Open main menu

OrthodoxWiki β

Changes

Talk:Responses to OCA autocephaly

11,267 bytes added, 19:51, March 22, 2011
no edit summary
::: As I said, I'd be willing to accept ''Greek Orthodox'' if that's what the consensus is. I'll even fight against my "Anti-Greek Madness" and make the change myself! (And, by the way, you haven't yet put your mark below. Please do so!) &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:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''')</font></small> 21:20, May 20, 2008 (UTC)
 
:::: A sense of humour!!!
 
:::: I must admit though that I'm not so sure you should be looking at people's eyebrows when you say ''eti kai eti''...
 
:::: In any case, you are still dodging the issues...
 
::::* The Patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, as well as the Church of Greece, all call themselves 'Greek Orthodox'. The media also routinely calls them 'Greek Orthodox'. This is a normal, neutral, non-misleading usage.
 
::::* Against this, you have not provided any good reasons for your claim that calling these Churches 'Greek Orthodox', the title they call themselves, is 'misleading'.
 
:::: In fact, it seems you just expect me to take your word for it!
 
:::: But I'm not going to do that - since that ''would'' be ad hominem!! [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 06:30, May 21, 2008 (UTC)
 
::::: I've given my reasons and the arguments behind them in several different ways above. I understand that you're not convinced by them (i.e., they are not "good reasons"). I don't really have anything further to add. &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:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''')</font></small> 12:36, May 21, 2008 (UTC)
 
:::::: Well, actually you've not given any arguments. You made an ''unsupported assertion'' that it is misleading to use 'Greek Orthodox' to mean something other than 'ethnically or nationally Greek'. I have explained repeatedly why that cannot be true (namely that it is normal in the media to call certain Churches which are not ethnically or nationally Greek 'Greek Orthodox', and that these Churches call themselves 'Greek Orthodox'). You clearly hold that your unargued opinion and assertion carries more weight than either the authority of these Churches themselves, or established use in the English-language media. That is rather self-inflated. But more importantly, it is a rejection of the λόγος (since it says that you don't need to give reasons for your views, as the fact that ''you'' hold them is all that matters). This has always been a fundamental difference between Greek Orthodoxy and Protestantism: Orthodoxy is the religion of the λόγος, whereas Protestantism is the religion of personal conviction. [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 23:10, May 21, 2008 (UTC)
 
::::::: I do not assert and do not believe that "it is misleading to use 'Greek Orthodox' to mean something other than 'ethnically or nationally Greek'." As for the rest, as I said, I'm done. I won't be goaded into a continuing back-and-forth rehashing the same stuff. Let us suffice it to say that I've said my piece and you think it's rubbish. I'm okay with that.
 
::::::: I must say, though, that it is a bit nasty to claim that I'm rejecting Jesus Christ (the Logos) by asserting such a thing (despite the irony that I do not assert it)! It really is inappropriate to claim that those with whom you disagree have some sort of hidden agenda, that they're gripped by "madness," or (worst yet) that they are apostates. I strongly suggest that you cut it out. &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:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''')</font></small> 02:19, May 23, 2008 (UTC)
 
:::::::: Well, I'm glad you've changed your mind re the title 'Greek Orthodoxy'. (Previously you said that it would be misleading to use the title, because it made people think of Greekness in some ethnic or national sense.)
 
:::::::: You repeatedly say that I have accused you of a "hidden agenda". I have at no point made that accusation, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't impugn motives at the same time as crying foul over being (supposedly) accused of having a "hidden agenda". Neither did I at any point accuse you of being an apostate. '''In future, get your facts straight before you start issuing imperatives.''' For the record, I think you're confused on the issue of what it is to be 'Greek Orthodox'. I think you've quite openly promoted a perspective which is distinctive to converts of the American Antiochian Archdiocese. I think you've acted in a haughty and non-rational manner, by repeatedly avoiding giving reasons for your claims and by speaking as if your word should by itself entail acceptance of your position. You can twist what I said about the ''logos'' into an accusation about personal conviction if you want, but that would only confirm the point I made.
:::::::: In any case, this is going nowhere. It's clear from what is below there is now a consensus, and in light of that I've made a new and constructive suggestion below, and I hope the discussion can proceed appropriately. As far as I'm concerned this segment of the discussion with you has run its course. Let's just agree to disagree and move on. [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 02:53, May 23, 2008 (UTC)
==Straw poll on title==
**First choice. &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:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''')</font></small> 13:38, May 20, 2008 (UTC)
**Third choice. -- [[User:Andrew|Andrew]] 15:20, May 20, 2008 (UTC)
**The term '''Byzantine''' was created by Harvard/Oxford Scholars ... we ARE Christian and have always been so. It also implies a point in time which could be misleading. -- [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 23:04, May 20, 2008 (UTC)
*'''Greek Orthodox response to...'''
**Fourth choice. &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:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''')</font></small> 13:38, May 20, 2008 (UTC)
**Second choice. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 13:56, May 20, 2008 (UTC)
**Leave it outThird Choice. -- [[User:Ixthis888Frjohnwhiteford|VasilikiFrjohnwhiteford]] 2312:0417, May 2022, 2008 (UTC)
*'''Response to...'''
**First choice. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 13:56, May 20, 2008 (UTC)
**First choice. -- [[User:Andrew|Andrew]] 15:20, May 20, 2008 (UTC)
**This is now my '''Second choice.''' -- [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 23:04, May 20, 2008 (UTC)**'''First and only choice.''' -- [[User:Ixthis888Petermav|VasilikiPeter]] 23:04, May 20, 2008 (UTC)**First choice. (I'd enjoy seeing 'Responses to', but since I'm not willing to put in the time to enormously expand the article, myself...) &mdash; by [[User:Pistevo|<font color="green">Pιs</font><font color="gold">τévο</font>]] <sup>''[[User talk:Pistevo|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|<font color="red">complaints</font>]]''</sup> at 06:41, May 22, 2008 (UTC)**Second Choice. [[User:Frjohnwhiteford|Frjohnwhiteford]] 12:17, May 22, 2008 (UTC)
*'''Ancient patriarchates' response to...'''
**Second choice. &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:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''')</font></small> 13:38, May 20, 2008 (UTC)
**Third choice. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 13:56, May 20, 2008 (UTC)
**This implies a disrespectful tone. Kill it off IMO. -- [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 23:04, May 20, 2008 (UTC)
*'''Non-Slavic Churches' response to...'''
**Second choice. -- [[User:Andrew|Andrew]] 15:20, May 20, 2008 (UTC)
 *'''Ecumenical Patriarchate's response to...'''**Seems like this would be the more precise title. [[User:Frjohnwhiteford|Frjohnwhiteford]] 12:17, May 22, 2008 (UTC)**If it is only the Ecumenical Patriarch's response(s) that this article is reviewing. Would it be better to use the title Inistea proposed (below) since that would allow the flexibility to take into consideration 'other' responses not limited to the EP alone? [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 23:01, May 22, 2008 (UTC)**This creates Nationalist segregation between Slavic and nonIf push came to shove, this would be my '''Third choice''' -Slavicalthough I get the impression its NOT JUST his response this article infers. Kill [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 23:01, May 22, 2008 (UTC) *'''The Autocephaly of the Orthodox Church in America''' **the article is more that one responde or one opinion; so I propose to simply name it off IMO. ''The Autocephaly of the Orthodox Church in America'' --[[User:Inistea|Inistea]] 22:01, May 22, 2008 (UTC)**This is my '''First Choice''' - [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 23:0401, May 2022, 2008 (UTC)
Hi all. I do think this is an interesting conversation, and I wonder if some of the differences here result from a different sense about the ways these terms are used in different parts of the world.<br>
I am substantially in substantial agreement with Fr. Andrew's reasoning. I find either "Byzantine..." or "Response'''s''' to" acceptable. If the article is titled "Responses...", I think Fr. Andrew's points should be made early on in the article for the sake of clarity. The other options feel wrong to me. It seems "Responses to..." would be the way to go here, although something like "Critiques of...", "Opposition to" or "Arguments against..." would be even better and more precise.<br>
Vasiliki and Seminarist -- please tone down the rhetoric a bit. I don't think it's necessary...<br>
Yours in Christ, — [[User:FrJohn|<b>FrJohn</b>]] ([http://orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk]) 02:11, May 21, 2008 (UTC) (a priest of the OCA)
 
If we change this to "Responses to...", I'll be happy to add a small section at the top of the article that simply tells which autocephalous Churches have recognized the autocephaly of the OCA. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 14:11, May 22, 2008 (UTC)
 
== Suggestion: Arguments for and against OCA autocephaly ==
 
Since the article includes not only various ''responses'' to OCA autocephaly, but also the canonical arguments which underlay the grant of autocephaly in the first place - and since the consensus seems to be grativating towards broadening the explicit scope of the article beyond simply the Greek Orthodox responses to OCA autocephaly - perhaps it would be good to call the article '''Arguments for and against OCA autocephaly'''? That would reflect both the contents of the article as it stands, whilst being inclusive enough to cover the broadened scope being suggested. [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 23:13, May 22, 2008 (UTC)
 
:Though I am more inclined to agree with your thinking regarding the various issues surrounding the terminology of "Greek Orthodox" I would not have to agree with you on your choice of name for the article because the word "Argument" in itself is a word that in the psychology of the brain will incite people into an editing war :-) I personally would steer away from using words that are not in their essence "Thetikes" (positive or neutral). Thoughts? - [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 23:29, May 22, 2008 (UTC)
 
:: Well, the bulk of the article seems to consist of arguments people have given for and against OCA autocephaly. To use your metaphor, the whole issue is, as it were, an 'edit war' over the 'editing' of the status of the OCA by the Moscow patriarchate - with some Churches and theologians giving arguments why they think the edit was correct, and others giving the reasons why the edit was wrong. And I don't think that "argument" is primarily a psychological matter; unlike eristic and rhetoric (which are psychological), argument is logical - it's to do with providing (dialectical) reasons for a position. [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 01:02, May 23, 2008 (UTC)
 
:::Yes, I too took some offence to the use of the word "rhetoric" although, I dont take offence by the person who used it because he is a very gentle and peaceable peace ... I quite like him from my experience of being on OW but the word "rhetoric" was strong and it felt almost one sided when it is quite easy to "debate" that "rhetorics" exist on both sides ... its just some people conclude there "rhetorics" with a single sentence and others use paragraphs. LOL. [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 01:16, May 23, 2008 (UTC)
 
::Interesting analogy! I think "Responses to..." would suffice here. — [[User:FrJohn|<b>FrJohn</b>]] ([http://orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk]) 03:49, May 23, 2008 (UTC)
 
::: Can I suggest then that we take out the reasons for the granting of OCA autocephaly, and put them in the full OCA article, so that this article contains only responses to the grant of autocephaly, rather than the reasons for its being granted in the first place? [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 04:23, May 23, 2008 (UTC)
 
::::In my opinion, these reasons are relevant here, even if some need working on. Perhaps they could be moved to a place after the "Arguments against..." as a kind of response to these criticisms. A couple other things occur to me related to this article: If I remember correctly, the name "Orthodox Church in America" was taken rather than "Orthodox Church of America" precisely as a recognition of the other Orthodox bodies in the U.S. Also, while Russian jurisdiction over the U.S. was pretty commonly assumed before the Russian Revolution, I don't think there was any claim from 1920-1970, as the article seems to indicate. Finally, while the part about lack of unity between three separate bodies related to the Russian church is true today, the Patriarchal church in NY functioned more as an "Embassy" church for some time, along with the limited number of parishes which desired to stay directly under Moscow. ROCOR was only restored to communion more recently. I think some charity must be granted on all sides with the realization that these schisms are directly a result of Communism... one hopes that, in time, they will be healed (as we are seeing now with the Serbs, Romanians, etc.). — [[User:FrJohn|<b>FrJohn</b>]] ([http://orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk]) 23:08, May 23, 2008 (UTC)
 
Why exactly is one of the reasons given for OCA autocephaly the fact that the Metropolitan is "humble?" That may be true, but it's a far cry from a canonical argument...
: [[User:Hgais|Hgais]] 19:24, March 22, 2011 (UTC)
:Seriously, who uses such an argument?[[User:Wsk|Wsk]] 19:51, March 22, 2011 (UTC)
16,951
edits