Changes

← Older edit

Talk:Responses to OCA autocephaly

28,052 bytes added, 19:51, March 22, 2011

no edit summary

And, by the way, ''refute'' can mean "to prove wrong by argument or evidence," but it also can mean "to deny the truth or accuracy of." Just because one offers a refutation does not necessarily mean one is correct. ''Rebut'' may well be better, though. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 01:26, May 20, 2008 (UTC)

: Really ... proving one has the biggest dictionary ... boys will be boys ... [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 06:21, May 20, 2008 (UTC)

== Church Formal Position ==

You are also wrong in assuming that I have asked you to give control to an Ecclesiastical body. However, since this site is representing the church I am suggesting that we should still observe the formalities of the church. [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]]

I also want to point out that I am not a political person who has certain 'bias' towards any particular church and even though I am Greek please do not go assuming everytime I post an opinion that I am a pro-Nationalist Greek and respond in a manner that clearly shows that that is what you think I am thinking. I dont have agendas I am not smart enough for that ... I just am interested in reminding people of humility and humility includes not going overboard on certain topics that are not within our right to 'define'. [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 02:03, May 20, 2008 (UTC)

: And here, I thought it was my own throat which had ''your'' boot-tread firmly planted within it, what with that near-accusation of heresy! :)

: Anyway, I don't make any of those assumptions. I assume that you are editing in good faith and trying to do what you believe is best for the wiki. Me, too! I try my best not to let my own ecclesiastical loyalties dominate my editing. I do have a fierce loyalty to the English language, though, which I think is probably a useful thing in writing an encyclopedia in English. In the case of an encyclopedia in English about Orthodoxy, one of English's most useful traits (IMO) is its longstanding tradition of assimilating terms from multiple languages. This makes finding the best terminology a somewhat more complicated task, though, especially since Orthodoxy hasn't been in English (in the modern era) for very long.

: Anyway, please try not to be disturbed by the lengthy wrangling over terminology. Writing an encyclopedia is much like writing a dictionary—figuring out the best terminology is going to be one of its main occupations. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 13:49, May 20, 2008 (UTC)

Hi Father, I do not accuse you of heresy ... no way, it is common in christian history for good christian's to have different points of view without either party actually being heretical ... I dont feel you are heretical and I know I am not heretical ... My point was not against you personally, all I did was post a long article to remind everyone in this forum that though it is a good thing to be creating an Encyclopedia ... we should be '''careful''' when adopting or changing terminology that is not approved by the formal church. The internet has the power to over-ride reality and each Wiki Editor '''must''' take care to remind themselves that once something is documented it becomes a '''pseudo-reality''' to the people who read the information ... we therefore must be loyal to what our paternal fathers have passed down in tradition. I therefore agree with Seminarist in the sence that the orthodox church has been referred to for centuries as '''Greek Orthodox''' but that not as a reference to the Nation of Greece (although, what is wrong with Greek people? I am one of them and I am a lovely and warm person!). LOL.

However, though I say that, I do not agree that this article should portray either the name Byzantine nor should it have Greek Orthodox because basically (as editors) we should be smarter than that and adapt a more neutral choice (see my vote below). [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 23:00, May 20, 2008 (UTC)

==Common Sense, or Anti-Greek Madness??==

Fr Andrew, I can't accept this POV hostility towards Greek Orthodoxy.

Let's look at the issue: these Churches are all Greek Orthodox Churches - '''they all call themselves "Greek Orthodox"'''. Even the Patriarchate of Antioch is the ''Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch''. This is really simple - I can't believe that that you're wriggling to avoid this with bogus objections.

Let's be clear on the facts:

# It is not 'obscure' to call a Church by its own name.

# The title 'Greek Orthodox' is not a 'specialist' title - it is the title these Churches put on press-releases, and it is the title they are routinely accorded in the media.

Look at the rationality of the position you're maintaining: you are saying that these Churches should not be called 'Greek Orthodox Churches' - even though (a) they call themselves 'Greek Orthodox'; and even though (b) the media calls them 'Greek Orthodox'. You're saying that, whilst the title 'Greek Orthodox' is good enough for the Churches themselves, and whilst it's good enough for the media, it's not good enough for Orthodoxwiki!

Tell me you've not got a POV agenda!

I don't agree with changing the scope of the article. The article just needs to be given a proper name, not rewritten. It's obvious that the article is about Greek Orthodox responses to OCA autocephaly; it's obvious that there is no more suitable collective title for these Churches than 'Greek Orthodox'; and therefore it's obvious that the title should be 'Greek Orthodox responses to OCA autocephaly'... Surely we can finally agree on that?? [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 06:21, May 20, 2008 (UTC)

: I've not got a POV agenda! :)

: The irony of being accused of "Anti-Greek Madness" here is that while at seminary, I was accused of being a Hellenophile! I even recall my strident campaign in favor of ''Orthros'' here on OW over ''Matins'' (which I lost). I can't seem to win. :)

: All I'm really after is a term which makes the most sense in terms of referential resonance (i.e., what is the first thing a searcher is likely to look up?) and accuracy (i.e., what is the best term to represent what we're talking about?). If the consensus is for ''Greek Orthodox'', then I'm honestly fine with that. As you know, my vote is for ''Byzantine'' (I researched, wrote and titled this article originally).

: I've repeated this a few times, but I'll at least say that my main objection to the term ''Greek Orthodox'' for this article is that at least for a major segment of those being represented (i.e., the Antiochians, represented by their patriarch, but not limited to him), this is not the term that most English speakers would use. My other objection to the use of this term for this article is that in the minds of most English speakers, it is more limited than the scope of the article itself (i.e., it mainly conjures up images of Greece). In both cases, there are major parties to the content of this article which are not, in my opinion, best represented by the term.

: BTW, while I will gladly admit to "madness," I would hope that you would refrain from throwing such terms around too freely. The standard on OrthodoxWiki is to assume that all editors are acting in good faith (until they prove otherwise, which they sometimes do), which I protest that I am! I was one of the founding editors of OrthodoxWiki and have been editing on it since December of 2004, beginning and significantly contributing to hundreds of articles. (In fact, about 1/6th of all edits on the wiki have been mine.) I hope that my commitment is clear.

: Anyway, I will gladly submit to the will of the consensus if ''Greek Orthodox'' is the term preferred by most editors interested in this article. As a sysop, I wouldn't consider it (in this case) a "tyranny of the majority" if the vote went that way. Let's do a straw poll. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 13:38, May 20, 2008 (UTC)

:: Well, to take the last point first, I don't for a second think that you are mad! However, I do think it is madness not to recognise that these different Patriarchates are 'Greek Orthodox' patriarchates, for the reasons I have already given. I also think it betrays a POV agenda, which only wants to allow the use of the title 'Greek Orthodox' to describe 'ethnically-Greek Orthodoxy'.

:: In the minds of most people, all of the Churches which are the subject of this article are "Greek Orthodox". This is because the Churches themselves call themselves "Greek Orthodox", and because the media calls them "Greek Orthodox". So you really cannot assert that 'in the minds of most English speakers' "Greek Orthodox" just means Greece.

:: I appreciate you coming clean that what you really mean is that you don't want the Patriarch of Antioch to be called 'Greek Orthodox', essentially because the converts in the American Antiochian Archdiocese don't think of themselves or the Patriarch as 'Greek Orthodox'. But really, that is reflective of a deeper internal problem within the Antiochian Archdiocese - how does it maintain the historic identity of the Antiochian Patriarchate (which is Greek Orthodox) when it has such a large number of culturally Protestant converts who, for various reasons, don't want to be thought of as 'Greek Orthodox'?

:: I don't doubt for a second your commitment to Orthodoxwiki. But you have given me cause to wonder about the nature of that commitment. You do seem to have a blind-spot to the peculiarities of your own Antiochian-convert position, which you rather glibly project onto 'the minds of most English speakers'. In this discussion, you have been promoting the views of one minority group in Orthodoxy as if it were the default-position of speakers of the English language. This has led you to repeatedly avoid using the title by which ''your own Patriarch'' calls himself. That should surely alert you to the fact that there is something in your position which is not above board. [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 19:27, May 20, 2008 (UTC)

::: Alas, this is neither the first or last time in which I have been accused of having a hidden agenda. I must admit to some amusement at surveying such accusations with regard to their own diametric opposition when taken together! I have described myself variously as "Greek Orthodox," "Eastern Orthodox," "Orthodox Christian, "Russian Orthodox," "Antiochian Orthodox," "Orthodox Catholic," "traditional Christian," etc. I raise eyebrows just as much when I chant ''Eti kai eti'' as much as I do with ''AiDan wa aiDan'', ''Paki i paki'' or ''Iara si iara'' (and occasionally even "Again and again"!). I've also been called a lot of things: Hellenophile, Russophile, Hellenophobe, Russophobe, anti-cradle, anti-convert, modernist, traditionalist, fascist, liberal, etc., etc. They're all quite silly. One might also wonder perhaps whether you have the Hellenophilia of the sort which identifies Orthodoxy with Hellenism. In either case, one would be off the mark with regard to OrthodoxWiki. ''Ad hominem'' is always pointless here. Let's avoid it altogether, shall we?

::: Anyway, it's not a question of "converts" in the Antiochian Archdiocese. ''Greek'' isn't in the official archdiocesan title, and I think we can safely say that the title wasn't dreamt up by converts! It doesn't matter who came up with it, anyway. (''Ad hominem'' once again!) What matters is what the most common and useful reference term is.

::: 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!) —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 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. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 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. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 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==

The following is a straw poll on the proposed renaming of this article. Since there has been disagreement over it, its results may be analyzed by the administration to determine what the best course of action may be. (It is ONLY considered as a recommendation, not as legislation.) You may place your vote beneath your preferred term. You may wish to note first, second, third, fourth preferences, etc. (Feel free to change your vote if you change your mind or if new choices are presented.)

*'''Byzantine response to...''' (the current name)

**First choice. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 13:38, May 20, 2008 (UTC)

**Third choice. -- [[User:Andrew|Andrew]] 15:20, May 20, 2008 (UTC)

*'''Greek Orthodox response to...'''

**Fourth choice. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 13:38, May 20, 2008 (UTC)

**Second choice. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 13:56, May 20, 2008 (UTC)

**Third Choice. [[User:Frjohnwhiteford|Frjohnwhiteford]] 12:17, May 22, 2008 (UTC)

*'''Response to...'''

**Third choice. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 13:38, May 20, 2008 (UTC)

**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:Petermav|Peter]] 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...) — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 06:41, May 22, 2008 (UTC)

**Second Choice. [[User:Frjohnwhiteford|Frjohnwhiteford]] 12:17, May 22, 2008 (UTC)

*'''Ancient patriarchates' response to...'''

**Second choice. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 13:38, 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)

**If push came to shove, this would be my '''Third choice''' - although I get the impression its NOT JUST his response this article infers. [[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 ''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]] 23:01, May 22, 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.

I am 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.

Vasiliki and Seminarist -- please tone down the rhetoric a bit. I don't think it's necessary...

Yours in Christ, — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([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|FrJohn]] ([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|FrJohn]] ([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)

Wsk

Administrators

16,951

edits

Changes

Talk:Responses to OCA autocephaly

Navigation menu

Personal tools

Namespaces

Variants

Views

More

Search

Navigation

interaction

Tools