Difference between revisions of "Talk:Standing Conference of Canonical Orthodox Churches in Australia"

From OrthodoxWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Edit 9Apr06)
Line 36: Line 36:
  
 
:Again, I have tried to make this article resembling NPOV, telling both sides of the story (see [[http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Standing_Conference_of_Canonical_Orthodox_Churches_in_Australia&oldid=28770|edit]]). --{{User:Pistevo/sig}} 23:06, April 10, 2006 (CDT) / [edited, with some extra edits. {{User:Pistevo/sig}} 23:12]
 
:Again, I have tried to make this article resembling NPOV, telling both sides of the story (see [[http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Standing_Conference_of_Canonical_Orthodox_Churches_in_Australia&oldid=28770|edit]]). --{{User:Pistevo/sig}} 23:06, April 10, 2006 (CDT) / [edited, with some extra edits. {{User:Pistevo/sig}} 23:12]
 +
 +
==Accuracy of article==
 +
This article, even aside from the polemics, currently has an inconsistancy and a lack of cited evidence.  Inconsistancy: the page on the [[Serbian Orthodox Church in Australia and New Zealand]] lists Bishop Vasilije (Veinovic) as the bishop of the New Gracanica diocese until 1993, probably beginning near the end of the previous bishop's tenure, 1988 (a little late for 1979); however, the listing for the patriarchal diocese has Bishop Vasilije (Vadic) around the right period of time.  Particularly considering that the Free Serbian Diocese was not in communion with Constantinople, the most logical reading to me is that it was the patriarchal diocese that joined SCCOCA.
 +
 +
Lack of cited evidence: the Romanian parishes under the Antiochian Archdiocese - that the parishes were schismatic is uncited, that this is the reason for an exclusion from SCCOCA is uncited, that there was a purposeful exclusion from SCCOCA is uncited.  ISTM that there is no benefit to keeping the allegation on there when it is uncited but the response is.  I think a week should be enough time, on both counts, to cite sources.  --{{User:Pistevo/sig}} 04:55, April 14, 2006 (CDT)

Revision as of 09:55, April 14, 2006

Eastern Orthodox

Dear Dcndavid

The Standing Council of Canonical Orthodox Churches in Australia was established only for Eastern Orthodox jurisdictions. The bias was there at establishment.

My correction showed this historical bias.

Your removal of my correction, for whatever reason, removes the historical truth.

Is that what you meant to do?

chrisg 2006-03-15 1820 AEDT

Without wanting to intrude: the term 'byzantine' (in 'byzantine Orthodox') is usually used comparatively - whether comparing byzantine and slavic (as the main Eastern liturgic traditions), comparing byzantine with roman (although that's usually 'greek' and 'roman'). The only interpretations that I saw for explicitly saying 'Byzantine Orthodox' was that it excluded either the Orthodox following slavic customs (eg Serbians, Russians), or those following the Western Rite (which, afaik, didn't exist in Australia at the time of founding), or those in the Oriental Orthodox Churches (which would, indeed, be covered under the MCB). --— by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 02:01, March 15, 2006 (CST)

In 1991 the Church of Antioch decided:- 1. We affirm the total and mutual respect of the spirituality, heritage and Holy Fathers of both Churches. The integrity of both the Byzantine and Syriac liturgies is to be preserved. Pastoral Agreement 1991

The adjective Byzantine had been used in the sense of not including Oriental Orthodox.

The founders of SCCOCA deliberately excluded the Oriental Orthodox.

chrisg 2006-03-15 2132 AEDT

In the quote provided, Byzantine is referring to the specific liturgical tradition rather than to the bodies in question. In any event, the current wording (Eastern) is more in keeping with established English usage when comparing the two groups (Eastern and Oriental). Chalcedonian and Non-Chalcedonian are also quite common.
Anyhow, the adjustment that Dcn. David originally made was in keeping with OrthodoxWiki's established Mainstream Chalcedonian Bias, in which Orthodox used without qualification refers to Chalcedonian/Eastern Orthodoxy. Please take the time to familiarize yourself with that portion of and the rest of the Style Manual.
I do have a question about the external link, though—it seems to be linking only to the Greek Archdiocese's website without any history of SCOCCA included. The previous link included the history. I've restored it. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 06:10, March 15, 2006 (CST)

Chrisg, I'm posting a note to your discussion page. —Dcn. David talk contribs 06:43, March 15, 2006 (CST)

Edit 9Apr06

This article, [this edit], has the appearance (or more) of being biased. I have tried to present both sides; please try to respect that there are two sides to any given story, but more precise information would be better still. Cheers, --— by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 04:13, April 9, 2006 (CDT)

Again, I have tried to make this article resembling NPOV, telling both sides of the story (see [[1]]). --— by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 23:06, April 10, 2006 (CDT) / [edited, with some extra edits. — by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 23:12]

Accuracy of article

This article, even aside from the polemics, currently has an inconsistancy and a lack of cited evidence. Inconsistancy: the page on the Serbian Orthodox Church in Australia and New Zealand lists Bishop Vasilije (Veinovic) as the bishop of the New Gracanica diocese until 1993, probably beginning near the end of the previous bishop's tenure, 1988 (a little late for 1979); however, the listing for the patriarchal diocese has Bishop Vasilije (Vadic) around the right period of time. Particularly considering that the Free Serbian Diocese was not in communion with Constantinople, the most logical reading to me is that it was the patriarchal diocese that joined SCCOCA.

Lack of cited evidence: the Romanian parishes under the Antiochian Archdiocese - that the parishes were schismatic is uncited, that this is the reason for an exclusion from SCCOCA is uncited, that there was a purposeful exclusion from SCCOCA is uncited. ISTM that there is no benefit to keeping the allegation on there when it is uncited but the response is. I think a week should be enough time, on both counts, to cite sources. --— by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 04:55, April 14, 2006 (CDT)