Jump to: navigation, search

Talk:Main Page

1,261 bytes removed, 20:35, May 11, 2016
How to (would you) add Bulgarian saints on front page? -{| align=center border=0 cellpadding=4 cellspacing=4 style="border: 1px solid #CC9; background-[[Usercolor:Marzata|Marzata]] 13#F1F1DE; width:51, January 7, 2006 (CST)100%":Answered on Marzata|'''s Talk This pageis for only for discussing the layout and content of the Main Page. ''' Please use the [[UserOrthodoxWiki:FrJohn|Fr. JohnTrapeza]] 16:55, January 7, 2006 (CST)for general site discussion. Use the + tab at the top of this page if you want to add a discussion topic about the Main Page.|}<br>
----May I suggest adding [[Orthodox Media]] and [[Magazines_and_Publications]] somewhere on == A suggestion about the main page. Possibly under Other on saints of the list to the right? --[[User:Joe Rodgers|Joe Rodgers]] 01:39, 16 Jun 2005 (EDT)day ==
: The list I know that a majority of the Orthodox in America are on this page has mainly been used for categoriesthe New Calendar, and both but since a majority of those links the Orthodox in the world are already connected with [[:Category:Links]]on the Old, would it be possible to list the saints of the day according to each calendar... What do somewhat along the rest lines of what is done on the main page of y'all think? &mdash;[[Userhttp:ASDamick|{{User:ASDamick/sig}}/]] 08:17, 16 Jun 2005 (EDT)?
:: Sounds good-Fr. Sorry if I seem a little zealous John Whiteford 3-22-07 (careless?)3-09-07 o. I would think that things like this would be of interest to "seekers" and might warrant a prominent placements. --[[User) :Joe Rodgers|Joe Rodgers]] 10:55, 16 Jun 2005 (EDT)
: I think there's definitely some merit in the idea. My main concern is that I don't want to promise content by having it prominent and then not deliver, so to speak. Many visitors explore a site once and assume what they see there is all there will ever be. Perhaps the cure There are two possibilities for this problem is to develop articles about various Orthodox media so that they I can be included in categories. &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|{{User:ASDamick/sig}}]] 12think of:19, 16 Jun 2005 (EDT)
:: Perhaps we should start * Edit all 366 calendar day templates to include a series, similar to separate section for the [[Orthodoxy in America]], that has to do with an [[Introduction to Orthodox_Christianity]] for "seekers" or newcomersOC day. I guess part (This will require some rearranging of my original intent was the main page design to address newcomers who come to our home page and are immediately looking account for tangible ways to learn more about Orthodoxythe extra text. I know that one )* Figure out some way I have learned to code the wiki to display a lot was through online [[Orthodox Media|media]] and [[Magazines and Publications|publications]]separate section which automatically figures -13 days. At the moment, although those are external sources from this Wikithe daily feasts section is possible because the wiki "knows" what day it is today. Maybe I should start moving this over to [[OrthodoxWiki:Suggestions|Suggestions]] --[[User:Joe Rodgers|Joe Rodgers]] 12:46, 28 Jun 2005 (EDTThis will also require redesign for the main page.)
: That was actually Of these two, I don't know how to do the idea of the [[Introduction to Orthodox Christianity]] articlelatter, that but it would serve as an overview with component articles explaining fundamental concepts and practicesrequire much less work. I think it would be great to develop a template for it, as well. &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|{{User:ASDamick/sig}}]] 13:00, 28 Jun 2005 (EDT)
== TOC ==:The difficulty with the former, aside from being a large amount of work, would be that it would make all the many thousands of internal links to dates confused: to which date should they link? Both? The calendar local to the saint when he died? Either way, this would require a level of work I don't even want to begin to imagine.
ISTM that having no Table :I'm hoping perhaps [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] knows of Contents on some module or something he can plug in or write to teach the Main Page is wiki how to figure out what day it was 13 days ago. It seems like a good idearelatively simple thing for a computer to figure. What do you think? {{User:ASDamick/sig}} 17:33, 26 October 2005 (CDT)The first solution seems almost insurmountable to me.
:I put In any event, since we invented the "Today'''<nowiki>__NOTOC__</nowiki>''' ins feasts" section, but when I tried to check it've wished we could display the OC feasts, it looked like I broke the wikias well. I reverted&mdash;[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, but that didn't help anythingGeorgia, so I figured it was still in Times New Roman"update" status. In other words, I agree with you>Fr. Andrew</font>]] <sup>[[UserUser_talk:MagdaASDamick|{{User<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:MagdaContributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</sig}}font>]] 20</small> 05:5113, March 22, 26 October 2005 2007 (CDTPDT)
==Dissapointment==This wiki seems to have a TON of stuff on church history::For what it’s worth, here’s my thoughts. In the first option, ''Edit all 366 calendar day templates'', yet hardly has anything on each template could just include the foundations template of the faith ([[Jesus Christ]], [[Trinity]])13 days earlier. Not only The problem is there very little that on leap years, the Jesus Christ article, there are no other articles relating first half of March will need to him (resurrection, ascension, life be altered and ministry, etc..altered back afterwards. (The page could just display a link to the other day instead of displaying the text). I fear this site is getting too caught up in history, and I hope you can build solid foundations before you become more broad and general. Just my two cents. [[User:J23|J23]] 00:11, 31 October 2005 (CST)
: Part of it :The second option, using math, isbetter, I think, that our current contributors feel less qualified but [ calculations] do not seem to work on such articles and so they are being approached with much more cautionhere. Feel free to assist in those areasBut if it did, not only could OC dates be calculated, but moving feast days could be calculated too. {{- [[User:ASDamick/sig}} 05Andrew|Andrew]] 06:4841, March 22, 31 October 2005 2007 (CSTPDT)
==Featured Article==If I may ask of the featured article to be changed (it has been a little while), I also proffer suggestions: ::It looks like there are some [[Afterfeast] templates]at meta wiki for Julian dates, and it might be useful to look into importing them. However, due to the [[Autocephaly] large amount]of information, I'm not sure what we'd need. —[[Basil the GreatUser:Magda|<b>magda</b>]]. No vested interest - pretty much anything will do, just to get it cycling again. -- ([[UserUser_talk:PistevoMagda|oeatalk]] 00) 09:0618, March 22, 3 November 2005 2007 (CSTPDT)
::Agreed! : Editing templates to include the template from 13 days earlier wouldn't work, as it would become multi-referential and end up including all 366 days every time. In addition, in leap years, the alignment is different around Feb. 29. &mdash;[[User:FrJohnASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">Fr. JohnAndrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]]</small> 14:25, March 22, 2007 (PDT)
:: Yes::I am not enough of a computer nerd to know how workable this would be, but if there was a way to just subtract 13 days from any given date that factored in what year it was, please do so. I don't really you would have the time right now to continue to maintain correct Julian date through the rest of this as I have. I've been hoping century, because every year that others would join inis a leap year, is a leap year on both calendars. {{User:ASDamick/sig}} 15:03, 3 November 2005 (CST)
::::-Fr. John Whiteford
"Strictly speaking, Byzantine Chant ::::: The only way that would work is if it were automatically done. I was responding to the sacred chant suggesting of Christian Churches following hard-coding in nested templates; this would only work if years all had exactly the Orthodox ritesame number of days, since -13 for March 1, for instance, will be different from one year to the next."I am sorry, but I think the only way this will work is if we can't accept this at allsomehow get the wiki to calculate -13 based on <nowiki>{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}</nowiki>, as it is a big historical errorwhich generates the appropriate date. &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.We may only say 5" color="green"following actually the Eastern Orthodox riteface=".GallicanAdobe Garamond Pro, Syriac and so on existed before the raise of a particular Byzantine sacred chant. 300 years before ConstantinopleGaramond, the Church was already Orthodox.If someone do not agreeGeorgia, this would mean he thinks saint Paul or saint Irenaeus of Lyon were heterodoxTimes New Roman">Fr..-- Andrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[UserSpecial:StmaterneContributions/ASDamick|StMaterne<font color="black">contribs</font>]]</small> 18:52, March 22, 2007 (PDT)
: Interestingly, what we now know as Byzantine chant essentially came out of the Syriac church. The vast majority of what now makes up the hymnography and music of the Orthodox Church came from the ascetic life in Syria.
: Anyway, if :::I could put you disagree in touch with the article, perhaps you could address your concerns on its talk page? Patrick Barnes. {{User:ASDamick/sig}} 15:36, March 17I'm not sure how he does it, 2006 (CST)but it works.
== Calendar ==::::-Fr. John Whiteford
We ::::: I can get 't imagine that that would be compatible with the Old Calendar saints on the main page alsowiki software. &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">Fr. The free script is at httpAndrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/www.duke.eduASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</~aa63font>]]</menologion.htmlsmall> 17:28, March 22, 2007 (PDT)
::You're busted for authorial promotion [[User:Aleks|Aleks]]!! Not sure how to integrate the script onto an OrthodoxWiki page -- maybe through an [[OrthodoxWiki:Extensions|extension]]? If you can figure it out, let me know== Scientific Julian Date vs. [[User:FrJohn|Fr. John]]Julian Calendar ==
== PleaseIt is not clear from the templates, but the Julian Date is a scientific way of calculating time that only has a tangential connection with the Julian Calendar... ==so you would just want to make sure you were getting the right Julian Date.
No pink-Fr. {{User:ASDamick/sig}} 22:28, November 23, 2005 (CST)John Whiteford
Ok:Hi Fr. John, ok! Maybe beigeThanks for your comment. I'm not sure I know what you mean - is this issue clarified on the [[Julian Calendar]] page? Something warm. [[User:FrJohn|Fr<b>FrJohn</b>]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki. John]org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk])
P.S. I thought you were going to say that:: See [[Wikipedia:Julian day]]. &mdash;[[User:FrJohnASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">Fr. JohnAndrew</font>]]<sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]]</small> 17:29, March 22, 2007 (PDT)
==St. Sava commemoration==This is Alexi. May :::I ask you to mention added this as a link on today's feasts that 27 january in Serbia and Montenegro, and wherevr Serbs live, is Stthe [[Julian Calendar]] page. Sava's Day, one of the most important church holidays for Serbs! [[User:AlexiFrJohn|Alexi<b>FrJohn</b>]]([ talk])
:Does that work for everyone? {{User:Magda/sig}} 08:53, January 27, 2006 (CST)== A new suggestion about the Saints of the Day ==
: WellI am not sure how the main page is set up, our calendar system but for fixed feasts is necessarily New Calendareach day you have a template, since I don't think and a page for the day. On the page for each day you could easily have it point to the Template for both the wiki can automatically support old and new calendars. There are only 13 days each 4 years that this would be a problem for, and that is March 1-13 on its . You could deal with that by just setting up those days the way that they will be in a non-leap year year, and maybe put a note regarding the one day calculationvariance when a leap year occurs. (St. Sava's day You could put two templates for the Old calendar on these days, with the second template prefaced by a note that these are the Old Calendar commemorations when it is the 14th of Januarya leap year.) {{User:ASDamick/sig}} 12:56You could modify the day pages for these dates every leap year, January 27, 2006 (CST)and then change them back afterwards.
==Mainstream Chalcedonian Bias==Then the main page could draw from the text of the day page rather than the templates. What think ye all? [[User:Frjohnwhiteford|Frjohnwhiteford]] 10:13, April 19, 2007 (PDT)
May I open a discussion : This syntax won't work for the main page, because the main page's feasts are based on an automatic variable that "knows" what day it is and includes the appropriateness or otherwise of insisting on Mainstream Chalcedonian Bias (MCB) at all times on OrthodoxWiki (OW)proper template accordingly. If you know how to make the wiki calculate -13 from the date it "knows," then we're in business.
To my mind this often takes OW out of step with current attitudes : The main page doesn't include [[April 19]], but rather [[Template:April 19]]. Editing [[April 19]] to include [[Template:April 6]] only adjusts [[April 19]] and trends within would not show up on the Mainstream Orthodox Churches main page. If, however, you were to edit [[Template:April 19]] to include [[Template:April 6]] (MOCand do the same for all calendar days) themselves, the output would be a recursive, endless loop including the entire calendar and repeating infinitely.
One example is OW's rejection of my use of Pre-Chalcedonian to describe those Orthodox Churches which had difficulty accepting the decisions of Chalcedon being enforced on them by Imperial troops. Mainstream Orthodox Churches are using : Having the term Pre-Chalcedonian in preference to Non-Chalcedonian main page include [[April 19]] (the term currently used on OW). Pre-Chalcedonian that is , as a neutral non-offensive term for those who did new template, not agree as [[April 19]]), however, would mean having to create a whole series of nested templates, involving changing every single link to a date in the emperor's dictatwhole wiki (many thousands of links).
For instance: [[April 19]] is not a template and cannot be included as one. So, in April 2006 Moscow decided to formally visit keep the Chalcedonian Christological problem in great depthdate links simple throughout the wiki (i.e., linking simply to the date and set up not to a Select Committee template), [[April 19]] would need to investigate current notionsinclude a [[Template:April 19]], which would in turn include nested templates for [[httpTemplate://wwwApril 19 (new)]] and [[Template:April 19 (old)]] (It couldn't just include [[Template:April 6/]], because that would introduce recursion. The Holy Synod of Moscow also uses the term Pre-Chalcedonian in preference to the emotive and biased term Non-Chalcedonian.)
chrisg 2006-05-29-1440 EAST: But that then introduces confusion for folks who click on [[April 19]] and see two sets of feasts, one labeled as "Old" and one as "New." This would be a problem, for instance, in the [[Annunciation]] article. You click on [[March 25]] and see that the "New" feasts include Annunciation, but the "Old" do not. Does that mean that Old Calendarists aren't celebrating the Annunciation on March 25? In fact, they ''are'' celebrating it on March 25, but by another calendar. I can think of no way of solving that problem.
:Hi chrisg - Sure, you can open the discussion! Do you have any other examples of how MCB is out of step with the MOC? I think a discussion on the nuances and history of the two terms, if worded properly, would be an excellent addition to one of the articles dealing with these questions. For my part, I don't see non-Chalcedonian as derogatory at all, or very emotive. My understanding is that this term is used instead of the more polemical "monophysite" or even "so-called monophysite." I haven't been exposed to the term pre-Chalcedonian before. I don't think I'd prefer it, since I don't think it's possible to roll back the clock -- in this way it seems dishonest. On the other hand, I like the idea that the "Oriental Orthodox" churches haven't so much directly rejected Chalecedonian Christology, but were cut off from full participation by Imperial powers. {{User:FrJohn/sig}}
The recent French articles by mainstream Orthodox : I have read in hardbackreally think we need to find some sort of extension for the wiki so that it can "know" what day it was 13 days ago. &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">Fr. Andrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]]</small> 13:45, use the term Pre-Chalcedonian April 19, 2007 (in FrenchPDT).
The hierarchs and priests :: I agree that your fix would be the ultimate fix, but short of the Pre-Chalcedonian Churches in Australiathat, all object is it possible to put templates inside of templates? If so, you could have a template for Apirl 19 which is formated such that it has two subtemplates: one with the term Non-Chalcedonianmenologion for April 19th, and another that would be preceeded by a lable such as April 6th, O. [[Eastern Hierarchs]] chose to always use Pre-Chalcedonian because it is not loadedS. I don't think (or something like that) with a template for the Pre-Chalcedonians are trying April 6th Menologion.::To make this happen, we would need to roll back rename the clock. And the Chalcedonians in Australia who do talk with calendar templates as we now have them, do not see them as trying and then creat new templates for each day that would point to do that eithertwo of those renamed templates for each day. Their theology is fully Orthodox if measured in pre-Chalcedonian terms. To call them monophysite is not polemicalIf you think it would work, I would be happy to do the actual foot work on it is just plain wrong, since they themselves condemn any denial of the union of two in the one hypostasesonce we had an agreed upon format. [[User:Frjohnwhiteford|Frjohnwhiteford]] 18:41, April 19, 2007 (PDT)
Monophysite is a Greek term::: Yes, templates can be nested. It was wrong I do think that it would work, but it doesn't solve the problem I outlined in my last paragraph above. When you click on the first place to try to impose a Greek term on Coptic speakers, and Syriac speakersnon-template date article, without fully explaining the nuances you see two sets of all related termsdates, one "new" and hearing the nuances of other "old." But which one did the related Coptic and Syriac terms. link you followed reference?
Until we have ::: I also think the 13 problem days during a balanced understanding of all sides of leap year would make for some serious design imbalance and ugliness on the discussionMain Page. (Of course, we cannot have a full understanding of this aspect having two sets of Christology. If we go into the discussion insisting our philhellenic viewpoint is rightfeasts will likely require some redesigning, then we perpetuate the impossibility of full understandinganyway.)
Saying ::: I'm hoping that [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] might be willing to look into the idea of automating this before we do a decision is correct because massive amount of hard-coding for it was made by majority vote, is fraught with great danger, especially when it comes to doctrine. With doctrine, decisions because I definitely agree that we should be by consensus of able to put the OS feasts on the whole ChurchMain Page, too. If consensus cannot be reached&mdash;[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, then the time for that definition is not rightTimes New Roman">Fr. Andrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]]</small> 19:28, April 19, 2007 (PDT)
That ::: '''Addendum:''' Okay, I've learned that I was wrong about including articles that are in the great tragedy of the councilsmain namespace (i. The emperors insisted on doctrinal unitye. Constantine did not really care which way the decision went, he just wanted doctrinal unity, so people would stop fighting about anything that doesn't have a "Something:" in front of it). Of course, the result was worse. Each time You can include a council forced a decision, institutional division resulted. main namespace article by this syntax: Islam succeeded against Christianity because the Eastern Roman Empire resorted to force of arms against its own people to force obedience to conciliar decrees on Christian doctrine. Egypt was estranged. Syria was estranged. Islam succeeded against these Christian provinces, because they were internally weakened by imperial forcing of doctrinal "unity"'''<nowiki>{{:ArticleName}}</nowiki>'''.
The sooner ::: If we get out of our castles and meet out in have to do the openhard-coding solution, it might end up being possible not to have to nest templates, after all. We would, however, have to reformat the sooner we can put this warlikeness behind uscalendar day articles (e.g., and get on [[April 19]]) with the first various instances of <nowiki><includeonly></nowiki> and the second great commands<nowiki><noinclude></nowiki> tags. Many think Christ's commands are more important than perpetuating divisions arising from imperial motivation (I could probably make my [[User:ByzBot|bot]] do that. )
We must look ::: Perhaps, for and instance, the OS feasts could be put inside <nowiki><includeonly></nowiki> tags. That way, the only way you'd see them is when the date article is transcluded onto the other viewpointsMain Page. Then, and try all the apparatus we'd like to appear when one clicks on the day (e.g., categories, headers, etc.) would be less offensiveput inside <nowiki><noinclude></nowiki> tags so that it wouldn't appear on the Main Page. (This solves my "Which kind of date did I click from?" problem, BTW, since you'd only see one set of dates.) &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, whether knowingly or unknowinglyGaramond, Georgia, Times New Roman">Fr. Andrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]]</small> 19:50, April 19, 2007 (PDT)
chrisg 2006-05-29-1621 EAST===Automating it===Well, I just messed around with importing various templates from [[meta:Category:Date computing template]], but I either imported them wrongly or perhaps our wiki doesn't (yet?) have the extensions to do this sort of math. &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">Fr. Andrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]]</small> 20:30, April 19, 2007 (PDT)
:Dear Chris G., :I've read repeatedly the term "Eastern ''non-Filioquist'' Tradition" in many places, and being offended or thinking that the guys who wrote it tried to offend me never even crossed my mind ... should it have? The language barrier is not, in my own dis-honest opinion :-) , a valid one -- should we accept the Filioque because the poor-little-Latins didn't have different terms for the temporary-versus-eternal movement of the Holy Ghost, but used the Latin "processio" for the both of them? (Who knows, maybe they weren't ready ... maybe the Church wasn't ready ... maybe God was caught off-guard ...) FOR EXAMPLE, Georgia was cut off, historically and geo-politically, for 1.000 years from the rest of Orthodoxy ... and yet, 1.000 years later, there they were, fully Orthodox ... :But why am I comparing the Catholics with the Orientals? (One guess could be that there are only 2 Christian Churches that use IV Ezra: Romans and Ethiopians :-) ... but that's not it, however). The reason is that there seams to be an analogy in the way that they both connect to Eastern-Orthodoxy: : 1) the '''Catholics''' say that their Pneumatology is fully-compatible with that of the Church-Fathers, -- i.e. "from the Father ''through'' the Son" and "from the Father ''and'' the Son" -- (and then add that the whole fuzz was actualy just some HUUUGE ''miss''understanding, ... ''especially'' for political reasons and cultural alienation, etc.) then the Orthodox ask them: "But aren't You then somewhat diminishing the Holy Ghost's personality with regard to the first two Persons in the Trinity?" -- to which the Catholics say: "Nooo! ... offcourse NOT! ... who gave You ''that'' idea?!" ... and then, the next thing You know is that they take out the Epiklesis from the Liturgy, because "the Words of the Institution are all You need, because the ancients allways thaught that the Word of God was the agent of His own Incarnation in the Virgin's whomb, and the word spirit was aplied to Christ in that particular Gospel-verse ('the Holy Spirit shall descend upon You') and it was regarded as aplying to the Holy Ghost only 3 centuries later, by the Constantine-sponsored synod". -- to which the Orthodox reply "Ooooo-kaaayyy ... have it Your way ...": 2) the '''Orientals''' say "Wel, You see, it's all just some BIIIG ''miss''understanding, because we had the same word for <person> and <nature>" (just like the Romans said "we don't have special words for <ekporeusis>") -- to which the Orhodox reply: "But ''practically'' speaking, You do believe that Christ had a human ''nature'' with which He died on the Cross, and a divine one, which is by its very ''nature'' immortal?" -- to which they reply: "Yeah, man, offcourse ... deep-deep down we're still brothers and all that ... " -- and then, the next thing You know is that they take out the pouring of the water in the wine, which should happen twice during the Liturgy ... and which, by the way, shows Christ's ''true'' death on the Holy and Life-Giving Cross (because the separation of plasma from hardened-blood is a very clear sign of death -- it was when the Gospels were written, ... and it still is now). : 3) IF You think that ''it's just words'', please note that Origen, FOR EXAMPLE, (who was a heretic, I know, but in this example he's fully Orthodox), was speaking with a priest who said "there are two Gods" -- but he didn't went "mad", but instead simply asked the priest (to find out IF he was indeed ill in dogma, OR was just at a loss of words in describing the mistery of our wonderfull God) ... and when he found out he was just using a defectuous expression (i.e., he wasn't denying the Unity of the Godhead), he mildly corrected him and said a few words of advice as to how we should be more carefull with our speech, so as not to be "stambling-stones" and not to leave room for confusion.: THE POINT IS ''if'' it would have been all just a cultural/linguistic problem, ''then'' we probably wouldn't have today Miaphysitism, or Roman-Catholicism. : -- in the end '''I just hope that this is not insulting to anyone''' ... I think the way in which I expounded my ideas clearly shows that -- [[User:Luci83ro|Luci83ro]] 13:10, July 6, 2006 (CDT)::Who told you this? In the Coptic (Oriental) Orthodox mass, we do add water to wine. Have you ever attended a Coptic mass before? See, for example, p.17 of (quoting it, "the wine ismixed with water as the mixture of the blood and water poured out of Jesus side when He was on the cross.")===Something missing===
==Adding links for new saint articles on their commemoration date?==I was just looking at In the Saints starting topic the Greek saints for today, June 3, and I noticed that Kevin of Glendalough was one of them. I think his article was just added a week or so ago, and therearen's not a link to this article off t mentioned( they are mentioned thought in the main Saints starting page saint commemorations for today). Solutions? &mdash;[[User:GabrielaHarry|Gabriela<font size="3.5">Harry</font>]]:The Lithuanian Saints were missing too - [[User:Andrew|Andrew]] 0912:5023, June 3March 31, 2006 2008 (CDTPDT)
:Hi Gabriela, Please do go ahead and add him -- Just click == Christ is Risen on the date "June 3" to find the right page. Thanks, {{User:FrJohn/sig}}Main Page ==
== Fundamentalist Wiki? ==Hi, could someone please add the Christ is Risen tag and maybe a picture to this main page!! [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 23:07, April 28, 2008 (UTC)
Is this some sort of fundamentalist Christian Wiki? : Done. &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">Fr. Andrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]] <font face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">('''[[User:Sharp ShooterASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|Abbas bin Quasar HidayatullahTHINK!]] 06''')</font></small> 23:5437, July 15April 28, 2006 2008 (CDTUTC)
: Nope! Fundamentalism is a form of Protestantism. OrthodoxWiki is dedicated Hi, its time to [[Orthodox Christianity]]. &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|<font color=change the "blueFEATURED ARTICLE"><b><i>Dcnfrom Paschal Homily to something .. Andrew</i></b></font>]] <sup>.else! - [[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <sup>[[SpecialUser:RandompageIxthis888|<font color="blue">random</font>]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>Vasiliki]]</sup> 0801:5801, July 153, 2006 2008 (CDTUTC)
== Protection Monophysitism vs Oriental Orthodoxy ==
Hi, Idon've protected all t understand the templates difference between Monophysitism and Oriental Orthodoxy and their difference with the image used permanently on this page to prevent obvious vandalism (such as recently happened)East Orthodox Church. &mdash;What is their main difference? Should we merge the two articles? --[[User:ASDamick|<font color="blue"><b><i>Dcn. Andrew</i></b></font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Randompage|<font color="blue">random</font>]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamickConsta|<font color="black">contribs</font>Consta]]</sup> 0814:2115, July 31December 5, 2006 2008 (CDTUTC)
: Nope. The Oriental Orthodox do not believe in Monophysitism, but rather [[Miaphysitism]]. Read the articles for some of the details. (Admittedly, they do need some expansion and further work.) In the future, please direct comments, questions and suggestions about those articles on the relevant articles themselves. &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">Fr. Andrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color= OrthodoWiki logo for Old Calendarists? "red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]] <font face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''')</font></small> 15:35, December 5, 2008 (UTC)
http://www.bishopmaximus== Saint of the day? ==I listen to Ancient Faith Radio, and they do the saint of the we should link to that page, where additional info can be found.php?id=11{{unsigned|Iliada}}
I don't think this is a correct use of the logo? --[[User:Arbible|Arbible]] 11:30, August 4, 2006 (CDT) : That's bizarre. That's actually We usually keep external links confined to articles and not on the Bulgarian OrthodoxWiki logomain page, and I think you're right that it's not a correct use. Perhaps someone who speaks Arabic might be able which is dedicated to internal links to contact themOrthodoxWiki. &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="bluegreen" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman"><b><i>DcnFr. Andrew</i></b></font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Randompage|<font color="blue">random</font>]]</sup> <supsmall>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]]</sup> 11:43font face="Adobe Garamond Pro, August 4Garamond, 2006 (CDT) ::FWIWGeorgia, The link was written in English, so one would assume that some knowledge of English was present. &mdash; edited by [[User:Pistevo|<font color="greenTimes New Roman">Pιs</font><font color="gold">τévο</font>]] <sup>('''[[User talk:PistevoASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|<font color="blue">talk</font>THINK!]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|<font color="red">complaints)</font>]]''</supsmall> at 1611:5631, August 4March 17, 2006 2009 (CDTUTC)
Bureaucrats, Check users, interwiki, oversight, renameuser, Administrators

Navigation menu