Talk:Oriental Orthodox Churches

Worship section

There seems to be some back and forth in the section on worship, particularly as it relates to the discipline of circumcision in the Ethiopian and Coptic churches. Some of the edits have inserted original research and others have removed content that seems relevant, so it's clear we need to hash this out a little more constructively. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:19, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

The content that was removed was related to ritual purification, which is universally a canonical practice among the Oriental Orthodox churches, including the Syriac Orthodox and Armenian Apostolic (also for Eastern Orthodox, and historically, even for Latin-rite Roman Catholics as cited by Thomas Aquinas). This wasn't a certain practice restricted to the Coptic and Tewahedo Churches as is clear by the context of the post.

From his edits, @Sonomelki100 appears to be insistent on circumcision and dietary restrictions being Church teaching for Coptic and Tewahedo Orthodox, despite not only mentioning any dogma, canon, or any Church where this is the case but simply ignoring the sources from official Coptic and Tewahedo authorities (such as Ibn Assal, whose canons were standard for both Coptic and Tewahedo Churches as the Fetha Negest for centuries) or websites, like the Tewahedo page I cited laying out the stance on circumcision, removing these primary sources and stating that they are "unreliable". See WP:WIKIVOICE

I would compromise by keeping the same revision as before while also adding a section on ritual purification, which is part of the canons of all Oriental Orthodox churches. Miaphysis (talk) 20:14, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I think you need to more clearly demonstrate how the sources you refer to directly support the specific changes you want made to the article. You should be able to directly identify quotes from the sources that support the content you want to include or contradict the material you want removed. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:51, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I cited the Fetha Negest (also known as Ibn Assal's code in the Coptic tradition) on both "circumcision" and "Kashrut". The former does acknowledge the cultural tradition of circumcision but explicitly states it is not done for religious reasons. It also speaks of meats, and states explicitly all meats are permissible for one to eat, citing Peter's vision, as both the acceptance of gentiles and of meats deemed unclean.

The second source I cited was Keraneyo Medhane Alem, an official website for an Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church parish that explicitly states the Tewahedo Orthodox position on circumcision from a theological stance, as well as citing the liturgy of the church as stating "Let us not be circumcised as the Jews".

Both of these sources are reliable and extremely clear regarding circumcision and meats from a dogmatic/canonical perspective of the church and are primary sources from the church itself. The other sources given are all secondary sources and pertain to the practices of Tewahedo adherents, but cites zero canon or teaching affirming the necessity of circumcision or pork from a religious perspective. Thus I argue that should be removed, or at least mentioned only as a common cultural practice of its adherents, and not church teaching, as the article pertains to the church and not its adherents. Miaphysis (talk) 06:56, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't believe either source is terribly strong. The first source is almost 800 years old and should be considered a primary source of marginal utility. As a parish website lacking editorial oversight, the second source is inferior to even a local newspaper article in terms of general reliability. There are superior secondary sources on this subject available, and we ought to rely on them. ~ Pbritti (talk) 11:33, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Despite the Fetha Negest being 800 years old, it remains an authoritative source for both the Coptic and Ethiopian churches, and is thus relevant.

The latter cites the Tewahedo Liturgy, which can also be found in many other English sources. Here is a full English translation of the Ethiopian Liturgy, translated by Rev. Marcos Daoud and revised by H.E. Blatta Marsie Hazen, published March 1959. The exact same statement can be found in the text and thus also counts as a primary source. One can easily look at this primary source and then see how this is the church's position. There is no reason to exclude it.

The section specifically speaks of emphasis on Old Testament practices by the churches, and then goes on to speak of cultural practices practiced by the church's adherents while none speak of the church's official position. These primary sources are needed to lay out the church's position. Miaphysis (talk) 12:01, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

You are correct that both the Fetha Negest and the liturgy are primary sources, but primary sources are inferior to secondary sources. The Bible is the guiding text for thousands of Christian denominations who disagree on its interpretation, indicating exactly why citing it as a primary source is inadvisable. The same applies here: with primary sources so open to interpretation, the best sources would be analyses by subject-matter experts that have been peer-reviewed (or, at the minimum, subject to an editorial evaluation). This source, though hosted on the Catholic Near East Welfare Association's website, comes from a book by the recently deceased Ronald G. Roberson, a scholar of comparative Eastern Christianity. I recommend utilizing the paragraph beginning with "This church is unique in retaining a number of Jewish practices [...]" as a starting point for revising the content. ~ Pbritti (talk) 12:37, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

The article for the Catholic Church, heavily cites from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Is it inadvisable to use that text of Roman Catholic teaching to determine what exactly the Roman Catholic Church itself teaches? Is it not "open to interpretation"? There is no opposition to that based on WP:PRIMARY because those citations are not interpreted, they are given as is, and the same I gave with those citations.

When dealing with an objective standpoint on what the church holds, primary sources are completely valid. There is absolutely nothing open to interpretation about that. The source you cited is itself unsourced and does not contain any primary source to analyze. A secondary source that would be relevant in this context is one that commentates on the Liturgy, Fetha Negest, Synaxarium or other sources that speak about the dogmatic stance of the church on circumcision. Miaphysis (talk) 13:57, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I move to have this version restored, as it encompasses all changes made, which all seem valid. @Miaphysis's additions provide better structure and distinguishes between what is universally practiced as canon (ritual purification) vs. what is culturally specific to the Tewahedo tradition (dietary laws & circumcision).

I would further argue that official church websites are more authoritative than what some scholar my have gleamed over from old Ge'ez canons, because for the context of this discussion, it specifically & explicitly tells you what is the case. In this case, both are secondary sources, but the former is far more authoritative. It answers the question of "Does the church do X?" with a clear-cut sentence from the church itself.

This is pretty straightforward that, honestly, does not even warrant a discussion. We have the exact church teachings on this matter from perfectly valid sources. I have no idea why @Sonomelki100, an account created last month with its only edits being the removal of this exact topic on Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church and Oriental Orthodox Churches, has removed all mentions of it altogether despite clearly adequate citations. If someone claims NASA is sending bears to space (based on a rumor that NYT picked up & published), then nasa.gov specifically states, on their website, that they do not send bears to space, would this not be valid? Do we need a PhD to analyze this claim too? It's Hogshine (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Again, the text of that revision you refer to actually deviates directly from what the source you're claiming is most reliable says. Additionally, a Q&A page on a diocesan website is not as reliable as a formally published book by a leading scholar of Eastern Christianity. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:58, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

In what way does it deviate? It's merely rephrased so there's no confusion with the usage of the word tradition here, as it is implied here to mean the culture of the people rather than church tradition.

A question answered by the archbishop of a church directly is indeed reliable; who says otherwise? A formally published book by a leading scholar of Eastern Christianity would just be quoting said bishop too. Disregarding which is more or less reliable, it remains valid, and its removal is inappropriate. It's not just that primary sources are also perfectly valid per WP:PSTS, only less preferable and certainly does not warrant the complete removal of all content in the last edit, these are secondary sources themselves, primaries being the Bible ± Patristics. Hogshine (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I have cited the Liturgy itself directly stating this, both of those other pages also deal with the issue but the Ethiopian Orthodox Liturgy is undeniably the most accurate statement on what the church teaches.

Also I would respond to @Hogshine stating, there aren't even any Ge'ez sources cited in those sources mentioning these practices. These are practices of the adherents of the churches and not found within the church itself. Miaphysis (talk) 15:20, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Ok, there are a couple competing issues here. The sources being used in the revisions that Hogshine and Miaphysis prefer utilize inferior sources that would generally not pass the sniff test to outside observers. This is especially so when relying on a portion of the liturgy, as reinserted in Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church. I have spent a bit of time scouring through some of my library and found something that should provide a resolution acceptable to everyone. I found a passage in Donald Attwater's The Dissident Eastern Churches (later renamed as The Christian Churches of the East, it's an older but still accepted work) that independently corroborates some of the points that are being raised:

• From page 264: "A notable characteristic of the Ethiopians is their Jewish observances. The practice of circumcision and clitoridectomy [female genital mutilation] has no religious significance, but they distinguish between clean and unclean meats, observe days of purification, and regard Saturday as well as Sunday as holy."

Combined with the other sources, like Roberson's, it is my opinion that we should rephrase the paragraph to explain the following: 1.) Ethiopian Orthodox retain Jewish practices, likely a holdover from Jewish influence in the region, 2.) circumcision and female genital mutilation in Ethiopia stem from this Jewish heritage but do no hold religious importance, and 3.) the dietary and Saturday sabbath observances do have a religious importance. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

No this is not acceptable, because a secondary source requires a primary source to analyze, which none is given in Attwaker re: the alleged religious distinction between clean and unclean meats. These sources will pass the sniff test to outside observers just as the Catechism of the Catholic Church being cited in the Catholic Church article will.

As for the Saturday Sabbath, the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church article has a citation going into it extensively, and it's not actually a practice distinct from the other Oriental Orthodox Churches. Also, where did you get "female genital mutilation" from? This is the first time that was brought up in not only the entire discussion, but the entire history of this subject to my knowledge, yet you wish to include that in the article now. Miaphysis (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

That's not quite how secondary sources work. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, unlike the sources you propose citing, is a comparatively very recent document (with continuing updates made on occasion). Citing a 800-year-old book of canons (of which many different versions and alternatives were made!) to verify claims about the present is not the same. Also, the female genital mutilation is brought up in the Attwater source, which is indeed based on not only documents like the Fetha Negest and Ethiopian liturgy, but also conversations and interactions with some of the leading scholars of that day. Why do we have to rely on an interpretation of primary sources when reliable secondary sources exist? ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:52, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

The age of the text is irrelevant in determining the position of the Church, because the Fetha Negest is today a binding text for the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church and thus cannot be classified as outdated, it is a 100% authoritative reference for the church both today and back then.

Moreover, if Attwater's claims of the Ethiopians holding those "Jewish observances" as a religious obligation are based on those citations, then you should be able to demonstrate that, yet until now, you haven't. Miaphysis (talk) 21:32, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

This discussion is getting close to becoming disruptive. Miaphysis, you are wrong on how Wikipedia sources, and you need to understand that you are wrong. I do not know the practices of the Ethiopian Church and do not comment on them, but we are not using an 800 year old source or a parish church website. Please understand that continuing to insist on the same faulty argument becomes disruptive ((see WP:IDNHT even if the user who does so has good intentions. That is starting to become the case here. Pbritti has done a good job explaining how Wikipedia works, and has explained it several times already. To be a bit blunt: it does not matter whether you agree with it or not. This is Wikipedia, and Wikipedia policies apply. Jeppiz (talk) 22:31, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

I believe you are correct in stating that you are not familiar with the practices of the Ethiopian Church, because as it has been demonstrated, this document - regardless of its age - is still binding within the Ethiopian Church and relevant elsewhere as well (see Fetha Negest). This aggressive comment does not contribute to the discussion by dismissing the entire perspective of the other side, especially since it overlooks other important points made like the canonical status of these practices, Ethiopian liturgy, and the Synaxarium. WP:IDNHT consistently mentions community consensus; thus far, this has been a one-on-one discussion with my occasional interjections.

While it is true that a scholarly work is generally more authoritative than a parish website, for the specific purpose of this discussion, I believe the latter holds more weight, as other sources are anything from lacking to outdated. An ordained bishop of a church who has authoirty to teach that makes statements regarding the official doctrine of his church is perfectly valid, and dismissing this in one fell swoop, especially when you indicated a lack of knowledge on the subject at hand, is not a constructive approach.

@Pbritti, my issues with Attwater’s work are that it is a minimalist, bare-bone, and rather orientalist 20th century work with many parts being straight-up dehumanizing e.g. "Ethiopian churches are often notably dark, dirty and untidy." (p. 201), "In general the people are excessively ignorant, and Judaic, pagan and superstitious elements are mixed in popular belief and observance. Among some of the more educated a low morality is joined with a taste for remarkable theological speculations." (p.199). Moreover, as Miaphysis pointed out FGM is not the topic at hand, and its inclusion in the article deviates from the actual discussion regarding the status of OT practices specifically - ritual purification, pork consumption, and male circumcision - in the Ethiopian Church.

Nonetheless, the point made that these practices are societal norms rather than official laws is valid, and that is what I have been arguing for. Including this perspective in the article is acceptable to me. There are simply not many references to these practices being anything beyond cultural (the term I would use in contrast to ‘traditional’), so that point should be the one included, or the entire topic should not be mentioned at all. Hogshine (talk) 23:26, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

@Hogshine: Please read the quote from Attwater above. As you will notice, it mentions all the subjects you consider at hand plus FGM. I didn't bring it up, but a reliable source did. Due to the out-of-hand rejection of reliable sources in favor of a privately published translation of a worship book and what is functionally the Ethiopian Magna Carta, I do think we are approaching the point where outside intervention will almost certainly be necessary. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:25, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Additionally, the quotes you reference from Attwater appear nowhere in the book I'm holding. In fact, Attwater spends a few paragraphs explaining how offensive terms like "Abyssinian" are and arguing that European racism is responsible for the poor relationship between the Ethiopians and the Catholic Church. Since those page numbers are so far off, I must assume you're reading a digitalization of some other edition. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:32, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, Attwater mentions FGM. But it is not relevant for this topic to be included in the article about Jewish practices in the Ethiopian Church, as FGM - unlike male circumcision, purification, and kosher - is not a religious Jewish practice that influenced the community through the church. Maybe it's more relevant on the Ethiopia page.

My version of The Christian Churches of the East V2 certainly has it. The title page says: THE BRUCE PUBLISHING COMPANY / 400 North Broadway / Milwaukee 1, Wis. / Revised edition 1962 / © DONALD ATTWATER / 1962.

I got it off archive.org last year, but now the link seems dead. I'm genuinely not sure how I should go about proving this. Let me know if I can do anything about it.

As this has dragged on, the current published version (while not ideal, IMO) seems like a decent compromise until something new comes along. Hogshine (talk) 02:17, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi

Just to add two cents as a Copt myself, it is true that some Copts practice circumcision, and some Eritreans and Ethiopians practice it as well as abstaining from pork. But those are cultural traditions adopted from Jews and Muslims, not religious requirements. It would be silly for any Christian denomination to ban pork or require circumcision, given how harshly St Paul condemns Judaizers in almost all his letters.

@Hogshine: and @Miaphysis: have already found good sources on this, but I would add to them the July 2002 book "معجم المصطلحات الكنسية" by the Coptic monk Athanasius Al-Makari. Unfortunately I cannot find an English translation, but on page 27 here it says "إلا أنه قد جرت العادة عند الأقباطحتى اليوم أن يتم ختان الذكر قبل تعميده بغية منفعة صحية، وليس تتميمًا لشريعة دينية. وتذكر قوانين البابا كيرلس ابن لقلق (1235-1243 م) هذا الأمر." You can Google Translate that. I would also add this passage from Pope Shenouda III's 1985 book on Priesthood. 🎸平沢唯を愛しています🐱 (talk) 02:20, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Also, I have added a reliable secondary source on the Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church page, proving that the abstention from pork is not religious. It analyzes the confession of King Gälawdewos, a source written to defend the Church from accusations of Judaizing by Jesuit missionaries. It is worth noting that the dietary taboo as disputed is limited to pork. Kashrut entails a far wider range of meats and practices.

A certain footnote in said source caught my attention even more and reevaluates modern scholarly claims surrounding "Judaic" influence in the Tewahedo Orthodox churches, citing a dispute between Edward Ullendorff and Maxime Rodinson; the latter of which has argued strongly against any influence of Judaism on these practices, something Attwater for example has asserted.

'In his extensive scholarly work, Edward Ullendorff, favouring the Jesuits' stance against these practices, says the Confession was written as ammunition for the Jesuits' accusations against the Church, but in reality all these practices are of Jewish origin. As part of his attempt to demonstrate the connection between the Church and Judaism, he details many of the Jewish customs, including the three to which the Jesuits claimed the Ethiopians adhered: the Sabbath, circumcision, and dietary restrictions (see Ullendorff 2012, 133-155). In a number of indirect hypotheses upon which he relied, he described how Jewish influences could be assimilated, both linguistically and historically, into the Church of Ethiopia. Rodinson 2012a, who reviewed Ullendorff's article in detail and has written an article with a contrary viewpoint (see Rodinson 2012b), holds that Ullendorff's claims are not supported by concrete evidence of any Jewish presence or practice of Judaism in the country. Using the work of other scholars who feel the practices accused by the Jesuits were not necessarily due to the influence of Judaism, Maxime Rodinson further argues that these practices were also common in early Christianity, practiced not only by Ethiopians but also by Eastern Orthodox and Coptic Christians. The debates in Ethiopian studies have existed since the sixteenth century, but are not yet resolved. The aim of this paper is, in fact, not to assess these debates, but to demonstrate how the treatise was written within the context of its sources.'

Thus, it is imperative that these sources must be added, and the article changed to either the previous revision or @ILoveHirasawaYui's compromise. Miaphysis (talk) 08:46, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

I have also cited the same statement; "Let use not be directly by the Jews" from the Ethiopian Orthodox Liturgy itself. In doing so I am fine with removing the citation from the parish site but that does not take away from the substance of my argument. Miaphysis (talk) 05:27, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Again, these sources are not ideal as they are not independent or peer reviewed. A vastly superior source would be The Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern Christianity (which I have been looking for all day). On page 186, there is the following run-on sentence:

• "Judaic elements in Ethiopian Christianity—the observances of the Saturday Sabbath, dietary rules of ritual cleanness, circumcision on the eighth day (a custom almost universally observed, but not a religious duty), etc.—often adduced as evidence of Judaizing tendencies, are partly an inheritance from the first Christian communities in the East, partly due to internal developments within the Ethiopian church which go back to its roots and are based on literal interpretation of the Old Testament."

I'd say that between the three sources I've provided, there's unanimous consensus on how this information should be conveyed. We should follow these reliable sources. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:45, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

How can a Coptic monk and the Coptic pope himself possibly be less "ideal" sources on the Coptic Church than your sources! Regardless, every source so far agrees that circumcision is widely practiced, but not required, among some Oriental Orthodox Christians. We can just plainly say that. There is no need to go in depth about traditions that are not required by any church, but just happen to be followed by some of its members. I think there was nothing wrong with this revision, but since you don't like the sources used, we can keep its text and just use your source or the two that I gave. As it stands right now, the article implies that circumcision is practiced by the Coptic/Ethiopian/Eritrean churches themselves, not just some of their followers, which is objectively false and is not supported by either your sources or mine. 🎸平沢唯を愛しています🐱 (talk) 03:12, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Please review WP:INDEPENDENT for exactly why we would prefer sources that are not Coptic monks or popes (barring their authoring of something peer reviewed, which has happened). Also, these sources actually clearly indicate that it is a ubiquitous custom for Ethiopian church members to circumcise despite not being mandatory, which seems to be quite different from the position some in this discussion hold. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:35, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

I would encourage you to read WP:INDEPENDENT youself. It says:

Non-independent sources may be used to source content for articles, but the connection of the source to the topic must be clearly identified. For example, "Organization X said 10,000 people showed up to protest" is OK when using material published by the organization, but "10,000 people showed up to protest" is not.

I think this is a similar situation, where we can say "Although they are not required by the Coptic, Ethiopian or Eritrean Churches,[dependent sources] followers of those churches commonly practice circumcision, abstinence from pork, and other practices that may seem Judaising to other Christians.[independent sources]". I used commonly, not near-universally, because circumcision is not as common among Copts as Ethiopians and Eritreans, and abstaining from pork is only practiced by some Ethiopians and Eritreans, but rarely if ever by Copts. 🎸平沢唯を愛しています🐱 (talk) 03:58, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

That a non-independent source may be used certainly does not make it preferred to something published by one of the most reputable academic publishing houses. This has been the issue this whole discussion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:21, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

So do you agree with my proposal or not? I think it's a good compromise that agrees with all the sources used so far, while still being factually correct. 🎸平沢唯を愛しています🐱 (talk) 04:45, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

I fully agree with this proposal. Miaphysis (talk) 06:05, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Seconded. Thus far, the following points should be obvious to everyone, as facts:

1. Very specifically, pork consumption & male circumcision are strictly cultural practices that are not endorsed by the church as official canons.
2. Circumcision is prevalent among many Copts, and both among most Ethiopians, for reasons that may or may not be due to Jewish influence. The latter bit is beside the point.
3. As a broader point, these practices are similar to those of non-OO Copts, Ethiopians, and Eritreans, further hammering home the point that this is not a religious practice.

I strongly believe the sources provided by @Miaphysis and @ILoveHirasawaYui (and myself) are not only valid but, in this context, more authoritative. Nonetheless, they can be used alongside @Pbritti's to synthesize a well-cited, well-explained, and well-worded neutral section.

Can we please conclude this discussion with the above consensus? It has dragged on long enough for a relatively small paragraph at the bottom of the article. Hogshine (talk) 16:05, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Ok. I'll add it when I get back from work 🎸平沢唯を愛しています🐱 (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Done 🎸唯ちゃんを愛してる🐱 (talk) 02:02, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Also, when talking about specifically whether the Coptic Church requires circumcision or not, obviously a dependent source from the Church itself would be ideal. We are literally saying "Organisation X teaches so-and-so". However, I agree with you that, when talking about how commonly circumcision is practiced by Copts, an independent source would be better. As an analogy, the best source for "The Catholic Church teaches that prayer is necessary" would be the Catechism of the Catholic Church, but the best source for "In practice, however, many Catholics do not pray" would be an independent source. 🎸平沢唯を愛しています🐱 (talk) 04:58, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Saint Mark's Coptic Orthodox Cathedral.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:51, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Revisions of biased details

I am concerned that some wording in the article may unintentionally present the history from a Chalcedonian or imperial-Chalcedonian perspective rather than a neutral one.

First, the part in the infobox which says “separated from:” the Roman state church after Chalcedon may be problematic. From the Oriental Orthodox perspective, these churches did not “separate from the Church,” but maintained continuity with the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church while rejecting the Council of Chalcedon. In their mind, the Council of Chalcedon was the separation of those ecclesial bodies that accepted it from "the Church"/the Orthodox. Conversely, Chalcedonian Churches have historically understood the Oriental Orthodox as separating from the wider imperial church for rejecting the council. Since both sides make ecclesiological claims of continuity and self-identity related to respective truth claims surrounding disputed Christian doctrine, the article should avoid wording that appears to endorse one side’s self-understanding as the default historical and theological frame.

A more neutral formulation would simply include the founding date and location as 33AD and 1st-century Judaea, as is customary for the articles of the other ancient churches.

Second, I think the article should give more nuance to how Oriental Orthodox Churches understand and identify themselves. These churches do not merely view themselves as a post-Chalcedonian schismatic body or separate autocephalous bodies which happen to believe the same thing; they understand themselves as preserving the Orthodox faith of the undivided Church and being the contiguous succesive body of that same exact undivided Church, and they use language such as “Orthodox,” “Catholic,” “Apostolic,” and “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church” in their liturgical, theological, and official sources to reflect this. This does not require Wikipedia to endorse that claim, but it should be represented neutrally as their self-understanding, just as the articles on the Eastern Orthodox Church and Catholic Church include those communions’ own claims of continuity and catholicity (and associated naming conventions) while still presenting historical scholarship.

My concern is not that the article should adopt an Oriental Orthodox confessional position, but that it should avoid implicitly adopting a Chalcedonian one. A neutral article should distinguish between historical description and ecclesiological self-claims. Therefore, wording such as “rejected Chalcedon” or “became distinct from the Chalcedonian churches” seems more neutral than “separated from the Roman state church,” unless the latter is clearly attributed to a particular scholarly or Chalcedonian framing. Brotherjohn212 (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

@Brotherjohn212: Please consider rephrasing your position here to identify the specific passages you'd like fixed and what sources you believe support said changes. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:07, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 1 June 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 21:22, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

---

Oriental Orthodox Churches → Oriental Orthodox churchesOriental Orthodox churches – Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style titles should be in sentence case. In this article, Oriental Orthodox refers to a religion and is a proper noun and should be capitalised, but churches is a common noun and should be lowercase. Mvolz (talk) 18:32, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

1. Oriental Orthodoxy is not a religion, but is tied to the religion of Christianity.

2. The official name of this communion is the "Oriental Orthodox Churches" as their proper name, and not "Oriental Orthodox churches" which doesn't reflect the communion, but the greater tradition that includes the non-mainstream churches. This article reflects the mainstream, Oriental Orthodox body of Christians. Also, refer to the Standing Conference of Oriental Orthodox Churches. They do not call themselves the "Oriental Orthodox Church" or the "Standing Conference of the Oriental Orthodox Church".

3. The official name of the Eastern Catholics in union with Rome is the "Eastern Catholic Churches" and not "Eastern Catholic churches". Refer back to point 2. Even in official documents between the Vatican and their jurisdictions, they are the "Eastern Catholic Churches" but singular churches are known as "an Eastern Catholic church" and not "an Eastern Catholic Church." - TheLionHasSeen

(talk) 19:00, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

1. The official name is the "Standing Conference of Oriental Orthodox Churches" or SCOOP for short. If you want the article to be "Standing Conference of Oriental Orthodox Churches" that would be a proper noun and should be capitalised. But there is no single entity called "Oriental Orthodox Churches". You cannot simply just truncate proper nouns and therefore declare they're also proper nouns- no such entity named that exists.

2. Where this exact phrase is used in the sources cited, so not in the titles which are de facto title case, the sources use the lower case.

• "Many of these communities would later become known as the Oriental Orthodox churches." https://pluralism.org/orthodox-christian-churches
• "The Oriental Orthodox churches, which are all members of the World Council of Churches, represent some 60 million Christians" https://www.oikoumene.org/church-families/orthodox-churches-oriental

Mvolz (talk) 10:29, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose per my reasoning here. —Srnec (talk) 01:37, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons stated above by TheLionHasSeen and Srnec. I see so basis to overturn this extremely common capitalization scheme for a proper noun name. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:50, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

1. Incorrect. That is the name of the conference, not the communion! And, you're totally incorrect yet again; numerous journal articles and etc. use the name "Oriental Orthodox Churches" referring to this singular communion of churches.

2. Does not apply against the numerous sources stating the opposite.

3. I rest my case. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 15:19, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose, per above. ~ Hogshine (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

  Is there a reason why it's "Churches" (plural) and not "Church" (singular); has this been discussed before? ~ Hogshine (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Hogshine, pretty much because they are not officially known as the "Oriental Orthodox Church" but rather they all refer to themselves collectively as the "Oriental Orthodox Churches" (basically one of those nuances similar with the Eastern Catholics in union with Rome). TheLionHasSeen (talk) 18:49, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Hogshine: See Talk:Oriental Orthodox Churches/Archive 2#Requested move 22 August 2019. Srnec (talk) 20:31, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The previous revision was literally just overturned with no reason given despite being far more theologically accurate and far less biased

A revision was done and was just overturned by a random member with no reasoning given, the revision fixed problems with the page that straight up lie about oriental orthodoxy and also clarified stuff properly, i see no reason why its been reverted outside of someone just really hating oriental orthodoxy being put accurately on this page Hayhayden (talk) 13:09, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

lets address the changes completely, "known to its followers as the orthodox church" this is a complete fact, you will never ever hear anyone in an oriental orthodox church say oriental orthodox, every single priest, every single person and all the liturgy will say the orthodox church. Ritual purification being changed to be preparatory washing as a cultural tradition is also a complete fact, no oriental orthodox hold that ritual purification is somethin gtheologically necessary like wudhu or even theological at all, its purely a cultural tradition mainly done by ethiopians and eritreans. the stuff with the relationship to the ACOE was also far more accurate explaining how ACOEs christology is practically the opposite of the OO christology, and also explaining the OO view of them viewing chalcedon as nestorian and chalcedon being made to overturn ephesus is also complete fact that is the oriental orthodox view on this. i dont see why its been overturned at all, i can only assume the person overturning it isnt an oriental orthodox and for some reason thinks he knows better than those actually apart of the faith Hayhayden (talk) 13:13, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

And also another thing that was changed was the complete lie of Miaphysitism being developed as a reaction to Nestorianism, Miaphysitism had been the position of Alexandria before Nestorius was even born, St. Cyril gave the greek term mia physis but one fully human and fully divine nature of the incarnate Logos far predated St. Cyril Hayhayden (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Pure WP:CONFLICTOFINTEREST on your part at this rate. TheLionHasSeen (talk) 13:55, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Belonging to a faith tradition or sharing its identity is not a Conflict of Interest under WP:COI, which specifically governs financial, commercial, or personal relationships. Adherents of religious traditions regularly contribute to relevant articles to ensure technical and theological accuracy per WP:NPOV.

Accusations of COI do not replace engaging with reliable sources. Please address the historical, patristic, and liturgical points raised on the article's Talk page so we can move forward constructively. If not I will be forced to report you for doing blanket reverts with no reasoning and refusing to properly engage in conversation in the Talk page. Hayhayden (talk) 13:58, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

"Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial (including holding a cryptocurrency)—can trigger a COI." - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 14:10, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Listen, I really think we got off on the wrong foot and I don't want to continue this frolicking about, I simply want to correct the mistakes in the article, please just engage in helpful dialogue with me about this, because I think it is extremely disrespectful to us Oriental Orthodox christians to have our faith misrepresented in the biggest place people will look about it in, especially at the end of the section under 'relationship with the ACOE' where it falsely claims miaphysitism was developed in counter to nestorianism, this is blatantly false. St. Athanasius taught that Christ had one nature, fully divine and fully human, miaphysitism far predates the term mia physis coined by St. Cyril. this i find especially egregious, as it essentially presents miaphysitism as some extreme counter movement to nestorianism, as if nestorianism came first and miaphysitism was developed specifically to counter it, not only that the article states it as fact with the language of "in fact", the first edit of the Oriental Orthodox christians referring to themsevles as the Orthodox Church I felt was a necessary addition given at any of these oriental orthodox churches that is what will be used, the term "oriental orthodox" was only invented to give a name to the communion, all OO churches refer to themselves as the Orthodox Church as the Oriental Orthodox view themselves as the Orthodox Church, I would understand a COI if i changed all mention of oriental orthodox to orthodox church but I didn't i merely clarified that all liturgy, all hymns and all clergy and even all laymen inside the church itself (not on youtube or online) will call themselves and the church Orthodox, i think its only fair to allow a "known by its followers as the Orthodox Church" given its the closest thing to an actual official name for the Church, Eastern Orthodoxy gets its Orthodox Catholic church name on its article so I'm not too sure why Oriental Orthodoxy wouldn't also get what its followers call the church in liturgy, as for ritual purification the article has a lot of misinformation here, ritual purification is not actually 'ritual purification' its in a similar situation to the old covenant laws being followed culturally by the Tewahedo, it is not under any circumstances a theological belief or position, even using the term ritual purification is very misleading because it implies that it is something like wudhu that purifies you, this is simply not true, its a cultural practice just like keeping the kosher is, if there was an actual difference in theology here the Tewahedo wouldn't be in communion with the Oriental Orthodox as we all share the same beliefs even if we have different traditions. All I want is for this page to be accurate to the beliefs of the Church, I don't want to engage in quarrels with users, so I hope we can let by gones be by gones and work together to make this article what it should be, thank you for your time and I apologise for any strife I may have caused you Hayhayden (talk) 22:39, 7 August 2026 (UTC)