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)

Regular cycle the Epistle

bible

197.231.206.95 (talk) 19:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

You have written nothing of the Eastern Orthodox Christians of India and China evangelised by St Thomas in CE 52 & CE 68 respectively. This establishment is in communion with the conglomerate of Churches under the title of Orthodox Christian Churches of the East (eg Greek, Jerusalem, etc.) There were several fragmentations of this Church over the millenia due to 1) Christology (following Nestorian, etc.) 2) literal destruction (actually a genocide) by the Roman Catholic Church (Portuguese- vasco de gama et al) They wanted to proclaim to the world that they were the first to evangelise a pagan (Hindu) nation around 1065CE 3)fragmentation of the Church from then on by the Dutch/French/Portugese/ finally the English & then in the 20th century the American and other “missionaries,from the various fragmentations of the Roman Catholic Church ie Protestants. The largest breakaway was in early 20th century and the faction is called the Mar Thoma Church which has a partial semblance to the original Orthodox Christian church of India but have a very Protestant make up of the worship services and are not in communion with the Original Orthodox Church of India established by St Thomas. The Chinese Orthodox church is almost vestigial and a majority is Nestorian but still exists today. 2601:204:D281:1D60:D0DE:5181:B464:61C4 (talk) 23:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

That's because those are converted at Saint Thomas Christians, Syro-Malabar Church, Saint Thomas Anglicans, Oriental Orthodox Church, and a few dozen other articles. The Eastern Orthodox Church is a different thing. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

2018 Moscow–Constantinople schism

At the moment, the article acts like the 2018 Moscow–Constantinople schism isn't a thing. The Phanar and Moscow are not in full communion with each other. But under the "main communion" section, it just casually lists these all together as if nothing has happened. How does this also effect the overall numbers when calculating for the article? I think this needs to be addressed. I recognise it is going to be incredibly messy to sort this out in the article, but at the moment this article is not reflective of the current reality. JustAChurchMouse (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

While the 2018 Moscow–Constantinople schism is certainly ongoing, the constituents page of this article still lists Moscow and Constantinople as being under the same category because they both are in communion with the other Patriarchates and Metropolises that make up the Eastern Orthodox Church.

For instance, Church 1 can break off from Church 2, but Church 1 and 2 are both in communion with Church 3 and Church 4, thus making them a whole communion.

It is also worth note that the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople never returned the schism. He allows Russian Orthodox Christians to commune at his churches. Oogalee Boogalee (talk) 04:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

The Catholic Church generally grants permission for Eastern Orthodox Christians to commune if their jurisdiction allows it, but that is obviously still considered a schism. Just because it is a one-way schism, it's still a schism. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

True, however the main disagreement I have with the edit is that it implies Constantinople and Moscow are 2 separate, independent Churches with no connection simply because one does not share communion with the other. It's also worth note that this is not an entirely unheard of occurrence in Eastern Orthodoxy, it happened twice before in 1467 and again in 1996

If mention of the current schism is an absolute necessity, it really should be reworded, and I don't think it belongs on the 1st paragraph. Oogalee Boogalee (talk) 05:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Continuing on, I believe there needs to be a revision to any sentence that includes mention of the 2018 schism. The text I reverted reads as follows:

Currently, the Orthodox Church is in the midst of a major ongoing schism between Constantinople and Moscow, with the two not in full communion with each other.

The few things this sentence gets right is that 1. Moscow and Constantinople are not in communion (though I would suggest not using the term full communion) and 2. that the schism is ongoing. Besides that, the wording of this sentence is problematic, because it does not mention the collegiality and conciliarity of the communion as a whole. Also, even though it is a schism, it is not an anathematization of Constantinople. The article 2018 Moscow–Constantinople schism refers to the Moscow Patriarchate's actions as "Retaliatory Measures" and does not state nor even imply that the Moscow Patriarchate believes Orthodox Christians under the Ecumenical Patriarchate aren't Orthodox Christians anymore, which it doesn't.

Another issue is the term full communion. The article Full communion describes the term as such: Full communion is a communion or relationship of full agreement among different Christian denominations or Christian individuals that share certain essential principles of Christian theology.

Knowing this, it can be said that Moscow and Constantinople are in impaired communion (or simply "schism" with one another) and not that either has broken full communion since they still share all of their beliefs and theology, the only thing holding them back from concelebrating is hierarchical ordinances that were given after the granting of autocephaly to the Orthodox Church of Ukraine. While the same term (schism) is used, it is very different from the East–West Schism primarily because it is neither doctrinal nor liturgical, with Moscow only breaking with Constantinople over their granting of autocephaly to the Orthodox Church of Ukraine, not over things like the Filioque or use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist.

One last point I want to make, is that both Moscow and Constantinople concelebrate with other Orthodox hierarchs, such as the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch, the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem and the Archbishop of the Polish Orthodox Church. So even though Moscow and Constantinople themselves may not concelebrate with each other, they concelebrate with other hierarchs who concelebrate with each other, which is why I don't believe the phrase "not in full communion" should be used.

With all of this considered, I wrote a new sentence that better reflects all of the data:

Since 2018, the Moscow Patriarchate severed communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate over the Autocephaly of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine, while both Patriarchates remain part of the Eastern Orthodox communion.

I don't believe this belongs on the first paragraph either, the third paragraph that mentions schisms is a good spot for it. Oogalee Boogalee (talk) 03:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

That's a lot of words, but not a lot of evidence to support completely ignoring the substantial breech between two of the largest Eastern Orthodox churches. As to collegiality and conciliatory, prohibitions on attending liturgies and recognizing the sacraments of the others is not what I typically conceive of as either. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:06, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't support "completely ignoring the substantial breech" between two of the largest Eastern Orthodox churches. I had a problem with the wording which has serious implications that may lead someone to believe something that isn't true. Oogalee Boogalee (talk) 04:10, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

If you want to minimize the implications of this breech, reliable sources seem to disagree. If you have a reliable source that says "their hierarchies are in open dispute, believe that the other's sacraments aren't efficacious, and establishing their own jurisdictions in territories reserved for the other, but it's all just a silly little non-issue", let me know. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:25, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Stop ragebaiting, that's not what I said at all. Considering this edit, we may as well edit all articles on the Organization of the Eastern Orthodox Church to exclude the Moscow Patriarchate as being a member. Since apparently they aren't. Oogalee Boogalee (talk) 04:29, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Please provide a source to justify the alterations you propose. Otherwise, this source seems to contradict all the alterations you've given above. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:55, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Monasticism missing

There is no specific section here, nor a separate article. Only treated as part of Eastern Christian monasticism. Would be useful, at least for wikilinks, but certainly also for more. Arminden (talk) 12:19, 28 January 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)

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)

@JWill303: 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 — you 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 — the user is probably just concerned by your possibly accidental insertion of your opinion into article­space. Correct me if I'm wrong.

See also: WP:SYNTH

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)