Voices from the East Documents on the Present State and Working of the Oriental Church
By the Rev. J. M. Neale, M.A.
London: Joseph Masters, 1859.

“Among the expositions of faith, which have appeared in the Orthodox Church in the East, some are common to all this Church; others are peculiar to the Russian Church.

These are the general symbols: 1. Two Confessions of the Orthodox faith, composed to serve as a guide to all members of the Eastern Church.

A. The first, which appeared at Kieff [i.e. Kiev] in 1640, had for its object the preservation of the purity of Orthodoxy against the opinions of Lutherans and Calvinists, and still more against the doctrines of Roman Catholics, and the ci-devant Uniats. It is known by the name of The Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Church of the East. It was examined in the first place by the Council of Kieff: then in 1643 by that of Jassy. [For some account of the Council of Jassy, the reader may consult my History of Alexandria, Vol. II., p. 560.--TRANSL.] It was then reviewed and approved by the four Eastern Patriarchs. [That is, Parthenius (II.) of Constantinople, Joannicius of Alexandria, Macarius of Antioch, Paisius of Jerusalem.--TRANSL.] “We find,” write they, “that this book is in perfect accordance with the dogmas of the Church of CHRIST and with the sacred Canons; that it contains nothing contrary to the Church: and we declare, assembled in Synod, that every pious and orthodox Christian, who is a member of the Apostolic Church of the East, ought to read this book, and not to reject it. Nectarius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, expresses himself in a similar manner: “This book contains, it is true briefly, but also clearly, the orthodox doctrine, as you may see by its title: it is a true and pure profession of faith, without the least mixture of the corruptions of other Communions.” Finally, it was admitted by the whole Eastern Church, a fact attested by the Council of Jerusalem, held in 1672, under the presidence of Dositheus, Patriarch of Jerusalem. [Usually called, in England, the Council of Bethlehem.] It was again received by the Great Eastern Council of 1691. [No account, not even the briefest, of this Council has yet been published in English. It will be related at length in my History of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.--TRANSL.] It was approved and confirmed, for the Russian Church, by the Patriarch Joachim, in 1685, and the Patriarch Adrian in 1696. The latter went so far as to call the work inspired, but not in the strict sense of the word. Next it was received by the Holy Governing Synod: in 1837, by a decree of that assembly, 30,000 copies were published for the use of all the parishes in the Empire: in 1840, it confirmed a special ordinance of the Commission of Ecclesiastical Schools, which prescribed it as a work to be taught in the inferior section of seminaries. In 1845, it resolved that there should be every week a special class, when this book should be studied in detail; and that, before passing into the superior division, the pupils must go right through it again, as an introduction absolutely necessary to the study of theology. [This work, which, it should have been stated in the text, was the original composition of Peter Mogila, Metropolitan of Kieff, in opposition to the ravages of the Uniats in White Russia, has never been translated into English. I have a MS. translation of it, which any theological scholar wishing to study tbh subject should be very welcome to have lent him.--TRANSL.]”
http://anglicanhistory.org/neale/voices1859/08.html

Thanks for filling me in on that. Oh, as an aside, I like the picture. Pretty neat!

The instance stands out because it was the first major schism of the community and the property would later be an integral part of Greek community life.

That said, I think it is important to notice the limitations and weaknesses of such a system. Perhaps I am more sensitive to that because I teach and can tell you that most undergraduates in my classes would prefer to cite wikipedia and just move on. I think something similar has happened sometimes in American Orhtodoxy–just cite all the other secondary sources.

So, although I probably wasn’t clear, that was one of my intended points–that encyclopedias, including wikipedia, are good starting points but must be seen as only starting points.

My second (intended) point is that although wikipedia cannot be a peer-reviewed journal, I do think it’s failure to admit of citations from directly relevant primary sources and newly published secondary sources is a problem. That is what struck me about Dr. Messner-Kruse–that he cited the actual court documents and then later work he published through a vetted, peer-reviewed system. I do agree with you that there are crackpots out there and I’m more than willing to grant you that they are plentiful. I can see how one would view the current system as good, but I actually see what happened to Dr. Messner-Kruse as a limitation and just one more reason for one to remember that Wikipedia is a starting point, not an ending point.

I also think for historical studies, some sort of comprehensive database of primary sources is better, but for me to make that statement, I admit I’m assuming an already acquired basic knowledge and/or framework on the part of the reader. So, I would want to clarify that I stress “better” not “replacement for” or something like that (in case I gave that impression).

For every responsible researcher like Prof. Messer-Kruse, there are potentially hundreds of crackpot editors who have found “the truth” and are willing to enter into an all-out war over it. Prof. Messer-Krause can display impressive credentials on his office wall, but such things are essentially impossible to verify in the semi-anonymous world of Wikipedia editing. The Wikipedia editorial consensus has chosen to sacrifice the introduction of new original research for the sake of holding a much larger tide of craziness back behind the dikes of secondary source materials.

When Wikipedia policy is enforced, it’s not Wikipedia who is enforcing it, but rather it’s simply other editors who are following the policy consensus and editing articles accordingly. The reason why the policies tend to stay in place is because there is a preponderance of dedicated editors who choose to honor them, not because there is a central governing body that enforces them.

So, while the site is indeed editable by anyone, it is also just as much re-editable by anyone, and it’s that re-editing process that tends toward the restraint and conservatism reflected in the policy.

The more gregarious among such editors will often point out to disappointed original researchers that they should get their work published and then other editors can incorporate their findings into articles.

What’s truly bizarre about all this is that Wikipedia is actually, on the whole, pretty accurate, even in comparison with printed encyclopedias. It’s sort of oddly magical.

Anyway, for my money, I’ll take Triantafilides as the most interesting man. Granted, that’s not really an important distinction, and it’s entirely subjective. But the man was born in Greece, lived on Mount Athos, worked for the Greek king, tutored the last Russian tsar, and at retirement age, he moved to Galveston, TX (of all places) and served a multiethnic Orthodox parish with great success. Not sure who, in American Orthodox history, tops that