Talk:Non-Chalcedonian Christianity

Merge with "Chalcedonian"?

Why? They are completely distinct topics. And it's not really fair absorb the Christology of one faith tradition into another. If one is to say that these are not explaining faith traditions and we already have pages for this (i.e. Oriental Orthodoxy), then I would have to say that there should neither be an article titled "Chalcedonian" and rather both of these articles should be sections of the "Council of Chalcedon" article. Deusveritasest (talk) 07:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Long enough with no comment. Ill close the debate. --Secisek (talk) 20:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Orthodox link

A registered editor delinked my link to Indian (Malankara) Orthodox Church.I was wondering why. Student7 (talk) 11:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's nothing wrong with linking to the article about the link itself, just the way that you phrased it. Seeing as how the rest of the groups in that sentence are simply phrased "Coptic Orthodox" and "Syriac Orthodox" and so on, for you to bust out at the end with "Indian (Malankara) Orthodox Church" breaks the continuity. I think it's entirely appropriate for there to be a link, so if you wish to make it, I suggest you phrase it as such: "Indian Orthodox" or "Malankara Orthodox". I apologize if I have caused you any frustration here; I probably should have just edited your link myself rather than outright deleting it. Deusveritasest (talk) 20:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I was just being lazy! I guess you are figuring the long formal names are a "bit much?" My problem is that there are a number of churches in the area with similar names and this is one place in the world where precision doesn't hurt. Not trying to destroy the continuity. There are 3 Indian Orthodox churches, as I recall. I'm not familiar with the beliefs of the other two. Maybe they should be added? But I don't think that the Malankaran church can usually substitute for the other two, each of which has a separate article. Student7 (talk) 21:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Well one of the Malankara churches is simply an archdiocese of the Syriac Orthodox Church. Thus it is included under the second grouping: "Syriac Orthodox". I know of no other Oriental Orthodox church in India, besides the sister Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church that we are talking about. On top of these two Oriental bodies, there is also traditionally a presence of the Assyrian Church of the East. And then there is the Mar Thoma Church. But I cannot think of any other Oriental bodies in India other than the previously mentioned 2. Deusveritasest (talk) 20:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, all of these are Malankaran based, but have quite different articles written about each one: Mar Thoma Church, independent but Orthodox. Jacobite Syrian Christian Church. The term "Indian Orthodox Church" for one of the three churches seems a bit overreaching IMO. It has definitely been done in Wikipedia, but the terminology falls short of accuracy and should either be changed or qualified each time it is used. It is, IMO, like linking the Catholic Church to the word "Christian" and saying that the Catholic church should substitute quite nicely when someone is interested in a Christianity link. Student7 (talk) 01:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I have never heard of the Mar Thoma Church identified as Orthodox. They have accepted a number of principles of the Protestant Reformation and have entered into full communion with the Anglicans. What makes you think that they are Orthodox? Deusveritasest (talk) 22:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay you win about Mar Thoma. I definitely don't want to argue what they are!  :) Still leaves Jacobites though.Student7 (talk) 01:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, the "Jacobite Syrian Christian Church", as it even says in the main article, is simply an Indian archdiocese of the Syriac Orthodox Church. I think it is perfectly fine to leave them as simply part of the second group, the "Syriac Orthodox" given their dependence on the Syriac Orthodox Patriarch. Thus, while I recognize both the "Jacobite Syrian Christian Church" and the "Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church" as legitimately Oriental Orthodox, the latter remains the only legitimately independent, Indian, and Oriental Orthodox Church around (though its status as part of mainstream Oriental Orthodoxy is questionable given their excommunication by the Syriac Orthodox Patriarch). Deusveritasest (talk) 05:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Distinguishing Oriental Orthodoxy from Non-Chalcedonianism

I notice that some articles link "non-Chalcedonian" to this page whereas others link to Oriental Orthodoxy. But I'm wondering if those two are different enough to be separate articles? If they are significantly different, what criteria could we develop to determine when to link to each? Case in point: I created a redirect page for "non-Chalcedonian Christianity" and linked it towards "Oriental Orthodoxy" only because that's where "non-Chalcedonian Churches" links--but I wondered if both those should be redirected to here instead. Or if the two existing articles should be merged. Help, please? Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 20:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest bundling the debate at Talk:Oriental Orthodoxy; that article is the larger one. Huon (talk) 23:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge with Oriental Church article

This is just another definition for Oriental Churches. This should be merged with the larger article: Oriental Church All4peace (talk) 16:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Not true. The Church of the East is also in scope. One could also say that Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses are also non-Chalcedonian but some editors will not allow them to be included. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

And I was wondering, in addition to the Oriental Churches, Church of the East, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses and Unitarian-Universalists, if there might be other churches to consider, such as Christian Scientists, Quakers, Adventists, and Oneness Pentecostals? Surely several other readers might wonder the same thing and it would put the issue into fuller perspective, I believe.  Shanoman (talk) 04:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

First and foremost: we cannot mix a theology, anti-Chalcedonianism, with a set of denominational institutions, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, extended to more denominations or not. Apples and oranges. Two different categories. Keep the articles linked to each other, for sure, but don't mix together distinct categories. Arminden (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Remove autodirect for "Anti-Chalcedonian" from "Oriental Orthodox Churches", it should lead here

Two autodirects leading to Oriental Orthodox Churches, anti-Chalcedonian and Anti-Chalcedonian, are inaccurate. The two autodirects should be leading here, not there. This article makes it clear enough that "The most substantial non-Chalcedonian tradition is known as Oriental Orthodoxy" (which is linked to Oriental Orthodox Churches). As things are standing now, we have a theology, anti-Chalcedonianism, automatically linked to a set of denominational institutions, the Oriental Orthodox Churches. Apples and oranges. Two different categories. Whereas anti-Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian are pretty much synonymous, no logical conflict in linking them through an autodirect. Please do the right thing, now users who are looking up a concept, possibly in a 5th-6th-century context, end up on a page dealing mainly with a set of modern Church denominations. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 16 April 2020

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: Unopposed move buidhe 20:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

---

Non-Chalcedonianism → Non-Chalcedonian Christianity – WP:PRECISION, per WP:CONSISTENCY with Chalcedonian Christianity and Nicene Christianity. Mirroring reasoning emphasised twice at Talk:Chalcedonian Christianity. PPEMES (talk) 08:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. buidhe 05:09, 25 April 2020 (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.

Lead

Lead currently reads:

Non-Chalcedonianism is a religious doctrine of those Christian churches that do not accept the Confession of Chalcedon...

This is written as though all non-Chalcedonian churches agree on doctrine. Shouldn't it be more like:

Those Christian churches that do not accept the Confession of Chalcedon are Non-Chalcedonian.

or

Non-Chalcedonian churches are those Christian churches that do not accept the Confession of Chalcedon.

--Macrakis (talk) 19:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)