I think it's worth leaving in the fact that Clendenin knows what he's talking about more than most of the other writers linked here. -FrJohn
- Agreed. I'm gonna "scholarize" the lingo a bit, then. --Rdr. Andrew
- Great! FrJohn
Can anyone find a page in which to insert a link to this article? At the moment it exists in isolation... --Matrona 11:19, 14 Oct 2005 (EDT)
Non-Chalcedonian Polemics
I am concerned seeing the Coptic Orthodox Church listed as Anti-Orthodox under this category.
- I am removing this section/sub-heading, as there are no links or other information. Any links or other information which may come up might better be structured under Oriental Orthodox, or another page relating to the differences between Chalcedonian and Non-Chalcedonian congregations (for instance, Christology or Council of Chalcedon). Arbible, it might be a good idea to think of this inclusion as an honest mistake, i.e., give the benefit of a doubt, rather than a signal of "fighting." [[User:Magda|—magda (talk)]] 11:40, 21 Oct 2005 (EDT)
- Thank you v much - God Bless+++
- I most certainly did NOT list the Coptic religion as "anti-Orthodox". I merely provided a category where information on and links to non-Chalcedonian polemics could be added. I would appreciate it if the category was added back. --Matrona 13:30, 21 Oct 2005 (EDT)
I think we can both pray for persecuted Christians around the world and focus on Christology. There clearly is much to discuss, and no official proclamations regarding the Christological questions between the Chalcedonians and Non-Chalcedonians have yet been promulgated. So it's not a dead question by any means.
In any event, while I do think that putting Non-Chalcedonian polemics against Chalcedonians into this article is probably not the best thing to do (if only because it's a large enough issue to warrant separate treatment), it is worthy of mention that according to official policy, Orthodox is defined on OrthodoxWiki as a term biased in favor of Mainstream Chalcedonian Orthodoxy. While Non-Chalcedonian material is welcome here, it is as "guests" that such material is welcome and not as "standard." ——Dcn. Andrew talk random contribs 18:25, 21 Oct 2005 (EDT)
- Thank you. I respect your policy. God Bless+
- Thanks for understanding. --Matrona 21:09, 21 Oct 2005 (EDT)
Just a note to say that I've removed the empty headings here. I think, as regards the non-chalcedonians, that the Christological issues are dealt with adequately elsewhere. This page was envisioned (by me at least) as dealing more with newer/modern polemics. Let me add that I am very happy to have so much Coptic/Non-Chalcedonian material on OrthodoxWiki. I think our hearts are very close. While I do not want to cover over any significant issues which yet divide us (as Rdr. Andrew and others have brought up), I hope that this website could contribute in some small way to the feelings of brotherhood and unity we do have. Fr. John
- Let me add my Amen to what Fr. John has said here. I very much respect and admire the Non-Chalcedonian churches and pray that a full unity may be achieved. ——Dcn. Andrew talk random contribs 09:07, 22 Oct 2005 (EDT)
Roman Catholic Critiques of the Councils
The following from the "Catholic Encyclopedia" :
- "This is the "Psuedosynodus Photiana" which the Orthodox count as the Eighth General Council".
And the following from "Catholic Answers" :
- "The Eastern Orthodox communion bases its teachings on Scripture and "the seven ecumenical councils"—I Nicaea (325), I Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431), Chalcedon (451), II Constantinople (553), III Constantinople (680), and II Nicaea (787). Catholics recognize these as the first seven ecumenical councils, but not the only seven.
- While Catholics recognize an ensuing series of ecumenical councils, leading up to Vatican II, which closed in 1965, the Eastern Orthodox say there have been no ecumenical councils since 787, and no teaching after II Nicaea is accepted as of universal authority.
- One of the reasons the Eastern Orthodox do not claim to have had any ecumenical councils since II Nicaea is that they have been unable to agree on which councils are ecumenical. In Orthodox circles, the test for whether a council is ecumenical is whether it is "accepted by the church" as such. But that test is unworkable: Any disputants who are unhappy with a council's result can point to their own disagreement with it as evidence that the church has not accepted it as ecumenical, and it therefore has no authority".
Maybe "Catholic Answers's" full name is actually "Catholic Answers to Catholic Encyclopedia" ... who knows! :-)
P.S. : Am I being "Anti-Catholic" by adding this here? :-)
[No ill or harm intended ... and sincerely hope none ofence taken]. Luci83ro 21:07, July 22, 2006 (CDT)
- I've heard someone (Catholic) say that the Orthodox only have seven, and haven't had one since, because according to Orthodox theology an ecumenical council cannot be held without the Pope (of Rome) present. Amazing, eh? Fr. John
- ..., offcourse, the fact that neither one of them cute-little-Ecumenical-Synods were ever attended by any Pope didn't seem to bother that certain someone -- Jokes beside, finding something like this sort of flagrant contradictions in official RC archives, books and/or documents is really not funny ... and I don't mean it for our sake. Luci83ro 18:13, July 27, 2006 (CDT)