File talk:ChristianityBranches.svg

ERROR! This diagram splits ancient Christianity into Orthodox and Roman Catholic whereas in reality, the Orthodox Church has not changed and Roman Catholicism split off from it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.183.138.1 (talk) 13:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Untitled

While this might seem to be a useful depiction of common thought concerning Christian faiths, it is not NPOV as it favors Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy as being "closer" to the roots of early Christianity (the center), whereas Restorationism and Nestorians are depicted as being "further" from early Christianity.

Additionally, whereas in this depiction the gray line represents early Christianity, the line color does not change until it reaches Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, leading readers to believe that those are direct derivations, while the rest are not. In other words, were this a more neutral image, the line would change color from gray after the first departure, being Restorationism. Moogle 04:10, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have no problem with it, however, all doubt could be removed if we changed "Early Christianity" to "Early Orthodoxy". --metta, The Sunborn ☸ 05:47, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't like it either. Should be changed to a cladogram. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 23:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Someone explain to me how Protestantism came out of the Church of England. --Tydaj 15:05, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe that you're looking at it wrong; the image shows both Protestantism and Anglicanism as coming directly from Roman Catholicism. --Funkaloyd 03:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Isn't it POV to assert that Anglicanism is not a subbranch of Protestantism? --Srleffler 07:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

No. In fact, "Anglicanism," per se, should be branched off of both the Oriental Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church, as those are its true lineages. The "Ecclesia Anglicana" existed at least since Augustine founded the See at Canterbury, and the Church in the British Isles (Celtic and Orthodox) existed from about 47 or so, and British bishops were present at the early ecumenical Councils. The English Church, during the Reformation, re-separated itself from Roman jurisdiction.

Nrgdocadams 06:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Nrgdocadams

Augustine of Canterbury was sent by Pope Gregory I to baptize England in a Gregorian mission. No "reseparation", only one separation, thanks to Henry VIII in 16 century. May we be one again. --Paxcoder (talk) 14:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Transparency & my revert

I'm using IE, and I think many readers are, but I can't read the text in yellow. The background is dark grey. This is a known issue with PNG transparency in IE, as far as I remember, so I found an older version that I could see properly, and hit 'revert', but no changes seem to have happened.

... I dunno what the problem is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blacklite (talk • contribs) 02:30, 2 April 2005 (UTC).

maybe you have the picture cached? --metta, The Sunborn ☥ 11:01, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I guess I did. I thought I'd tried every trick to get it to work again. It looks fine now, though. Blacklite 10:00, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Date of Council of Ephesus

The Council of Ephesus which condemned Nestorianism was in 431, not 413. ——Preost ^talk contribs July 8, 2005 16:20 (UTC)

I guess you want someone to fix it now? Just kidding. It should be an easy job of moving the number around. --metta, The Sunborn 8 July 2005 18:32 (UTC)

I've made the appropriate fix. -- Vardion 21:02, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

The Orthodox Churches, Roman Catholic Church, Anglicans, etc., no longer consider the Assyrian Church of the East to be followers of the Nestorian heresy, and this should be reflected in your chart, whcih now equates the Assyrian Church of the East with Nestorianism.

Nrgdocadams 06:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Nrgdocadams

Should the diagram extend further down the timeline?

I'm wondering whether or not it would be useful to continue the timeline further down so that we get a more comprehensive picture of the Christian family tree, including movements such as Weslyianism (sp?), Pentecostalism, Mormonism, etc. - Daniel Zylstra (Dec. 13, 2005)

If so, such a timeline should be a completely separate or new image, not an edit or replacement of the old one. -Silence 14:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Saying Mormonism is Christian is not NPOV. They may use the name of Jesus but this is never what has made someone a Christian. You would have to put any cult or religion which has somehow used Jesus as part of its belief system. With this criterion you could put Muslims and Buddhists since they have a place for Jesus too, and since Muslims technically can be traced back to OT and NT deviations. None of these have any place on this chart. --Ic2705 (talk) 01:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Oriental Orthodox

It is inaccurate to equate the Oriental Orthodox Churches with monophysites. The Oriental Orthodox are miaphysites, not monophysites. The Gnostics are monophysites. The Oriental Orthodox just wouldn't accept the Chalcedon diaphysitism. The chart should be change to reflect this. Nrgdocadams 06:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Nrgdocadams

Correct. Can someone please change this, and perhaps make it a cladogram as stated above. At the very least the color should change from gray to something else beginning with the claimed lineage of Restorationism. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 21:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The term Monophysites is in quotation marks for precisely this reason. The article explains the relevant distinctions. The reason why keeping Monophysites in the labelling is useful is because it's so very ubiquitous in English-language scholarship on the subject, but the addition of the quotation marks shows that it's a questionable label. —Preost ^{talk contribs} 21:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

However the "Miaphysite" is commonly used to describe "Oriental" Orthodox doctrine. So by putting "monophysite" in quotes it still seems POV when instead "nondiaphysites" or "miaphysite" would be better. There is valid English language scholarship on the subject to use these terms.

"Monophysites" is no longer used in English-language scholarship because it is incorrect. "Miaphysite" is now more commonly used as it is the correct term, while the latter term is considered derogatory. Please change the name to reflect this. I'll see if I have the necessary image-editing tools to do it myself, but I doubt it. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 19:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It is believed that the first country to adopt Christianity as a country was Armenia. Some people believe that these Christians are the forefathers of modern Gnostics. Gnosticism includes the practice of Meditation originally practiced in pre-Christian Israel and now still practiced in the Far East (China, India and so on..) where these traditons were kept.

Eastern Christians

The dotted line implying that the Eastern christians where all Orthodox then "united" with Rome is not accurate. Maronites for one (though there are others)) have always been both in communion with Rome and Eastern Christians. Furthermore Chaldeans where not in communion with Constantinople before then joined communion with Rome, which could be implied by the diagram. It seems enough points of contention have been raised for someone to download rebuild and reupload into the same file a more correct flowchart. Also the Assyrian Church of the East is at least, at this time, no longer, if it ever was, Nestorian. See the 1994 agreement between the Church and the Vatican, which assigned an equivilant understanding of Christology.

Naming?

I see an issue with the Oriental Orthodox monophysite name too (they are miaphysite), as well as calling the Western Church post-1054 "Roman Catholicism," when clearly Roman is applied only to the Latin Rite, ignoring entirely the Eastern Rite Catholics; there is of course discussion of this on the Catholicism page, but the diagram needs to reflect the more universal-ness of the ("Roman") Catholic Church.

Also, is the "claim of seperate lineage" necessary? Lxx 03:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Response Best solution seems to be editing graph to remove eastern rite Catholicism. Should we also include Western Rite of Orthodoxy? Showing rites makes the graph imbalanced, unless we are making an effort to catalog all denominations and liturgical rites. The request to remove the Restorationism 'claim of separate lineage' is seconded. Evaluating the legitimacy of a claim of a religious tradition in this case can only be POV. Let's keep this graph simple and edit the articles it appears in when necessary.

Links in image

It looks like people have figured out a way to put hyperlinks on an image. This would improve this image a lot, and was the original motivation for the text version of this diagram, as I remember. Compare {{Australia Labelled Map}} and the tool Labelled Image Editor. -Colin MacLaurin 19:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Time to update, its not Roman Catholic Church but Catholic Church

Considering Wikipedia has made a decision to remove the Roman prefix as RCC does not represent Eastern Catholics (part of the world wide Catholisim, along with Latin/Western Catholism)...its time to make the clarification to this citation, and simply state: Catholic Church with perhaps Latin/Western and Eastern subdivisions (recongizing that Maronite and Italo-Albanian churches never left the universal Church. Micael (talk) 01:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The Anglican and Eastern and Oriental Orthodox also claim identity as Catholic, with linear succession from the ancient church. Everyone has had to put up with a label that forces a slight inaccuracy (the Eastern Orthodox are not only Eastern, the Oriental Orthodox are what? more eastern? and Anglicans are neither necessarily English nor worship in English). But yet, we need disambiguation in some fashion which avoids casting offense on other groups who claim and share the same labels. The labels here are traditional, and the whole diagram is the result of carefully hard fought compromise. The claim that "Roman" does not represent the Eastern Catholic Churches is incorrect; are they not in union with the See of Rome? Is that not precisely what distinguishes them from the Eastern Orthodox, in the eyes of the See of Rome? Remember that "Roman" is not the same thing as "Latin". Nor can this diagram get into the details of the complicated history of various subdivisions of the Roman Catholic Church; it is already a complex enough diagram, and if we start listing the subhistory of each group, we are going to get an unreadable chart. Tb (talk) 21:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

And is the Old Catholic Church not also a Catholic Church? Just because the Bishop of Rome broke communion with the See of Utrecht in order to declare himself infallible does not mean that he became thereby any more all-encompassing.--Bhuck (talk) 09:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Pope broke off from the bishopric XD --Paxcoder (talk) 21:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC).

Tb, much of your contributions here are mere opinion. I remind you that and encyclopedia is more than simply a public opinion poll. It is NOT inanccurate to ENTITLE Orthodox EASTERN & ORIENTAL because their descriptions are not merely geographically based as you confine them, they are historical. It is so important to them that it is part of their TITLE. The original-early church was made up of the Eastern Church based in regions with relatively established languages and cultures with the original patriarcates in Antioch(on todays Turkish/Syrian border), Alexandria, Egypt, and the see which "presides over love[1], & instructions enjoin[on others][2]" as eastern Church father Ignatius of Antioch describes the Church of the West- Rome. The West which was considerably less developed culturally and linguistically. These "Eastern" patriarchates would further be expanded to Constantinople as the Byzantine-Greeks as well as the a small patriarcate in Jerusalem in the 5th century. Therefore, the oxymoron calling the Eastern Catholic Church, ROMAN, its liturgically/historically absurd! The Eastern Church of the 1st century, was in communion with the see of Rome, yet it was not considered the Roman Church. Conversely, the church of Rome, though Catholic was not considered Greek-Byzantine though certainly equally Catholic.

That said, I re-post my reply from the main article-discussion which I mis-posted there:

...Tb, the mere existence of a relative few churches considering themselves catholic does not remove the reality that there are objective facts involved historically and substantially...otherwise you water down the very essence of an encyclopedia. The bottom line is that there are acceptable general understandings as well as, objective, FACTUAL-historical ones. The point is that some things are applicable by more than mere subjective considerations. It is with such an understanding that Wikipedia (and the majority of worldwide encyclopedias) has accepted for the Catholic Church to call itself simply the "Catholic Church" as it is the most historical and objective TITLE for such a church, not to mention it truly is the most common title for the Church itself.(are you going to deny that the Wiki article for the Church appears as simply Catholic Church?) Also, the mere existence of churches that consider themselves catholic certainly DOES NOT obviate discussion of the issue. It's the equal of saying that multiple political parties disagree yet those parties that disagree represent a grand minority of the people. That is exactly what you are doing. Catholics represent over 1 billion of the world's Christians and call themselves as such. While on the other hand while there may exist a few that consider themselves catholic yet may or may not even entitle themselves as such, it is none-the-less but a miniscule minority ill representative of the Christian consensus. Thus, to say there is a mere existence.. of other parties/churches..., is an insincere alibi for providing a false-neutral POV in the name of appeasing a limited few while insulting the grand majority of over 1 billion Christians that proclaim themselves as members of what is ENTITLED globally and historically as simply the Catholic Church, besides the great many non-Catholics which accept and are not offended by Catholics calling their Church as such. I'm not even addressing the exaggerative preeminence of subjective opinionated views above historical objective evidence.

However, all this is well beyond the context of this citation. The citation is merely showing a generic breakdown (in large part) of the major Christian denominations and they are reflected and compared to from a historical perspective. It speaks of these churches as they are NOMIMALLY entitled, not merely what they consider themselves subjectively- but a TITULAR historical/objective context. Otherwise, why the dotted line for the Restorationalist, no objective evidence, only claimed evidence. I REMIND YOU Catholics also CLAIM/CONSIDER themselves orthodox, but do not bicker about the names whenever someone refers to the "Orthodox" Church. That said, I'm simply saying; Wikipedia and this citation should be consistent...1) if Wikipedia has, for the church described here as Roman Catholic is not named in such a manner in its article for the very church being discussed then it should be corrected. (an article is certainly more impacting that a mere visual image/table- therefore, why your intransigence?) 2) It is very much incorrect to call Eastern Catholic churches, Roman. The Roman or Latin church has always been understood as "the West”, hence the oxymoronic connotation to say Eastern Catholic Church, of the Roman Catholic Church. NO, it’s the Eastern and Latin/Roman churches, of the CATHOLIC Church. Micael (talk) 18:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Can we have this conversation without the construction of seven-hundred word essays? The portion of your reply which is devoted to proving that only the Roman Catholic Church has the right to call itself Catholic, or that only the Roman Catholic Church stands in some kind of succession from the earliest church is, as you know, controversial. It would be inappropriate for Wikipedia to adopt the view that only those in union with the Pope are truly Catholic. The term "Roman" refers precisely to ecclesiastical union with the Bishop of Rome, and is not a synonym of Latin or Western. It is, moreover, a term that Roman Catholics have used (including at the highest levels) to refer to the totality of the western and eastern churches in union with the Pope. It is not a term which the church in question has rejected. Tb (talk) 00:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, this claim is factually inaccurate: "if Wikipedia has, for the church described here as Roman Catholic is not named in such a manner in its article for the very church being discussed then it should be corrected." In that article, you will find, of course, "The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church" right there in the lead. Tb (talk) 01:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

As for the dotted line for restorationists, I have formed no opinion on whether it should be there or not. It's complicated, but it is not the same issue, regardless. For the restorationists, the question is not about naming, but about a disputed claim of origins. Because the line is easy and does not clutter, it does not seem to raise the same problems. By contrast, changing the name to "Catholic Church" would contain the inevitable conclusion that the other churches listed are not Catholic, and that is a POV we cannot be putting forth. It is perfectly reasonable for the page at Roman Catholic Church to say "Catholic Church" over and over again, because of the context, but here, the same is not reasonable. Tb (talk) 01:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see the note in that same lead you quote. Where does Catholic Church ever call itself Roman Catholic Church? Ever? Many claim "catholicity" - heck even some protestants these days. But from st. Ignatius of Antioch to these days, only one Church calls itself simply - Catholic Church. There is a hint why that may be in what st. Augustine in his "Against the Manichaeans and Against the Donatists" said:

“ The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; ”

One example is written in stone on a prominent church in Washington, D.C. Of course, it is the claim here that is exactly the point. The Church of England also calls itself Catholic, for exactly the reason that Augustine says: because it has maintained the same succession of priests down to the present episcopate. It is precisely this point which you don't seem to see: that the other claimants to the name claim it on the same basis and for the same reasons, and the notion that only those in union with Rome count as "Catholic" is 'http://www.vatican.edu/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/angl-comm-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19770429_paul-vi-coggan_en.html'precisely the POV that is problematic. Tb (talk) 22:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Does Innocent III count? Tb (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, in ecumenical contexts, the adjective is normal. See, for example, [3], or the very name "Anglican-Roman Catholic International Consultation". Indeed, virtually all the documents at [4] use the adjective "Roman". Tb (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyone remotely aware of Church history would like to claim catholicity. However, there is one, and always will be - Catholic Church. This is not a mere epithet, it's what it's called (exceptions are new "Blabla catholic church"es - but those are clearly not the Catholic Church, and they don't bear the name, it only resembles that which they split of). If others have their POV that says we're not the Catholic Church fine (their mistake). But we're the only ones *called* that (see Augustine's quote again). No denomination claims the same title (that i know of). Also, don't assume everyone takes "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church" as lightly as Anglicans do. We don't think those churches are catholic which Anglicans regard catholic, and neither do other churches who Anglicans would fit in the same category (specifically, the Orthodox).

Documents you mention (all named "Anglican-Roman Catholic blah") do seem to prove we - in one occasion - called ourselves "Roman Catholics", but I'd say this was an exception granted to the Anglicans for the sake of the document, and it's not a rule.

But since there's wiki-democracy that will be enforced her, instead of accuracy, I give up - partially because everyone understands what the graph is trying to say. However(!) let it be noted again, there is one Church that bears the title "Catholic Church". And it's the see of Peter that unites it. --Paxcoder (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Your words here express your point extremely well, and thus prove mine as well. This is a clear POV, and it is equally clear that to express it as such in Wikipedia would be a violation of Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy, as well, of course, about being incorrect about your factual claim that the term is never used by the church in question itself. Tb (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Alas, it's not merely my point of view, it's a fact. Catholic church is the only "Catholic church" on the face of the planet. It always was and always will be. If you spell it with a capital C, then it's unambiguous in all possible ways (it's NPOV) - even other's POV can't confuse it for "four marks of the church" or a "simply" universal(grk.) nature. Because it is the Church's name. Not "Roman Catholic", even though it is called that in joint statements as a provision to the other party (it's not a real title). So again, I reckon nothing will change, and all I'm saying now is that the graph is inaccurate. Many claim the property (some expand it to encompass their own communities even though the title doesn't fit), but only one bears the name. In short: If I say I'm a Catholic you know what I mean. The other guy can say he is catholic (and has to explain), but he doesn't say he's *a* Catholic. That's fact, not POV. --Paxcoder (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

And yet, the Anglicans, Orthodox, and others, also insist they are equally Catholic, complete with capital C. There is, of course, the Old Catholics as well. And, whether you like the fact, or agree with it, lots of Anglo Catholics insist on referring to themselves as Catholic, complete with capital C. You may dislike it, you may think it's wrong, but the fact is, that they do it, and they disagree with you about its propriety, and for exactly that reason it is inappropriate for Wikipedia to declare that one side is right and the other wrong in such a case. Tb (talk) 06:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to compare any of the names listed in Catholic Church (disambiguation) with "Catholic Church". None of them match (match would be found had the Catholic church not been replaced with "Roman Catholic"). Noone of them has the said title. The claim of catholicism *embeded* in the name is irrelevant - it's still not their name. --Paxcoder (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this is becoming rather absurd special pleading. We were asked "Where does Catholic Church ever call itself Roman Catholic Church? Ever?" the answer is, lots of places. You cannot now pretend that that answer was not given, and say that somehow it has only one name. It has many, and the fact that one of them is "Catholic Church" does not prevent me from describing myself as a member of the Catholic Church, and regarding the claim of the Bishop of Rome to sole authority over that title as a ridiculous presumption. He and I have a religious difference on this matter. It is improper for Wikipedia to express the POV that the claim "Catholic" is more correct for that one than others. Most churches choose names which make it possible to sensibly distinguish them one from another; the fact that yours wants to claim some kind of "generic" name, which intrinsically works to unchurch everyone else is your theological problem, not mine, and Wikipedia need not accede to the imperialistic demand that only those in allegiance to the Bishop of Rome are really Catholic. You (plural) have chosen a ridiculously overbroad name for political reasons; you cannot complain when we notice those political reasons and add a qualifier--which the church in question itself freely uses without complaint in many many contexts such as this. Tb (talk) 20:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

No, that was not a "lot of places". And it's not an argument: The 4 documents of provision to another religious community don't change the real name of the Church - the one always reserved. You can say you're a member of the "Orthodox Church" because you believe some orthodox things (we claim orthodoxy as well) - but it won't make you a part of the (Eastern) Orthodox Church. And papal rule of the Catholic Church is historic (although besides the point now). I'll say it for the 10th time: no one else claims the name "Catholic Church" (alone) and it is most certainly not a generic name. A generic part of the title for some other community? Perhaps. But this is our name for almost 2000 years now, it is ridiculous that you think we should change it just because some others now thing they are Catholic too (once more, we're deviating from the point). I'd hate to repeat once more, so try to understand this time: Our Church's *name* is "Catholic Church" and no other church in whole time-space wears it. The title is thus an unambiguous identifier of our Church, which is a world-wide recognized fact. --Paxcoder (talk) 00:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not asking anyone to change anything. But, like it or not, the Church of England believes itself to be a part of the one Catholic Church just as much as the USCCB does. Go ahead and call yourselves what you want. But since in actual fact you all use many names for yourselves, don't object when we pick one. Indeed, if you agree that "Roman Catholic" is used in ecumenical contexts, shouldn't that settle the matter? This is an ecumenical context.. Tb (talk) 01:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You're probably thinking four marks of the church again, and that's not capital C. In any case, I have already accepted that my attempts here are futile. I'm just stating that "Roman Catholic" isn't objective nor is it correct - just "for the record". To be honest, I fear that future shall not understand this because of what we do today. --Paxcoder (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Since the name "Catholic Church" is sometimes controversial, including here, the question is whether there is an uncontroversial alternate name. And there is: "Roman Catholic Church". Now you may say that it's not the real name, that it's not right, that it's improper, but can you please get your own house in order before ordering Wikipedia around? The Trappists and Jesuits identify themselves as "Roman Catholic", for example. I'm afraid that I'm going to take the word of the OCSO leadership above yours about whether "Roman Catholic" is an accurate or appropriate word. Tb (talk) 00:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh really? Who contested the name and on what grounds? And even if someone did (they didn't, you did), that bears no effect to the *real name* of the Church - what part of this do you not understand? How many times do I have to repeat? Now if some refer to themselves as "Roman Catholics" or "Greek Catholics", or "Polish Catholics", it doesn't matter, because the name of the Church that encompasses all of the three terms is "Catholic Church". This is the one shown on the graph. I am not reverting the image, I'm simply saying that this is wikimockracy, not objectivity. btw, don't take this as an incentive to reply yet again (especially since it doesn't matter), but you didn't cite your sources this time. --Paxcoder (talk)

How about this. If the OCSO and the Jesuits describe themselves as Roman Catholic, and if the Vatican uses the term in official documents in ecumenical contexts (and this is one of those contexts) does that mean you'll agree I'm right? Or are you saying instead that no matter how many Roman Catholics use the term Roman Catholic, it's still an unacceptable term? Or is it that only "real names" must be used in the chart? (And if so, have you noticed that none of the other names are the "real names" of any particular church?) Tb (talk) 01:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Your Ecumenical argument is good. Still, i would like to point out just one more reason "Roman Catholic" is incorrect: I doubt Greek Catholic (more correctly, and wider: "Eastern Catholic Churches") who are shown re-merging with the Church would qualify as "Roman", though they are Catholic - part of the same Church. However, as long as we acknowledge what's written is not real, official or correct *name* of my Church (though it may have a purpose in official ecumenical documents as you point out), I'm fine with it being there. I didn't ask for it to be changed, so I'm not sure why is it that we're still discussing this. --Paxcoder (talk) 12:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Change in Image

How come the image that was used from 2007 change all of a sudden. Now all the branches of christainity is shown as offshoots from Roman Catholic Church. Even Oriental Orthodoxy ?, What connection would the churches in Ethiopia, India, Armenia (Oriental Orthodox) have with Roman Catholic church, to depict these as offshoots from Roman Catholic Church in AD431. In AD431, the people of Rome, wouldnt even have heard of places like India and Ethiopia ????? Yethi (talk) 12:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Quite right; I'm reverting it now. The editor should not have done what was done. Tb (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I've made the change on the Wikimedia Commons. Tb (talk) 16:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Someone is playing with the chart. 117.97.56.104 (talk) 14:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

good new lines to apply

(claimed separate lineage) + (Wycliffe+Hus) + (Great Awakenings)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/8/8b/20070115073401!ChristianityBranches.svg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/ChristianityBranches-2.svg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/8/8b/20110107073927!ChristianityBranches.svg

--89.176.227.251 (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Rubbish

This diagram is too incomplete and biased to take seriously. People might really consider whether it should be incorporated in any article.Borgmcklorg (talk) 13:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

How so? What are the biases here...? Also, File talk: namespace is usually a difficult place to get a response. You might want to post to the talk of articles where this is included. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I see that posting a comment here is probably pointless, but thank you for the reply. Problems are many, as far as bias, the classification is centred on Anglicanism and Catholicism (and perhaps the Assyrian church, here given undue weight).

A few points.

• The anabaptists are generally taken to pre-date the Reformation proper. I've never seen a direct connection with similar protestant denominations of today shown. Gibbon in Decline and Fall draws a line from the ancient Paulicians through the Cathari and Waldenses to the Hussites etc. It is an interesting (and possibly correct) argument but proof is scant or non-existent.
• The Assyrian church has a separate line when it is not one church, but split in two long ago, and one branch has long been an Eastern-rite church under Rome.
• The Great Schism was a political event that formalised a de-facto theological split which had happened much (about 600 years) earlier.
• The Catholic policy of taking on eastern-rite churches unfolded over a long time, and did not happen at a single point where the reformation also happened.
• Marcionite and Nestorian churches are dead as such but were both major for many centuries. For that matter, many protestant sects outdo the Arian church for heresy in terms of the Nicene creed.
• Restorationism is not a universal term (and not the most common for what it appears to mean), and as a belief has generally been grafted onto existing protestant denominations, rather than being a separate current. The term is also poorly chosen, since it would normally refer to the restoration of a monarch or of a Catholic monarch after a protestant period. Its rise is also much later than is shown: late 19th century, not 15th or 16th.
• Anglicanism is not a coherent system of anything except church governance. That is, it is not any form of theology or belief system, but rather encompasses others. Several are not even definable as Christian.
• Protestantism is not one thing and can't be defined (as the graph implies it can) in opposition to Anglicanism, "Restorationism", and Anabaptism.

Only a few there.Borgmcklorg (talk) 15:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Untitled 2

Do not know where or how to put this. I am sure someone can put it in the right place.

The Early Christianity line should actually be Catholic and the Roman Catholic line should also be called Catholc. The Catholic Church was the first Christian Church. As you can see on wiki (List_of_popes) history has agreed that the Catholic Church go back to Jesus making the Apostle Peter the first Pope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.118.72.190 (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Rubbish. I can also say that you can look on wikipedia and see the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. They go down to the apostles as well, including Peter. In Constantinople, the first bishop was the Apostle Andrew the first-called, brother of Peter. In Alexandria, the first was Mark the Evangelist. In Antioch, (this one will be such a surprise!) the first was PETER THE APOSTLE. And guess what, he was bishop there before he was in Rome. Now, in Jerusalem, the first was James the Just, the brother of the Lord. Now, you go here and try to tell everyone that the Roman Catholic church is the "true church". Well then I should be able to counter you and say: "Why do you disobey the primacy of Peter, ignoring Antioch as they left the Roman Catholic Church?" If Peter's throne is truly the mark of infallibility, then a paradox occurs when Antioch and Rome disagree as they were both founded in large by Peter. So go away with your fanatical Roman Catholicism (perhaps it should not even be called that, esp after Vatican II... is it even a church anymore?) Anyway, don't bother with this junk you are imagining, I may as well go here and complain that Roman Catholic should be changed to "Papists".75.73.114.111 (talk) 14:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Arianism

Why Arianism is omitted here? -- Bojan  Talk  03:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Extinct It no longer exists today (except indirectly via, e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Church of the East

Would it be possible to rename Assyrian to Church of the East please for more neutrality? Not every Church in this branch considers itself Assyrian. Many Thanks. 2.101.110.79 (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Assyrian churches Can you provide some context for this claim? What do you have in mind? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Certainly, for example, the Persian Church, Nestorian Church, and the Ancient Church of the East do not consider themselves Assyrian. Assyrian is quite a specifically nationalistic term associated with Assyrian nationalism. 2.101.130.173 (talk) 01:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Citation Do you have any proof for this? I've read about the Assyrian church and I don't know of any problem that schismatic churches have with the name. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, hope you are well. Syro-Malabar Church and Chaldean Church merged from the Church of the East (not Assyrian Church) to the Catholic Church. Assyrian Church distinguished itself from the Church of the East (by naming itself Assyrian) only in the 1800s. Other Churches of the East include Chaldean (now in communion with Rome), Syro-Malabar (also in Communion with Rome) Mar Thoma Church of the East in India (still independent) Ancient Church of the East (independent) Assyrian (independent), and some of the Dukhovny Christians (independent). Thank you. 2.101.114.105 (talk) 13:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC) By the way, all "Nestorian" Churches of the East accepted Chalcedonian Christology at the 544AD Synod of Mar Aba I. 2.101.114.105 (talk) 13:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC) I am very sorry, I forgot to include the Chaldean Syrian Church (in communion with the Asyrian Church) in India as well as the other 5 Church of the East denominations. 2.101.114.105 (talk) 10:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Personal Ordinariate

Should we add a merge line from Anglicanism to Western Rite Catholics? Some number of Anglican Churches have merged with the Roman Catholic Church in the recent past under Personal ordinariates.

Ittiz (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)