". This user seems to argue that theos alone can only be qualitative, but I've seen the qualitative interpretation being used in full force as being supportive of Trinitarian theology. I don't know, because it's really been a while since I've touched on this subject. Can you provide me with some helpful resources from actual Greek linguistic scholars or the like? I feel ridiculous to respond to this taunting, but this user is becoming nothing more than a troll, and I feel as if he well remain to flaunt about his imagined scholarship unless a scholar is clearly shown to contradict him.--C.Logan (talk) 05:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nun

Hi. I noticed your previous work on the article Nun. We are trying to build consensus as to whether or not the article has NPOV. One editor has placed a neutrality tag on the article and objects to its removal. Would you mind having a look at the article (Nun) and leaving your opinion on the talk page (Talk:Nun#Neutrality_Tag). Thank you! Dgf32 (talk) 01:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Orthodox Church picture

Hi. Regarding your edit, I admit the article lacked a lead picture, but IMHO the image is of poor quality. I've noticed your edits both on articles and on talk pages and they are ones of the best (no, it's not politeness I'm saying it). But the pic sadly has no value IMO. From an informative POV it says nothing to the viewer (excepting "it's about the Christians who built those fancy domed churches", but the East is better described by icons). I think the pics you've used (not the composite) may be better used in a gallery subsection of 'architecture'. From an esthetic POV I think it has no center of interest, it has too many colors (yeah, I know gold is Divine, but that one is grayish yellow).

It'd be better to use an icon as a lead pic for the article, as it'd be a proper image of the East, catching its spirit. As about what icon should be chosen, I think you have the knowledge to make a decision. Commons should be a place to find one. Thank you. adriatikus | talk 05:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Differentiate

Hi, I was worried too that I didn't use the word correctly... Sorry, but I keep forgetting my english because I don't use the language that much... Well, what I meant is that in Orthodoxy the teachings expand only by means of clarifying previous statements and Dogmas, and not by introducing new, different to those that have already been a part of Church's life. Thank you for noting it! --K kokkinos (talk) 07:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great Lent

Phiddipus. I've done some editing to the article on Great Lent, and was wondering is you would have a look at it and make any corrections you think are appropriate. Thanks. MishaPan (talk) 16:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transliteration

Hi. I have a Romanian translation of a Greek book I've used as source in WP. My problem is the author's name is obviously written in a Romanian form: Hristofor Panaghiotis. Can you tell me if Christopher Panagiotis is a good rendition of his name in English? Thank you. adriatikus | talk 00:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HA

Loves it. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 00:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great Fast

Hi, Phiddipus. Thanks for your comments about the article on Great Lent. I've responded on Talk:Great Lent. In general, I agree with what you say. I do have a question about what you mean when you say there is nothing particularly "holy" about the days of Great Week (see Great Lent's Talk page for my comments). At any rate, I've always found your contributions and insights to be helpful, and look forward to your continued good work. MishaPan (talk) 15:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Part 2: Holy Days

Phiddipus: Thanks again for your interesting comments. I must say, however, that I have never, ever read any Holy Father or Orthodox teacher who propounds the idea that you propose: that a day, because it is an abstract thing, cannot be blessed, and cannot be holy. It is, in fact contrary both to Scripture and the writings of the Fathers. God specifically blessed the Sabbath (Genesis 2:3) and declared it to be holy (Exodus 16:23, 35:2, etc.). The festivals of the Mosaic Law were holy (Isaiah 30:29, etc.). Even a particular year, the Jubilee, was declared to be holy (Leviticus 25:12). As far as abstract things go: God's name is holy (Psalm 99:3, Psalm 103:1—I'm using the Masoretic numbering here, because I can't find links to the Septuagint); conversation can be holy (2 Peter 3:11), God's Commandments are holy (2 Peter 2:21), and our Faith and our calling as Christians are also holy (Jude 20, 2 Timothy 1:9). You are correct that every day is a holy day—all of creation has been sanctified by the Incarnation, Death and Resurrection of Christ—but how do we extrapolate from that that no day can be called holy? On the contrary, according to the Holy Fathers, days and seasons can be blessed and are holy. At the Indiction (church new year) we pray to our Lord "…bless Thou the crown of the year…" (Menaion, Sep. 1, Apolytikion). St. John Damascene, in his Paschal Canon, says the following about the holy day of Pascha: "This is the chosen and holy day, first of sabbaths, king and lord of days, the feast of feasts, holy day of holy days. On this day we bless Christ forevermore." (Pentecostarion, Paschal Canon, Irmos Ode 8). I agree that precision is necesarry when speaking on matters of faith, but we have to be careful about "straining at gnats". Heresy can indeed center around one word, but so can schism. MishaPan (talk) 16:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I've got an email from an unknown person pointing out my mistakes, my particular/regional views, my lack of competence, the over my head things I get into, etc. with regard to the Jesus Prayer. Well, I know all of that ;), and I know the importance of not messign up things. But: I am only citing sources. I've tried that virtually all sentences I write to be backed up. I know the article isn't finished, I know there are things not written by me (but they are in my to be checked list). For comparison, the aprox. version I've modified is this (1 Feb 2008). So, I'm asking you to be kind and take a look at it. Oh, the message is tagged as "private communication", and the sender can't edit the text (has "many good reasons", but (s)he's a former WP editor).

As a personal note, I'm tired of patronizing people, pointing out your incompetence and refusing to get dirty by helping out. I am aware I may be wrong, but the situation is outrageous in my view: demolishing, without constructing. Maybe I shouldn't write you all this, please take the way it is: disappointment (as it's not my 1st encounter with a (presumably) EO having the same kind of attitude).

Please read it. Then edit it, or write short a reply, or express your concerns. Anything will be welcomed (from someone who actually does something). Thanks. adriatikus | talk 18:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Orthodox-Church-interior.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Hi Phiddipus!
We thank you for uploading Image:Orthodox-Church-interior.jpg, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 13:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi

I want to ask you about a book (and I've seen your last edit several minutes ago, so you're online). But I'd like to be private. Can you give me an e-mail at myWPusername (at) gmail? Or on Ymessenger, the same ID? Thank you in advance. No problem if you won't reply. adriatikus | talk 06:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy

Hi there! I've noticed that you've edited articles pertaining to the Eastern Orthodox Church. I wanted to extend an invitation to you to join the WikiProject dedicated to organising and improving articles on the subject, which can be found at: WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy. This WikiProject was begun because a need was perceived to raise the level of quality of articles on Wikipedia which deal with the Eastern Orthodox Church.

You can find information on the project page about the WikiProject, as well as how to join and how to indicate that you are a participant in the project. Additionally, you may be interested in helping out with our collaboration of the month. I hope you'll consider joining and thank you for your contributions thus far! Michael X the White (talk) 10:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orthodox?

How can you be Orthodox Christian and homosexual in the same time? or it's just joke? Planck (talk) 08:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand the conflict. I am Greek Orthodox in my religion and I also happen to be a homosexual. I chose to be Orthodox, I did not choose to be homosexual. God made me this way. It would be a lie to pretend to not be homosexual and God hates a liar.--Phiddipus (talk) 03:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I don't know what you are trying to do or show, but it is just impossible to be a member of this Church. You may have been baptized but that does not mean you are Orthodox, you must also behave in certain ways. That not the way God meant you to be, He wants you to fight that sin. So what exactly are you trying to show? Planck (talk) 00:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that you have been taught such hatred toward homosexuals. Humility teaches us that we are all sinners; it teaches me that I am the worst of all sinners; it teaches me that no person’s sin matters to me at all except my own. I am the only sinner and I know my sins. But since when does being a sinner exclude me from the true Church? Do I love God, yes! Do I worship Him and Praise Him, yes! Am I kind to strangers and do I help the poor, Yes! God is loving and merciful; he forgives sins. I take my sinful self and in spite of my sins I try to be Christ-like. Did you think that being a Christian meant keeping a set of rules? The rules were made for man, not man for the rules. I love you, stranger. Do not pass judgment on me because of what you think…if you must judge me, then judge me for who I am.--Phiddipus (talk) 04:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hatred is the last sentiment I wanted to express. I was taught to hate the sin and not the sinner. I don't know how much you understand Orthodoxy but its position on homosexuality is clear. I'm not judging you, this is left to God, but your page despite your sincerity produces confusion and may distort the understanding of Orthodoxy for those that do not know its ways yet. I'm not going to demonstrate you how Orthodoxy opposes homosexual behavior since I am sure this is exactly the struggle in your soul. If you claim to be sincere then take the step and admit your sin and God will show you a way. Planck (talk) 05:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear sweet Planck, I can’t tell you how many times in the last 40 years I have heard that if I admit and confess my sin and ask God for guidance that He will answer my prayers, but despite my once firm belief that I was evil and sick and perverted, despite the fact that I spent 6 years in a monastery praying every day, doing thousands of prostrations till my knees bled, and listening to the council of holy men from the deserts of Sinai to the Agion Oros I have come to know only one thing…That God, in His infinite love and mercy is not offended by anything us lowly humans could ever do. He loves us and wants us to love one another. I have often been told that God would never give you a temptation that you couldn’t overcome. You misunderstand what it is to be a homosexual. It is not a sin any more that being a heterosexual is. As a heterosexual you are asked to curb your lust and not to have sex before marriage…but once you are married then sex is OK. But for homosexuals, we go through the same thing that you do…we become sexually curious at puberty, we try to curb our feelings, we pray to God for help, but just like you we are constantly hounded by lust. But you eventually get release…you get to have all the sex you ever wanted with a wife…you get to fulfill your craving. Lust is transformed into marriage. But that is where the similarity stops because for homosexuals we are expected never to have sex; we are denied happiness with a partner, we are expected to lie to everyone because we are different; and its you, the heterosexuals, who tell us we are sick and wrong and twisted….but that is because you are stupid…you listen to other people tell you we are somehow evil when all we want is what you want – a little happiness, a little love shared; You hear your parents and grandparents saying hateful things about gays and you hate us in your hearts – If that’s not true then why did you feel the need to write to me and tell me I must be joking because no “real” Orthodox could be “Gay”. You might as well have just called me a dirty faggot and spit in my face. The truth is I love you. Its easy to overlook the sins of one so stupid. I know God loves me; as much as he loves you, as he loves everyone. And did you ever think that even the church fathers opinions concerning homosexuality is wrong. This is not a matter of theology or of faith…it’s a human opinion.--Phiddipus (talk) 04:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this discussion should not be that public.. Let me clarify my stance. Homosexuality is a mental disorder. You were born handicaped, there is no sin in this. Some other people are zoofils, another similar mental disorder. Others have a great desire to steal, they are kleptomaniac, and so on. Maybe they were born with this or maybe they didn't but they must fight their sin. In this war you also lose battles which is... ok. It is not ok on the other hand to decide that your sin is no sin. It is equal with resignation. You seam to be quite in a knowledge of Orthodox faith and I felicitate you for this. At first I thought you were trying to make a bad propaganda but now I think I understand you better. In short, homosexuality is not a sin but a mental disorder. Practicing homosexuality is a sin. This is what Orthodox faith teaches. If you do not agree.. then it's simply heresy. So then again, why would you say on your page that you are Orthodox Christian and in the same time (practicing) homosexual? Planck (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not afraid or ashamed to speak about this in public. It seems you are trying very hard to justify your position. First off, I seriously doubt that you have the qualifications to determine what is and what is not a “Mental Disorder” or a “Handicap”; and to compare two humans loving one another and sharing their lives together similar to having sex with animals or stealing proves you have no perspective at all. You even use the word heresy without understanding it. I am aware that there are certain hierarchs of the Church who also hold this opinion, but they, most likely, do not hold degrees in psychology or medicine. Clinical psychologists have long since given up calling homosexuality a mental disorder; at least they have in developed countries. You will, no doubt, disregard all of this in order to keep your opinion. If I was born handicapped, as you want to say, then I have to reiterate that God made me this way. He reached down from heaven and selected me for being gay. It is not, therefore my fault, nor could it be a sin. If God chose me to be gay then it would be my duty to be exactly what he wanted me to be; to always tell the truth. He would not want me to marry a woman since that would be going against the very nature He gave me. It has long been the position of people like you that we should just hide in the shadows so that you can pretend we are not here, you can ignore what you think is a small minority, but it would seem that God chooses a lot of people to be gay – one in twenty. That means that if the world holds 6 billion people then there may be upwards of three hundred million gay people worldwide. That doesn’t sound like a handicap…it sounds like part of a plan; His plan. Consider also that gay people do not usually reproduce, we don’t have children unless we adopt; yet the percentage of gay people remains constant throughout history. God keeps making more and more gays. Consider that universally the highest suicide rate is among young gay men – they kill themselves because of the rejection they feel from society. No one wants to be gay, but we are, and we deserve to have the same opportunities at a life that you do. God doesn’t sin and he doesn’t make sin. Our mental state is more than simple temptation. Quite honestly it was easy to resist practicing homosexuality, but it was impossible to resist being homosexual. Trying to act like you was dark and lonely and painful and suicidal; it was being ostracized and hated and laughed at; it was knowing you could never be happy, never have love, never share your life with someone; it was unfair. I can’t believe God created such a beautiful and diverse world and gave human beings so many opportunities for joy and happiness but he picked 300,000,000 people to suffer such a horrible fate. So what is the only answer left? That God made us all different and that’s a good thing. People have their opinions, but they are wrong and God is right. These are questions you should ask yourself. If homosexuality were such a horrible sin why is it completely missing from the bible? Why is every other sin mentioned over and over again? Adultery is mentioned over 800 times in scriptures? Why not homosexuality? Believe me the pagan Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians knew what it was.--Phiddipus (talk) 07:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Things are much simpler than you are trying to show them. I won't argue homosexuality with you, it's going nowhere.. besides I don't have the required degrees. But I don't need a degree to know that you are not accepted as a member of the Orthodox Church as long as you are a practicing homosexual. As simple as that. You have your own believes different from Orthodoxy. Its up to you which user box you will keep and which you throw away. You have lots of contributions to articles on Orthodoxy many of which are really good but I will be watching for those that are wrong. Planck (talk) 20:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It’s easy to imagine that things are simple. It makes it so you don’t have to think about it. But the truth is nothing is ever simple, nothing is black and white. As Blake said, “If the doors of perception were cleansed then we would see everything as it truly is – Infinite”. I am Orthodox. From the moment I was baptized until this very moment I am Orthodox. Everything I believe and hold dear to my soul is Orthodox. I have never been anything but Orthodox and I will die Orthodox. Before I am human, before I am a man, before I am Greek, before I am anything else, I am Orthodox. I also happen to be gay and there isn’t anything I can do about it. God made me this way. I am sorry this doesn’t fit into your simple vision of things. But it is true.--Phiddipus (talk) 05:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Please take a look at this: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 November 26#Category:Christian organizations established in the 1st century.--Michael X the White (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Icon for Apolytikion tis Pentekostis

Hi Phiddipus
I have used your image of the icon of Pentecost in a video (for YouTube) to illustrate my composition based on the original Byzantine chant. You can hear my composition here: Apolytikion video
Many thanks for the image
Kind regards
David
Dwsolo (talk) 19:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nature of the Church

You changed the statement in the "Eastern Orthodox Church" about the unity of the EOC from "theologically and sacramentally unified" to simply "theologically unified". I'm wondering what was the purpose behind that edit? I'd rather have you explain than for me to simply jump to conclusions. Deusveritasest (talk) 03:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are two reasons for this change. The term “sacrament” though commonly used in the United States is really a Roman Catholic notion and it carries with it the idea that there are levels of holiness in how we commune with God. The term that should be used is “Mystery”. The RC recognizes seven sacraments (baptism, communion, confession, etc.); the Orthodox, while recognizing these same mysteries, does not single them out as somehow being more important than other mysteries (such as lighting a candle, offering incense, venerating icons, etc). Orthodox Christians count as mysteries anything that facilitates our communion with God. Second, and perhaps most important, Orthodox Christians do not always share these Mysteries with each other. There have been numerous times when one group has isolated itself from another group because they felt that group was in error. There are currently fairly strong divisions between the Old and New Calendarists which remain in place. Theology is what unifies the Church.--Phiddipus (talk) 05:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that plenty of EO believe that a severing of Holy Communion constitutes schism and thus renders said schismatics as not part of the Church, correct? Deusveritasest (talk) 19:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who is and who is not Orthodox is not decided by a majority of members, rather, adherence to the Orthodox Faith is the criterion by which Orthodox Christians are judged. Orthodoxy is not a club, and Truth exists independently of man’s opinions. Priests, Bishops, even Patriarchs do not have the power to enforce their opinions without Truth being on their side. Historically we know that hierarchs have at times become power hungry and have voiced heresies which were ultimately rejected by the Church. Likewise, there have been groups who stood with resistance to what they perceived to be heresy. Their intentions were to preserve the Church. There have been times as well when much of the Church fell into heresy and it was the resisters (such as Maximos the Confessor) who saved it. Today, there are a number of groups who believe absolutely in the Orthodox Faith and hold tenaciously to its traditions but resist what they call ecclesiastical heresy in the form of ecumenism. Some of these groups have completely separated themselves from the rest of the Church; but others, correctly following cannon law have mysteriologically walled themselves off from those that have fallen to this error. They see ecumenism as an illness that needs to be cured, not as a break from the body of the Church; and until it is cured they choose, for quite practical reasons, not to allow intercommunion. Canonically they have every right as Orthodox Christians to hold this position as long as they do not go so far as to pronounce the rest of Orthodoxy false and themselves alone as true. It is, in fact the position that every Orthodox Christian is bound to take if he feels that his particular priest or hierarch has fallen into error. Of course, those in error will make every effort to deny the Orthodoxy of the resistors, but as I said above, they do not have the right. Such things are decided by ecumenical council; and until one is convened we cannot ignore a position of resistance. --Phiddipus (talk) 22:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orthodoxy is not the only criterion by which the Church is determined. The Creed itself defines 4 other attributes. The Church is also "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic". These attributes thus must be taken into consideration. It is entirely possible that someone be orthodox but not part of the Church.

I have no interest in questioning the Orthodoxy of the Old Calendarists. In my opinion they are entirely one in dogma with the mainstream church, though having an incorrect perception of some ecclesiastical and canonical matter. But just because they orthodox does not mean that they are necessarily members of the Church. Perhaps if the name of the article was "Eastern Orthodoxy", you might have more of a case in suggesting that "the Eastern Orthodox are unified (simply) theologically", but the article is called the "Eastern Orthodox Church" and is addressing the main, canonical body that maintains Mysteriological unity.

It appears that you just keep repeating your opinion that "Orthodoxy is all that is important" without showing that this opinion reflects the Tradition of the Church. Until you do that, I think your change to the EOC article is POV. Deusveritasest (talk) 06:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have a very limited view of what “The Church” is. You also seem to think that one hierarch or a group of them have the power to decide who is within that group. The Church is the Body of Christ and it is Christ who knows who is within his Body. It is the Holy Spirit who reveals this through history – through a vehicle we call an ecumenical council. First off it is impossible for the Old Calendarists to be heretics since their beliefs are identical to Orthodox teaching, in fact they are truer to Orthodox teaching than the current majority of the Church. One, Holy Catholic, and Apostolic – The Oneness of the Church extends far beyond any earthly organization, far beyond any country, far beyond even death itself; all persons living and dead who are in heaven right now, weather they believed correctly or not, sinner or saint, are part of the Church, the Church which existed from the beginning of time. The Holiness of a group can be expressed in their love and loyalty to the traditions of the Church and their willingness to endure ridicule and hatred for the sake of being defenders of that Church. The universality of the Church goes back to the first point – the Truth is the Truth and it exists for all time and in all places. And as for apostolic, all of the bishops of the Church can trace their lines legitimately back to the Apostles. I think you are actually wrong in thinking that someone can be Orthodox and not be part of the Church unless by “Orthodox” you refer to a name only. As to Mysteriological unity or unity of the various groups within the Church I think you may have mistaken what I have said; so I will reiterate: The Church has often been divided by controversy and it is canonically acceptable for both sides to wall themselves off from perceived heresy – what is not acceptable is to claim one side or the other is outside the Church until an ecumenical council has decided this. As such, the Arians were once part of the Church prior to the first ecumenical council, likewise the Nestorians and the Monophysites, etc. It is in fact the New Calendarists that are breaking this canon in disregarding the Old Calendarists. The Moderate Old Calendarists have never claimed the New Calendarists to be outside the Church. In any case, there have been many previous times within the Church when there have been disruptions in Mysteriological unity – even when ultimately both sides are right. Such a break in communion is prudent to anyone who considers the reality of the Mystery itself.--Phiddipus (talk) 02:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Shiva.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Shiva.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 10:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 10:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pentacost icon theologically unsound

Brother Phiddipus: The self-made icon illustrating the "Pentecost" page is amusingly heretical. We see twelve robed figures, all with gold halos representing sanctity. I assume that they are meant to represent the "twelve apostles". The theological problem is that there is no St. Judas Iscariot to make an even dozen. He apparently met his end in the Potter's Field, swinging above his 30 pieces of silver. So I am not quite sure who these gentleman are. Writtenright (talk) 23:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)Writtenright[reply]

Wow - Acts 1 - Judas was Replaced with St Matthias

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Hello there, I would like to contact you concerning your Graphic of Orthodox Church Interior. Can you please send me a E-Mail on Barry78@gmx.net thx Jelen78 (talk) 13:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image Icon-Pentecost.jpg - Source?

A scholar is wondering where this image came from. Was it in a book or on a website? He is trying to figure out the provenance of the item in the image.

Kroksg (talk) 18:34, 14 November 2016 (UTC)Kroksg[reply]

Image Icon-Pentecost.jpg - Source?

A scholar is wondering where this image came from. Was it in a book or on a website? He is trying to figure out the provenance of the item in the image.

Kroksg (talk) 18:34, 14 November 2016 (UTC)Kroksg[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Orthodoxycomposit.jpg

The file File:Orthodoxycomposit.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with File:Orthodoxchurch.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Orthodoxchurch.jpg.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F4 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:19, 25 August 2022 (UTC). If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 16:19, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]