Talk:Eastern Orthodox Church

Church or Churches

They are not even in full communion anymore after the 2018 Moscow–Constantinople schism. And they have always been distinguished from each other along ethnic lines for hundred years. The title is misleading. I propose to change it to “Eastern Orthodox Churches”. We already got Oriental Orthodox Churches, so why does Eastern Orthodoxy got treated differently!? 75.157.108.212 (talk) 07:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Even if a full split happens, that will probably leave a Russian Orthodox Church alone on one side and an otherwise-whole Orthodox Catholic Church on the other; the latter isn't and won't become a plural. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:1684:10C:A186:F528:964C:C7AF:91FA (talk) 20:23, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Saint Georgs Cathedral location

The Cathedral belongs to the patriarchate of constantinople and the place where it IS is called constantinople by those who own the Cathedral. So Change the Location to a correct one and Not the Turkish wrong one. 91.106.124.226 (talk) 22:29, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't know, I have it on good authority that it's Istanbul (Not Constantinople). ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:21, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

And on which? Please give me a source because i always thought that the orthodox church called the place Constantinople even after the genocide on Greeks a couple decades ago. 91.106.124.226 (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Constantinople may still be the name of the see, but it's not the name of the place. I am unaware of any genocide that has taken place against Greeks in Turkey during the last 20 years. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:08, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

But the See calls it Like this and it is the official Name of the City in Greece to which nationality Most members of the See belong to. And in 2007 the Turkish Gouvernement seized 1000 immovavles of 81 Greeks Organisatios as Well as individuals of the Greek community, which counts as a act of genocide. And the Territory is still occupied by Turkey and wasnt returned which violates the treaty done after the First World war. 91.106.124.226 (talk) 15:50, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Schism in the Orthodox Church

Hello all, the sentence in paragraph 2 saying there is a schism between Moscow and Constantinople is true but lacks context. I believe there should be an addition saying schism sometimes is the result of different jurisdictions arguing. I cited the Antioch-Jerusalem schism but got reverted. JWill303 (talk) 14:20, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Template:Re Do you have a source that says that the Moscow–Constantinople Schism is not unusual? ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:31, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I propose the following: The church has no central doctrinal or governmental authority analogous to the pope of the Catholic Church. Because of this structure, different jurisdictions often disagree with each other, sometimes resulting in a temporary schism between them. An example of this is an ongoing schism between Constantinople and Moscow, with the two not in full communion with each other.

Sources:

https://antiochpatriarchate.org/en/page/ecclesial-severance-with-the-patriarchate-of-jerusalem/1139/

https://antiochpatriarchate.org/en/page/a-blessed-visit-announces-the-return-of-church-communion-between-the-patriarchates-of-antioch-and-jerusalem/2624/ JWill303 (talk) 14:32, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Additional source on the mending of the ROCOR/Moscow schism

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2007-may-18-fg-orthodox18-story.html JWill303 (talk) 14:37, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

That's original research. You're looking at a historical example and extrapolating a conclusion. On Wikipedia, you need a source that say "X is Y" to say "X is Y". Here, your saying of a source that says "A led to B" but adding a statement to the article that say "A probably led to X being Y". ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

The church is in schism. The church in the past (and recent past) has been in schism. How would you phrase the additional context I am trying to add? Leaving it at Moscow and Constantinople are in schism is too simplistic. The sources are primary showing schisms in the past. JWill303 (talk) 15:33, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I could also link to the Orthodox schism article in Wikipedia.

Orthodox schism JWill303 (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

You have not provided any sources that actually do the thing you want them to do. Unless you can provide sources that say that this particular schism is somehow typical, then you're off the mark. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Ok, how about this. Russia and Constantinople went into schism in 1996 for 3 months and the NYT reported on it. Would this be good enough?

https://www.nytimes.com/1996/02/28/world/russian-church-breaks-off-from-orthodoxy-s-historic-center.html JWill303 (talk) 01:03, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Or here's an article directly linking the similarities of the 1996 excommunication to this one.

https://news.err.ee/870633/moscow-constantinople-split-highlighting-estonia-s-role-in-orthodox-church JWill303 (talk) 01:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I propose this:

Since 2018, there has been an ongoing schism between Constantinople and Moscow, with the two not in full communion with each other. These two jurisdictions last severed ties with each other in 1996. Source:https://www.nytimes.com/1996/02/28/world/russian-church-breaks-off-from-orthodoxy-s-historic-center.html JWill303 (talk) 01:52, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand this dispute, but I think the point being made may be that the schism isn't provably temporary, so we can't add it to an encyclopedia, because it's an opinion and not a fact. Even if your opinion turns out to be right, and even if it's well-reasoned and well-informed, we do not admit original research from editors to the encyclopedia. Even if sources say a past schism was mended, that doesn't necessarily justify your apparent conclusion that the current schism is temporary. I neither dispute your claim that there have been schisms before nor the reliability of the L.A. Times; I'm not telling you that you can't add that context

1. REDIRECT Template:Hair space

Template:Redirect category shell—

1. REDIRECT Template:Hair space

Template:Redirect category shellyou can. But, if I recall correctly, you did add the word temporary to at least one previous edit that was reverted. You can't say or imply that the schism is temporary, but if context about past schisms is missing, I don't at all object to you adding that information, as long as it isn't accompanied by original analysis. I can't speak for others, but I doubt that Pbritti objects to providing context

1. REDIRECT Template:Hair space

Template:Redirect category shell—

1. REDIRECT Template:Hair space

Template:Redirect category shellthe user is probably just concerned by your possibly accidental insertion of your opinion into article­space. Correct me if I'm wrong.

1101 (talk) 10:30, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Again, that's original research. You don't have a source that verifies the claim that 1.) 1996 is the most recent prior schism between the two and 2.) that it's relevant. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:27, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification @1101, that is helpful. I felt a little confused as to what exactly the objections were from @Pbritti given the sources and language adjustments. The sentence as it stands itself is biased. It implies that this schism is extraordinary in some way, which is false, and the placing seems a bit strange. So while it may not be proven temporary, I am trying to add context to show that this schism is not something new, or outside the ordinary through additional context. I do have an article in my sourcelist which states "Rivalry in Estonia between Orthodoxy's two most prominent patriarchates in the 1990s created a precedent for the current schism over Ukraine." That source is also the main source for the article on the 1996 schism, meaning it's been at least partially approved for use. I am more than happy to adjust the language necessary to create the context, not analysis, I am trying to add. I admit I haven't made many edits so I'm still learning the process. JWill303 (talk) 12:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong username tag @Talib1101. JWill303 (talk) 13:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't believe that the sentence is biased as it stands, if the sentence you're referring to is "Since 2018, there has been an [ongoing schism between Constantinople and Moscow, with the two not in full communion with each other."

The sentence uses neutral language to state verifiable facts (correct me if I'm wrong) with no implication that the schism is extra­ordinary (though I'm unsure exactly what you mean by that), only that it's notable/significant, which it is, right? 1101 (talk) 13:12, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

It is notable in that it's a thing, but not a unique phenomenon (my use of extraordinary is just outside the ordinary). Antioch and Jerusalem were in schism until 2023, which I don't recall being on the page. Bulgaria was in schism for 150 years until the mid 20th century, and there are various schismatic groups who are not in communion with the Church but are still seen as nominally Orthodox. It's not like the Great Schism where a doctrinal dissent means the sides don't see each other as in the same denomination. So the sentence is like saying, "Werner Von Braun was a German scientist who worked on the Apollo missions" its factual and true, but misses his affiliation with the wundervaffe program and SS affiliations. Does that make sense? At least, that's what I see when reading it. If I'm wrong, I will drop the proposed edits. JWill303 (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

The Antioch—Jerusalem split was substantially less impactful and relevant than the largest patriarchates having a recent schism with geopolitical consequences. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:45, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

The Antioch/Jerusalem split is a huge factor in why so many jurisdictions backed out of the 2016 Council in Crete. While it may not have been geopolitically important for the Eastern Orthodox Church, it had profound consequences. This is the page for the Eastern Orthodox Church, not the geopolitical ramifications of the Eastern Orthodox Church. JWill303 (talk) 18:24, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Not sure that tracks. Either way, two editors have expressed disapproval for insertion. Pending new input from other editors, it's unlikely that a consensus will form in favor for this change. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:46, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Well sad to hear. If you’re ever curious for more discussion on this or other EO topics, I’m always available! JWill303 (talk) 22:33, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Also, blessed Lent! We're nearly there! JWill303 (talk) 22:40, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Lede image should be the Hagia Sophia

I think the lede image should be the Hagia Sophia instead of St George's Cathedral, for these reasons:

1. It was the seat of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople for 1000 years, making it more historically significant than than St George's Cathedral, which only became the patriarchal church in 1600
2. It is the most famous and second-largest Eastern Orthodox cathedral in the world. Architecturally, it's one of the most influential and recognisable buildings in the world.
3. It's famously connected to the Christianisation of the Kievan Rus
4. It is still a consecrated church, and always will be one.
5. The Catholics get to have the beautiful and ornate St Peter's Basilica as the lede image of their article. For consistency, the Orthodox should get a similarly grand and historied cathedral.
6. The architecture of St George's Cathedral is not typical of Orthodox churches at all💖平沢唯を愛しています💖 (talk|contribs) 13:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

The above description is not exactly a great argument and falls down on several points:

1. The church is not used as a church anymore and is instead a museum and mosque not owned by the Eastern Orthodox Church. Its current appearance is as a mosque, not the Christian church it previously served as.
2. For a great deal of the time that it was a functioning church, it was a church in full communion with the Catholic Church and Oriental Orthodox Churches. The period where it was the patriarchal church of EP of the Eastern Orthodox Church alone was comparatively brief and analogous with the time St George's Cathedral has served in that role.
3. There seems to be a SOAPBOX basis here, with its architectural beauty and status as still claimed by the Eastern Orthodox given far too much credit relative to the actual role the church plays in Eastern Orthodoxy and has played for the last five centuries.

I have reverted this change. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:31, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

1. Just because it's not used as an Eastern Orthodox Church anymore doesn't mean it isn't one. As I said, it is still a consecrated Orthodox Church. What the church is used as now doesn't change what it was originally built to be. The article on Egyptian temples has a building that is no longer used as an Egyptian temple.
   • Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "its current appearance is as a mosque". Besides the minarets, it still looks essentially the same as it did before 1453.
2. That's just false. The Hagia Sophia was finished in 537, after the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches schismed in 451. As for the time it was in communion with Rome, it was still an Eastern Rite church throughout that entire time, and it still served as the patriarchal church of the Patriarch of Constantinople (who was seen as the head of Eastern Christianity even before the schism), so I'm not sure what your point is there.
3. You didn't acknowledge most of my arguments. The Hagia Sophia is the most famous and historically significant Orthodox Church, and its architecture became stabdard for Orthodox churches.

💖平沢唯を愛しています💖 (talk|contribs) 09:28, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Your understanding of the history of Hagia Sophia, ecclesiology, and architecture seem a bit confused. Regardless, it's not an Eastern Orthodox Church anymore. It hasn't been for over five centuries, a longer time than it was part of an independent Eastern Orthodox Church. It does not illustrate the subject well. ~ Pbritti (talk) 12:38, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

"Your understanding of the history of Hagia Sophia, ecclesiology, and architecture seem a bit confused"

It's really easy for you to say that without actually pointing out anything I said wrong. Especially after I just corrected several historical mistakes that you made. 💖平沢唯を愛しています💖 (talk|contribs) 13:05, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree with you. Hagia Sophia is more popular and more recognizable than Saint George's Cathedral. I agree most with point #6. JesusChristismySavior777 (talk) 01:12, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Look, Hagia Sophia was originally constructed earlier than you believe. It was largely rebuilt, then even more altered after becoming a mosque. There is no basis to justify treating it as the image of the Eastern Orthodox Church, especially since Eastern Orthodoxy isn't like Catholicism with authority emanating from a particular see. Looking at the other Wikipedias that have articles on Eastern Orthodoxy, many don't even have a lead image. Those that do generally have a cross or an icon of Jesus. It's a bad image to pick. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:33, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Greek Orthodox

The term "Greek Orthodox Church" is a Church in Eastern Orthodoxy. It isn't even accurate. I request the phrase "and is also called Greek Orthodox Church to be removed. While it may be accurate that it is called that, all Greek Orthodox are Eastern Orthodox, but not all Eastern Orthodox are Greek Orthodox. JesusChristismySavior777 (talk) 01:06, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

It's a misnomer, but it's a quite common misnomer—even among Eastern Orthodox. It's much akin to Roman Catholic: some Eastern Catholics take umbrage at being called "Roman Catholic" and say it only refers to Latin Church Catholics. However, it is used frequently enough by non-Catholics and Catholics alike to merit mention in the first sentence. The same is true here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:12, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

While that is true, the Greek Orthodox are only a small part of Orthodoxy. You got, ROC, ROCOR, Antiochian, Jerusalem. the Roman Catholics make up almost all Catholicism because there are only two types of Catholics. Roman and Eastern (includes all the rites in Eastern Catholicism). 180.191.20.7 (talk) 02:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

That's not true—there are Ruthenian, Ukrainian, Syro-Malabar, Coptic, and Maronite Catholics (just to name a few). "Greek Orthodox Church" is a common-enough misnomer. ~ Pbritti (talk) 10:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Aren’t they also Eastern? So, there are actually three branches of Catholicism, Eastern Catholics, Roman Catholics, and some Orientals who are Eastern Catholic. Roman Catholicism is still the largest of them indeed making up 99% (i think, i just looked it up) while the Greek Orthodox has less percentage. Mahal ko si Jesus (talk) 12:36, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

The point isn't percentages: it's that there is a common name here—Greek Orthodox Church—that is relatively frequently used to refer to the overall denomination that is the subject of this article. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:47, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, maybe I am fine with just “also called Greek Orthodox Church” but not “Greek Orthodox Church” CASE DISMISSED. Thank yiu for this wonderful conversation. Mahal ko si Jesus (talk) 01:33, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Oh and by the way, the three accounts that chatted are mine. Mahal ko si Jesus (talk) 01:34, 12 June 2025 (UTC)