Talk:Autocephaly

Grammar

Using a noun as the subject of a sentence is perfectly acceptable, especially when that sentence is essentially a statement of definition. In this case, the first sentence answers the question, "What is autocephaly?" —Fr. Andrew ^talk contribs (THINK!) (B.A. English, NCSU, '01) 17:53, November 21, 2005 (CST)

It does seem to want to be in quotation marks, though, for status: "on" is the status of the light switch. Is there a different way to phrase the sentence? —magda (talk) 20:18, November 21, 2005 (CST)

Yes, quite likely. I'm not at all in especially love with "Autocephaly is the status..." —Fr. Andrew ^talk contribs (THINK!) 20:22, November 21, 2005

Revert

I reverted the recent edit because it seemed mainly non-encylopedic, i.e., it was making an argument (e.g. "must!", etc.) rather than documenting a state of affairs. —Fr. Andrew ^talk contribs 07:14, February 27, 2007 (PST)

Father, I believe that my additions were accurate and unbiased unlike the tone of the article had, and now has again.

First, the usage of the word autocephaly today does refer to those churches which are not, in any way, dependent upon any other church, or churches, for their life and mission. As the article already pointed out, autocephaly comes on its own, not by some pre-determined process, so the state of affairs that produced a church, should be told in the article of that church.

Second, autocephaly is a self-evident fact, not something that needs recognition, but of course welcomes it. A mature church is a mature church. Just as a saint is a saint, reality is the only truth. The article as it is, gives the sense that autocephaly is a negative way of being.

The third part I added, Father, could be seen as opinion, that is why I put it in the already existing heading of Analysis. The opinion is also the opinion of my church, now known as the OCA, not just my opinion, but I put it down in the Analysis section none the less. After paragraphs that I had problems with, but did not alter.

I know that autocephaly is a touchy subject for some jurisdictions because the subject can cause division and arguments among the members. But that is not needed.

There are other problems with this article that I did not change, it is very bias towards the notion that the Church of Constantinople is more than it is. The article is written in a tone that comes across as superior to Slavic Churches in general and the OCA in particular, as with some other articles on orthodoxwiki.org. I just tried to give some balance. Andrew 10:22, February 27, 2007 (PST)

I certainly agree that the article could use some balancing, but it also seems that the most recent edits imbalance in another, non-encyclopedic direction. The general divide on this issue is essentially that the Byzantine churches tend to look toward pan-Orthodox solutions, most often expressed by Constantinople's leadership, while the more Muscovite POV is atomistic, i.e., that any church may introduce autocephaly. The article would better be presented in terms of this continuum.

Additionally, the recent edits tend to present autocephaly as an ecclesiological necessity of some sort, which is manifestly historically not the case. Autocephaly is something the Church has developed for its use in discipline, but it is by no means the only possible or even necessary tool for the job. All supra-diocesan structures are by definition not part of the Church's ecclesiology. (See: Local church.)

FWIW, though, the opinion of the OCA on the subject of autocephaly, while notable, should not by any means dominate the article. Historically, numerically, and in terms of current influence, the OCA really has not made much of a splash as yet. (It wasn't too long ago that most of the Orthodox world regarded what became the OCA as being a fringe, schismatic group.) —Fr. Andrew ^talk contribs 20:29, March 1, 2007 (PST)