Jump to content

Talk:East–West Schism/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 8

1965

I don't think "In 1965, the Pope and the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople nullified the anathemas of 1054.[2] " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.56.90 (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

See, for instance, Miriam Webster New Book of Word Histories and for an English translation of the joint declaration by which each side consigned the excommunication (anathemas) to oblivion see the Joint Catholic-Orthodox Declaration of the two leaders. Esoglou (talk) 20:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring on Papal infallibility

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring
Per the Catholic Encyclopedia online.

"No workable rule can be given for deciding when such subsequent ratification as this theory requires becomes effective and even if this could be done in the case of some of the earlier councils whose definitions are received by the Anglicans, it would still be true that since the Photian schism it has been practically impossible to secure any such consensus as is required — in other words that the working of infallible authority, the purpose of which is to teach every generation, has been suspended since the ninth century, and that Christ's promises to His Church have been falsified."[1]

LoveMonkey (talk) 22:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Papal infallibility either has a history before it was made dogma or it don't. It either materialized out of thin air in the 19th century or it didn't.LoveMonkey (talk) 22:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Please read Conciliarism. (Other articles might also be cited, but that is perhaps the clearest to cite.) After that, ask yourself do you really think that Western bishops have always felt obliged to consider the Pope infallible? And that was centuries after the East-West schism, for which you seem to posit as a cause a refusal by the Eastern bishops as distinct from the Western, to consider the Pope infallible! Esoglou (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia can't be used to source wikipedia. Also I have and the article undermines your position.. I mean this passage is in the article.

Although Conciliarist strains of thought remain within the Church, particularly in the United States, Rome and the teaching of the Roman Church maintains that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth, and has the authority to issue infallible statements. This Papal Infallibility was invoked in Pope Pius IX's 1854 definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, and Pope Pius XII's 1950 definition of the dogma of the Assumption of Mary

What did Photius say? Did Photius oppose the authority of the Pope as final say on church matters or not? You are for your POV about the Orthodox's position. But why is the Orthodox wiki making statements like this?

"Pope Nicholas I, who was eager to assert his power over the Eastern church. Pope Nicholas had previously been successful in bringing the Western church under his absolute control, and he now sought the same power over the East."[2]. Why can't the Orthodox position be stated? You want your position but yours says ours as Orthodox is ignorant, misinformed, not historically relevant, corrupted by partisans etc etc. Also what you think and or what I think should not be the content of articles here.LoveMonkey (talk) 02:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

My dearest brother, we do not deny to the Roman Church the primacy among the five sister patriarchates and we recognize her right to the most honorable seat at the Ecumenical Council. But she has separated herself from us by her own deeds when through pride she assumed a monarchy which does not belong to her office... How shall we accept decrees from her that have been issued without consulting us and even without our knowledge? If the Roman pontiff seated on the lofty throne of his glory wished to thunder at us and, so to speak, hurl his mandates at us from on high and if he wishes to judge us and even to rule us and our churches, not by taking counsel with us but at his own arbitrary pleasure what kind of brotherhood, or even what kind of parenthood can this be? We should be the slaves not the sons, of such a church and the Roman see would not be the pious mother of sons but a hard and imperious mistress of slaves

— Archbishop Nicetas of Nicomedia of the Twelfth Century[1]

LoveMonkey (talk) 02:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles can't be used as sources for Wikipedia articles, and in this case haven't been so used. The same holds for OrthodoxWiki articles. But such articles can be enlightening for people who don't have a closed mind. From what you say, it seems that even Photios the Great said nothing about papal infallibility. So what reliable source is there for the statement for whose preservation you have edit-warred by reverting twice, while two other editors see it as unrelated to the causes of the 11th-century East-West Schism? Or are you only using synthesis in support? Esoglou (talk) 07:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
This is the statement as I have restored it.
"But these bishops did not regard the Bishop of Rome as infallible, nor did they acknowledge any juridical authority of Rome."
This is the edit summary that was used to justify the removal of the mention of papal infallibility.
"Papal infallibility was not promulgated until 1870, so the statement about bishops in the early Church is anachronistic, like saying early settlers of the state of New York didn't like the Mets."
The part of the statement called into question that is being readded and removed is "But these bishops did not regard the Bishop of Rome as infallible."
WP:SYN is not in direct conflict with WP:COMMON SENSE. I posted from the Catholic encyclopedia not exactly an Orthodox source where it acknowledges the history of papal infallibility. Also you comment about Orthodox wiki is wrong. As I have abit of a war with a sysop there over copying articles from there to wikipedia so yes Orthodox wiki can and is a source for wikipedia. As for sources I have already given at least three the Catholic encyclopedia, the Orthodox wiki and Kallistos Ware. As just because papal infallibility was made dogma in the 1800s doesn't mean was was invented whole cloth right there on the spot and that is what you are implying. As if the Christian Church did not exist before the biblical cannon was created. As if the bible fell right out of the sky and men did not lick the ends of pen and ink it.LoveMonkey (talk) 12:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
In short, your only source is your own common sense? Or is it, after all, a synthesis that you have made between what the Catholic Encyclopedia said about conciliar infallibility and your own ideas of papal infallibility? Or, to be more exact, is it that synthesis topped with a further synthesis between it and your ideas of the causes of the East-West Schism?
(If OrthodoxWiki texts, like those in Wikipedia, can be freely copied anywhere, I doubt that the sysop is saying you can't copy from it to Wikipedia. Is it rather that the sysop is saying instead that you can't quote OrthodoxWiki as a reliable source for some disputed statement in Wikipedia? How convenient it would be to make an edit in OrthodoxWiki and then use it as a so-called reliable source for what someone wants to have in Wikipedia! But I refuse to discuss that matter further: it concerns you and the sysop, not this article.) Esoglou (talk) 15:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
As for sources I have already given at least three the Catholic encyclopedia, the Orthodox wiki and Kallistos Ware.LoveMonkey (talk) 15:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Which of the two that can be counted as reliable sources says a dispute about papal infallibility (not just jurisdiction) was a cause of the East-West Schism? (No personal synthesis of your own, please.) Esoglou (talk) 15:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Kallistos Ware.. Also Laurent Cleenewerck in His Broken Body: Understanding and Healing the Schism between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. pp. 301-30, John Meyendorff, John Romanides, Vladimir Lossky. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you want Roman Catholic ones? Is that what this is about? Like say this one [3] about this very debate as it happened in 1100 or so AD between Nicetas of Nicomedia and Anselm of Havelberg? Or maybe Tomáš Špidlík?LoveMonkey (talk) 16:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
If your stick on the word infallible (even though thats how the filioque was made dogma justified) I am completely OK with the sentence saying.
"But these bishops did not regard the primacy of the Bishop of Rome as infallible, nor did they acknowledge any juridical authority of Rome."LoveMonkey (talk) 16:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

An Agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation [4] "A new stage in the history of the controversy was reached in the early eleventh century. During the synod following the coronation of King Henry II as Holy Roman Emperor at Rome in 1014, the Creed, including the Filioque, was sung for the first time at a papal Mass. Because of this action, the liturgical use of the Creed, with the Filioque, now was generally assumed in the Latin Church to have the sanction of the papacy. Its inclusion in the Eucharist, after two centuries of papal resistance of the practice, reflected a new dominance of the German Emperors over the papacy, as well as the papacy’s growing sense of its own authority, under imperial protection, within the entire Church, both western and eastern."
and
"The Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438-1445) again brought together representatives from the Church of Rome and the Churches of Constantinople, Alexan­dria, Antioch and Jerusalem, to discuss a wide range of controversial issues, including papal authority and the Filioque."
and finally
As in the theological question of the origin of the Holy Spirit discussed above, this divergence of understanding of the structure and exercise of authority in the Church is clearly a very serious one: undoubtedly Papal primacy, with all its impli­cations, remains the root issue behind all the questions of theology and practice that continue to divide our communions. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Would you please direct me to whichever of these spoke of infallibility as a bone of contention between East and West at the time of the schism? I must have overlooked whichever one or ones did speak of that question (rather than of the question of authority) as a live question in or around 1054. Please guide me to whatever it is that you found. Did someone as far back as 1054 maintain that some already existing ex cathedra papal declaration (which one?) about "Filioque" (with "procedit") was not only right but "infallible"? Have you perhaps anachronically projected back to that time disputes that arose only later? Esoglou (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

We seem to be missing each other. I would have responded sooner but Wikipedia was down yesterday. I see however today someone appears to have added what I felt the addition was contributing. So I abnegate. I think the contribution, words the position and sources it quite well.[5]LoveMonkey (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Esoglou (talk) 15:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

However I would like to find out what the term is that the Roman Catholic church uses to justify the insertion of filoque by the Pope at say the coronation of Henry II, before any council was convened. Also what the term is that is used to justify Pope Clement II making it doctrine for the whole church before any council was convened.
So is the term

or whatever.
Please forgive me if I am abit confused and maybe fought for the wrong term for why the Pope believes he can change church dogma without council with the East based on his own stature.
LoveMonkey (talk) 15:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't suppose there was any theorizing whatever in 1014. If I remember right (perhaps I don't) the Creed was not sung in the divine liturgy in Rome until then, perhaps not even recited. They just decided on that occasion to sing it, as it was sung generally in the rest of Latin-speaking Europe. As you know, the Creed in Latin also has the phrase "Deum de Deo", which was in the original Nicene Creed, but not in the later "Niceno-Constantinopolitan" version, which is used in the Byzantine liturgy Esoglou (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

"Deum de Deo"... was that recited in church in Latin? In the West at the time of the council? What you said is illogical. When in the West did the creed begin to be recited in Latin?LoveMonkey (talk) 16:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

How does Roman Catholic theology resolve this passage of the creed..
"Jesus Christ who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man;"
With the filloque?
So does Jesus incarnate of the Holy Spirit after the Holy Spirit proceed from the Son? Also if they come from one another why can't the father come from them. Also what is the father then? If Christ was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, what the father for?LoveMonkey (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Finally to answer your question directly, who in the time of the schism can be attributed to having in the East said that it is the Pope's decision to make the filioque dogma for the whole church, was one of the causes of the schism. Well for one that would be Saint Nicetas [7]. You don't seem to be wanting to address the things that he is said to have expressed. I think we should work together to have these points of contention stated in the article. I think there should be a wikipedia page created for the saint. We could do it together. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Four Crusade that ultimately destroyed the Byzantine Empire

[8] So how should it be worded that the Fourth Crusade weakened the Byzantine Empire so much so that it could not recover?LoveMonkey (talk) 17:35,

25 March 2010 (UTC) http://vizantia.info/docs/73.htm 800 tons of gold is not enough?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.69.6.190 (talk) 09:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Esoglou's edits, what gives?

I removed this passage that Esoglou added to the article claiming to correct distortions I had added to the article.

It was never condemned by the seven ecumenical councils formally accepted by the Eastern Orthodox Church, but has been rejected by the Synod of Jerusalem, which states that "for the regenerated to do spiritual good – for the works of the believer being contributory to salvation and wrought by supernatural grace are properly called spiritual – it is necessary that he be guided and prevented [preceded] by grace … Consequently he is not able of himself to do any work worthy of a Christian life".[115]
The views expressed by John Cassian to which critics have pointed as examples of his alleged semi-Pelagianism are found in his Conferences, in book 3, the Conference of Abbot Paphnutius; book 5, the Conference of Abbot Serapion; and most especially in book 13, the Third Conference of Abbot Chaeremon.

The source Esoglou provides [9] makes no mention at all of Saint John Cassian nor mention of Semipelagianism. No mention that the ascetic doctrine of Cassian is rejected and not taught by the Orthodox Church. I can not find any Orthodox sources that stated that the Orthodox rejected Cassian AT ALL. Nor can I find any source Orthodox or not tying Cassian to any Synod of Jerusalem. Let alone the Synod that could be sourced by (i.e. the Synod of Jerusalem (1672)). Cassian and his teaching of Synergeia I can find no placed condemned by the Eastern Orthodox Church. Where is this coming from? LoveMonkey (talk) 09:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The Synod of Jerusalem, which some Orthodox feel should be listed as an ecumenical council, declared that, unless grace is first given to him, man can do nothing contributory to salvation. This is against the teaching that man can take the first steps to salvation without divine grace, the teaching that the article called Semipelagianism. That is what was condemned, not Cassian. The Council of Orange also condemned Semipelagianism, but not Cassian. Cassian, who died a century before either condemnation of Semipelagianism was issued, is a saint for both the Eastern and the Western Church.
The second paragraph quoted above is not mine. It was already in the article. I thought it was absolutely unhelpful, and would have omitted it but for fear of stirring up a defence of it. I am grateful to LoveMonkey for now objecting to it, and so enabling it to be excised. Esoglou (talk) 14:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

"which some Orthodox feel"? More doublespeak and gibberish. You posted that the Orthodox with a council have condemned a part of their own theology. You've done this TWICE.LoveMonkey (talk) 01:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I was wrong in thinking the Synod of Jerusalem was proposed as ecumenical. I mistakenly thought that an Orthodox source concerning the lack of formal recognition of any ecumenical council after the seventh (and which does mention the Synod of Jerusalem) had spoken of this synod/council as proposed for recognition. In reality, as I find, the source only spoke of proposals for recognition of an 8th and a 9th ecumenical council. The source mentioned the Synod of Jerusalem only as a local council. It is like the Council of Orange, which in spite of the 1912 remark of Joseph Pohle is not reckoned as ecumenical in the West. Thanks for drawing my attention to my error.
Love, do you really think that it is actual Orthodox teaching, and not just an opinion, that man can take the first steps towards salvation without any assistance of God's grace? What source can you cite? If it is actual teaching of the Orthodox Church, then I suppose that the Synod of Jerusalem, which upheld the contradictory view, must be considered heretical.
I don't see why you cancelled "The semipelagian doctrine, as expounded by Faustus of Riez, was denounced as heretical both at Constantinople and Rome by John Maxentius and his monks soon after 520" (practically a quotation from the cited source), on the grounds that "Maxentius position was not validated by any Eastern Council bad distortion Orange is not in Constaninople". Of course we know that John Maxentius failed to get a hearing in either Constantinople or Rome (and that Orange is in neither city), but it is a verified fact that he did denounce Semipelagianism as heretical. However, I think this verified fact can be omitted as unimportant, since you dislike it so strongly.
By the way, it is quite obvious that "Cassian took no part in his condemnation" (as if anyone would be likely to take part in his own condemnation). Is this perhaps a reference to the Council of Orange, as I notice you wrote at first? Apart from the fact that that council did not condemn Cassian himself nor, as far as I know, did any other council, Cassian was dead for nearly a century when the Council of Orange was held. Esoglou (talk) 14:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Esoglou does not know what they are talking about in relation to Orthodox theology

Vladimir Lossky in The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church pg 198 speaks of John Cassian upholding the Orthodox position against the slow contamination of the Western church by the teachings of Augustine. Lossky states Cassian is a saint in both East and West that his teaching was condemned in the West but he does not say Cassian was in any, way, shape, form or fashion was EVER rejected or condemned in the East. Lossky makes no mention of any council. Also on Maxentius-[10]LoveMonkey (talk) 00:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

That's Lossky's view, then. Put it in. Or, if you wish, I'll put it in myself. Esoglou (talk) 14:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Funny I posted Lossky before you posted this.

Love, do you really think that it is actual Orthodox teaching, and not just an opinion, that man can take the first steps towards salvation without any assistance of God's grace? What source can you cite? If it is actual teaching of the Orthodox Church, then I suppose that the Synod of Jerusalem, which upheld the contradictory view, must be considered heretical.

LoveMonkey (talk) 03:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

After more mistakes Lima/Esoglou continues to edit war

Why was this passage removed now for at least a second time? Without discussion.

In the Eastern Orthodox Church, Cassian's doctrine is not referred to as Semipelagianism it is referred to as the theological doctrine of synergy or cooperation between man's will and the will of God. The working together of the Holy Spirit and each person towards the person's salvation. The Eastern Orthodox teach the doctrine of synergy comparable to "saving a drowning man by throwing a rope to him, on which he must choose to or to not grab in order to receive the help offered". As Cassian had endeavored in his thirteenth chapter of Conferences section 11 to demonstrate from Biblical examples that God frequently awaits the good impulses of the natural will before coming to its assistance with His supernatural grace; while the grace often preceded the will, as in the case of Matthew and Peter, on the other hand the will frequently preceded the grace, as in the case of Zacchæus and the Good Thief on the Cross.

LoveMonkey (talk) 17:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Please, Love, look more carefully. The above is still in the article. The last part, on what John Cassian actually wrote, has been moved to the exposition of his view in the first part of the subsection, but it is still in the article. See this edit.
Would you be so good as to let me know what are the mistakes that you say I have made, so that I can correct them? I feel confident that none of them is as bad as the twofold falsification of a quotation that you made, presumably by mistake, not out of malice. See here and here.
I am restoring my work, and please don't edit-war by deleting it. Instead, indicate what you think needs correction or further sourcing. And please back up your own statements for which I have asked you to provide valid sources. Esoglou (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry that you have chosen to revert again. I must ask for a third opinion. Esoglou (talk) 19:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion

Weaponbb7 (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by Esoglou.

On the grounds of "the amount of errors and the wholesale removal what Cassian actually states and a complete misrepresentation of the Orthodox position", LoveMonkey has twice blanket-reverted my editing of 21 June 2010. His reverting is not justified by the alleged removal of what Cassian actually states, which, as I have shown above, has not been removed. Nor is it justified on the grounds of alleged errors, which I would be happy to discuss if he would only specify them. Nor on the grounds of alleged complete misrepresentation of the Orthodox position: I have quoted sources on the Orthodox position, while he on the contrary has actually changed (falsified) the words of a quotation from an Orthodox catechism to make them fit his own view. I am sorry for being unable to put this in a single short sentence. Thank you for intervening. Esoglou (talk) 05:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Viewpoint by LoveMonkey
....

I'll respond (PS thanks for the vote of Good faith) Esoglou continues to misrepresent the Eastern Orthodox opinion. Esoglou it seems can not leave that position alone and has to reword it. Hence the streams and streams of editwarring away what Esoglou does not like being said. Lima/Esoglou is doing what is called in the East (by say George Florovsky for one example) as "Western captivity". Where the Eastern positions are not actually given by the Orthodox unless that Orthodox position is one that agrees with the West. The Orthodox theology is not allowed to stand by itself. As such many Western peoples have grave misconceptions about what the Orthodox actually believe and have not come to realize they have not actually asked the Orthodox but instead have asked what the Roman Catholic opinion of the Orthodox is. Lima/Esoglou is continuing this exact same tradition. It appears Esoglou just can not leave it as it is but instead has to constantly reword the opinion with Esoglou's own Original Research in some cases so that the Orthodox have no opinion of their own. So they are full of misconceptions about themselves and only the West really understands the East. This is completely ridiculous. Lima/Esoglou could just leave the Eastern entries as they stand. But Esoglou refuses to do that. I mean I have not went into the Roman Catholic sections and started any kind of this nonsense. Whats Esoglou afraid of, in letting the Orthodox positions stand unmolested? LoveMonkey (talk) 17:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


Third opinion by Weaponbb7

Due to looking a LoveMonkey (talk · contribs) editing Pattern I don't think he is going to Respond to this, it seems this is actually may be a longterm problem with no easy solution.

I would appeciate the text in question to be presented below this text, as right now this discussion seems to border on a WP:CCN issue which i can not hope to solve by myself Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I who? your sig is missing.LoveMonkey (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok text in question below here Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, here's one this is hopefully simple enough to understand.[11]

But the view that the first steps of salvation are in the power of the individual without any need of divine grace, a view expounded by Cassian and Faustus of Riez,[2] was condemned by the local Council of Orange in 529. The local Synod of Jerusalem (1672) also laid down that grace must guide and precede any action that is spiritually good.[3]

The Orthodox Church does not condemn it's own teachings from John Cassian. This above is something Esoglou made up. Esoglou can not find a single Orthodox theologian whom teaches this. Not one that ties the teachings of Cassian to any Orthodox authorized and accepted Synod of Jerusalem (1672). You won't find anything like this passage above in anything Orthodox. The council text Esoglou posted makes no mention of Cassian, synergy, semipelgainism. None of it. This is Original Research Esoglou made up.LoveMonkey (talk) 17:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

tentative WP:3O opinion

I am not a Theologian, But looking at the Diff provided, it does seem there is alot of primary sources being used in the Version posited by Esoglou, which intended or not do seem to be potentially run the very serious risk of OR when used to support a statement. In addtion the portion on this individual Cassian seems rather bizarre part of this dispute as The Greek Orthodox church considers him as a Saint thus I am concluding that LoveMonkey is perhaps more right than Esoglou. I would Recomend on this article that the use of Primary Sources be shunned as well as ones that are being sourced to that seem to be free floating sites that fail would likely Fail at the WP:RSN. Both Editors please review WP:PSTS Google Scholar and the Altla (I think thats how it is spelled) have troves of secondary sources and any normal Encyclopedia will would provide an excellent Tertiary sources. If Esoglou wishes to use a different diff that more accurately displays his position i will be happy to reconsider Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Weaponbb7.LoveMonkey (talk) 19:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Response to tentative WP:3O opinion by Esoglou

I am sorry I don't understand what are the primary sources that you are referring to. The one clearly primary source is the passage from John Cassian, which LoveMonkey inserted and accused me falsely of deleting. I have no objection whatever to its omission. LoveMonkey does.

Ok, Basicly the problem is here is various Websites that are Done by Various Churches Can be interpreted as Primary sources or could lack authority to speak on the Matter. Thus Secondary sources Preferably from some one a Religious Studies field or Religous History would extremely preferable. Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think one needs to be a theologian to follow this. The Eastern Orthodox Church (EOC), you say, considers Cassian a Saint. That provides no ground for concluding that LoveMonkey is perhaps more right, since the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) too considers Cassian a Saint.
What I am asking is that LoveMonkey discuss the differences instead of reverting everything in edit-warring style. Which difference can we start with? I would gladly leave the choice to him. But since he still has not specified any particular difference, but has simply linked to the one reversion that I permitted myself and that he re-reverted immediately after, perhaps we can start with the first point of divergence between the two versions.

This is what i get for Walking in on this Middle of the conversation

The topic of these sections is the issues that are dividing the two churches and so perpetuating the schism. LoveMonkey says that the EOC does not accept Augustine's theology. So what? Neither does the RCC. The most logical thing would be to omit discussion of Augustine's theology, and limit the discussion to the teachings of the two churches. It was and is obvious that LoveMonkey would object to such an excision; so I kept the account of Augustine's theology, separating it from the account of the teachings of the two churches This I made my first paragraph. The citations in that paragraph were inserted in the article by LoveMonkey, not by me; so I presume there is no objection to those citations.

I concur, However Augstine was a BIG if not THE theologian for many centuries even if he is no longer considered by either faith to such status, he was key at one time around the time of the split so in historical terms it is relevant even if it is not currently perpetuating it. 23:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

My second paragraph then is on the teaching of the EOC. It is taken from LoveMonkey's first paragraph, with one important change. LoveMonkey attributes to the catechism of Metropolitan Archbishop Sotirios the following text:
"ancestral sin is therefore hereditary. It did not remain only Adam and Eve's. As life passes from them to all of their descendants, so does their sin and corruption of existence. We all of us exist in the corrupted existence we inherited due to the ancestral sin of our forefathers forefather, Adam."
What that EOC catechism really says is:
"original sin is hereditary. It did not remain only Adam and Eve's. As life passes from them to all of their descendants, so does original sin. We all of us participate in original sin because we are all descended from the same forefather, Adam."
Surely it is not legitimate to falsify quotations from our cited sources.
By the way, you surely don't object to catechisms as sources for knowing a church's teaching. Is that what you mean by "primary sources"? But official expositions of a church's teaching as in a catechism are incomparably the best source for sure and exact knowledge of what the church does teach.

Yes, Catechism is Tricky though as its meant to dumb it down so laypeople can understand How this disagreement sounds like Translation issues from the original greek. Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I could go on, but I have no more time tonight. If it is so desired, I will gladly continue tomorrow. But I think I have given enough ground for raising doubts about whether LoveMonkey was right to revert my editing without agreeing to discuss it here on the Talk page or to ...
I must interrupt myself here, and first apologize for what seems to have been certainly a misunderstanding on my part. I thought that the difference that LoveMonkey had posted was the whole of the edit linked to with the number 11 above, in other words this one. I see now that LoveMonkey was more specific. (Pity he wasn't specific earlier, and we could have discussed the question here without having to bring someone else in.)
LoveMonkey objects to "But the view that the first steps of salvation are in the power of the individual without any need of divine grace, a view expounded by Cassian and Faustus of Riez,[2] was condemned by the local Council of Orange in 529. The local Synod of Jerusalem (1672) also laid down that grace must guide and precede any action that is spiritually good.[3]" on the grounds that "The Orthodox Church does not condemn it's own teachings from John Cassian. This above is something Esoglou made up. Esoglou can not find a single Orthodox theologian whom teaches this. Not one that ties the teachings of Cassian to any Orthodox authorized and accepted Synod of Jerusalem (1672). You won't find anything like this passage above in anything Orthodox. The council text Esoglou posted makes no mention of Cassian, synergy, semipelgainism. None of it. This is Original Research Esoglou made up."|
What a lot there is to say on that! To begin with, LoveMonkey claims, without any source, that Cassian's idea is a teaching of the EOC, not just an idea that may be entertained by some of its members. Secondly, my text does not claim that the Synod of Jerusalem made mention of Cassian, synergy or Semi-Pelagianism (a correct spelling). What it says of that synod is that it "laid down that grace must guide and precede any action that is spiritually good". It did, didn't it? And isn't that related to the definition of Semi-Pelagianism given earlier in the same section (in LoveMonkey's version of the article), namely that the first steps to salvation are sometimes in the power of the individual, without any need of God's grace? So it is not off topic. And isn't this statement by a synod of the EOC that has been called "the most important in the modern history of the Eastern Church, and may be compared to the Council of Trent" an important enough source to make one doubt the accuracy of LoveMonkey's undocumented claim that Semi-Pelagianism is official doctrine of the EOC? It is simply not "something Esoglou made up".
A pity I had a visitor earlier this evening, making me rush this reply. But surely I have said enough to undo the impression that "LoveMonkey is perhaps more right than Esoglou". Far from justifying LoveMonkey's reversions, the comparison between the two versions indicates that the unsourced claims LoveMonkey makes in his own version and refuses to support with valid citations in reply to a "citation needed" or "verification failed" tag, together with his falsification of a source, are enough to perhaps justify repeated reversions by me, which I have not wished to do, so as not to imitate his edit-warring. Esoglou (talk) 21:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

One Recmendation since this appears to be more than a minor issue but a whole host of issues of varying degrees of importance i recommend i Getting help From both Wikipedia:CATHOLIC and WP:EO as well as Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity. 23:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry if my hurried response yesterday evening was too sharp. First of all, you didn't walk in in the midst of a conversation. You very kindly accepted an urgent invitation to come in and get a conversation going. All I wanted was to get LoveMonkey to discuss the issues instead of blanket-reverting. If I had wanted to get others involved in discussing the issues – something I did have in mind – I would have made a Request for Comment on the discussion – if there had been one. Even if my editing were wrong on some points, that would justify reverting on those points, but not repeated total reverting. My question therefore was whether LoveMonkey's repeated total reverting was justified. Perhaps my question has not been answered.
Oh, with regard to the undoubted BIGness of Augustine, the bugbear for some people (in spite of the Fifth Ecumenical Council's statement: "We further declare that we hold fast to the decrees of the four Councils, and in every way follow the holy Fathers, Athanasius, Hilary, Basil, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Theophilus, John of Constantinople, Cyril, Augustine, Proclus, Leo, and their writings on the true faith"!), you will note that I did not eliminate him from the article, but merely distinguished his teaching from that of the churches. Surely not only legitimate but actually required. Esoglou (talk) 07:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

monkey lover response [12]

WOW I mean WOW to the magnitude of outright blatant misrepresentation. The primary source I posted here and noted that Esoglou is corrupting has no Cassian sourcing in it where is that? Me sourcing Cassian directly in the passage I posted here? In response to weaponbb7s request? No, Esoglou posted a passage from the council in Jerusalem 1672. Here is the passage I posted, again...

But the view that the first steps of salvation are in the power of the individual without any need of divine grace, a view expounded by Cassian and Faustus of Riez,[2] was condemned by the local Council of Orange in 529. The local Synod of Jerusalem (1672) also laid down that grace must guide and precede any action that is spiritually good.[4]

So again where Lima/Esoglou is quoting Dositheus (http://www.crivoice.org/creeddositheus.html Confession of Dositheus, Decree 14) directly to bolster that the Eastern Orthodox condemn the teachings of Cassian (which they don't) equate to
Esoglou wrote

"The one clearly primary source is the passage from John Cassian, which LoveMonkey inserted and accused me falsely of deleting"

From my perspective could someone please stop Esoglou from posting Dositheus (http://www.crivoice.org/creeddositheus.html Confession of Dositheus, Decree 14) as a source for the Orthodox council of Jerusalem supposedly saying the Orthodox condemned at it Cassian, semipelagaianism, synergy? As Dositheus is a primary source, a primary source that AGAIN makes no mention of Cassian, semipelagianism, synergy nor condemn any such thing. As "The local Synod of Jerusalem (1672) also laid down that grace must guide and precede any action that is spiritually good." did no such as thing as condemn Cassian, synergy, semipelagianism."
And to continue.. Esoglou wrote

"To begin with, LoveMonkey claims, without any source, that Cassian's idea is a teaching of the EOC,"

Sure I did provide sources for several days now in the article Michael Azkoul, An Introduction to the Orthodox Christian Understanding of Free Will and here on the talkpage [13]. But I can provide more. How many mistakes and boo boos that cause edit warring and incredible amounts of personal time and frustration are going to be allowed? Enough with the playing dumb as an excuse to editwar already. Hes committed 3rr on the Filioque article twice already. And nobody can do anything? Tell me why its ok for Esoglou to be using that source to say something it does not say, is that not Original Research? Esoglou still can't find an Orthodox theologian that will state Cassian's view was condemn at any eastern council.
 And some more.. Esoglou wrote

Pity he wasn't specific earlier, and we could have discussed the question here without having to bring someone else in.)

Yes I was.[14] And I was just as specific. You have no excuses. Esoglou wrote

"Secondly, my text does not claim that the Synod of Jerusalem made mention of Cassian, synergy or Semi-Pelagianism (a correct spelling). What it says of that synod is that it "laid down that grace must guide and precede any action that is spiritually good". It did, didn't it?"

I am asking someone, anyone to explain how this passage belongs at all in this article for this section. Anyone to explain what this means? That Esoglou is doublespeaking? It is unjustified for what it implies by what it proceeds. Either its about the paragraph its in or its a random add it in that needs to be removed. Now here is a whopper.
Esoglou wrote

"And isn't that related to the definition of Semi-Pelagianism given earlier in the same section (in LoveMonkey's version of the article), namely that the first steps to salvation are sometimes in the power of the individual, without any need of God's grace? So it is not off topic."
So which is it? Is it a source or not. Either way its random or its original research.

Esoglou wrote

"And isn't this statement by a synod of the EOC that has been called "the most important in the modern history of the Eastern Church, and may be compared to the Council of Trent" an important enough source to make one doubt the accuracy of LoveMonkey's undocumented claim that Semi-Pelagianism is official doctrine of the EOC? It is simply not "something Esoglou made up".

What? What? The council says nothing about Cassian and no Orthodox theologian I can find makes this connection.
Esoglou wrote

"LoveMonkey makes in his own version and refuses to support with valid citations in reply to a "citation needed" or "verification failed tag,"

I've posted plenty where did I supposedly do any of this?
Esoglou wrote

together with his falsification of a source,

What source did I falsify?
Esoglou wrote

"are enough to perhaps justify repeated reversions by me, which I have not wished to do, so as not to imitate his edit-warring."

Nonsense I addressed this with you on the talkpage specifically 3 days ago [15] you blew it off and keep right on reverting, rewriting and ignoring.LoveMonkey (talk) 04:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Love, the links you give to your elimination of a series of hyphens are not very enlightening. You ask what quotation you falsified. I repeat, you changed "original sin is hereditary. It did not remain only Adam and Eve's. As life passes from them to all of their descendants, so does original sin. We all of us participate in original sin because we are all descended from the same forefather, Adam."" to "ancestral sin is therefore hereditary. It did not remain only Adam and Eve's. As life passes from them to all of their descendants, so does their sin and corruption of existence. We all of us exist in the corrupted existence we inherited due to the ancestral sin of our forefathers forefather, Adam". Did you not? And surely a statement by a synod of the EOC is as good a source as any on what really is EOC teaching on the question whether one can take the first steps towards salvation without any help whatever from divine grace (which is how you define Semipelagianism, which in turn you attribute to John Cassian). Esoglou (talk) 07:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps we can now get down to discussing whatever objections you can propose to my editing of the section that you have retouched after twice blanket-reverted my editing, the section on synergy (there is an interesting article on this) and free will. I have indicated separately this time the different elements of my editing of that section, so that you can indicate which elements you believe are wrong (every one of them?) and why. I will do the same for the other sections that you blanket-reverted, if that is required to get you to offer reasoned indications of why you thought they must all be reverted. Esoglou (talk) 10:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

What is this? Where is Weaponbb7's response before you jump back in and try and change the subject? At least provide the diffs Esoglou. Get down to maybe you stop with your Original Research and edit warring.LoveMonkey (talk) 12:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

LoveMonkey & Esoglou

This seems to be a bigger issue than I can handle by myself, as this is getting very theological and using terminology that is little out of my league. Both of your Edit histories show a lot of good work contributing to articles on related topics. I highly recommend getting help From both Catholic Work Group and The Eastern Orthodox Workgroup as well as Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity. I recommend these groups since individuals working there will be able to evaluate source, interpretations and the like much more effectively than I can. I will maintain a presence on the page to facilitate the goal of of bringing knoledgeable editors on this topic to weigh in. Does this sound like a plan? Weaponbb7 (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

As long as it is unbiased yes it does.LoveMonkey (talk) 13:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Tell me from the lack of conclusive decision what justification does Esoglou have to have reverted out my contributions to the article and to also rewrite almost this entire section of contested material. Esoglou rewrote the Orthodox parts to say that the Orthodox and Roman Catholic teach the same things when the sources that he used (some that I provided) do not state such a thing. Esoglou went ahead and removed and reverted without consensus.LoveMonkey (talk) 13:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this your proposal for an invitation to join the discussion? Weaponbb7 (talk) 13:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought I was already in the discussion. But sure. But I agree adn thought thhat we where in the middle of such a thing. That's why I complained about Esoglou going into the article today and wholesale rewriting and deleting and distorting.LoveMonkey (talk) 14:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
sorry i need to make myself clear. What is a Neutral Statement of the problem that both of you can agree to that we can post on Respective Talk pages of these project to get a wider consensus on the issues?
You have some signature issues. They are making it hard for me to follow when you are saying something since I am unclear if and who might have made a post. But Yes I agree and that what was happening. And is why I made the complaint in Esoglou wholesale writing and edit warring today without getting consensus first here. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You know if you go and look on the Filioque article. You'll notice that Esoglou is now edit warring with an Orthodox Priest. Maybe he can tell Father Whiteford how Father Whiteford does not know his own churchs' theology and doctrine. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Predestination as Roman Catholic dogma

The Roman Catholic Church has a PR problem either Esolgou is correct that the Roman Catholic Church rejects Augustine's predestination or the New Advent is wrong.[16] Now I obviously think that Esoglou Mr doublespeak confusion is wrong. But if the New Advent is wrong then ALL of the Roman Catholics who try and say it is (its 3000 years old or whatever lame excuse it is) are a party to something incredibly unethical. Since they need to clear their own house and not DARE be critical of anyone whom in good faith took the New Advent website at what it said.LoveMonkey (talk) 13:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Certainly Augustine's predestination theory, as interpreted by you, Love, as contrary to free will, is contrary to Catholic teaching (see Catechism of the Catholic Church 600, 1730, 1705, 1037). Does the article by Joseph Pole in 1911 agree with your interpretation? If it does - and I see no reason for thinking that it does - that too is contrary to Catholic teaching. Esoglou (talk) 14:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Its so obvious. The article clearly states that the Roman Catholic church as a matter of DOGMA teaches the concept of predestination. PERIOD. Keep trying to twist it. I'll eventually get you to put enough mistakes that to administrators on here they will see the game your playing.LoveMonkey (talk) 14:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course it does. You don't have to go back a century to find that the Catholic Church teaches predestination. But it doesn't teach your idea of predestination, Love. Esoglou (talk) 14:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

My idea. I was only quoting what I had read. Why did you remove it then in this diff?[17]LoveMonkey (talk) 14:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Remove what? Esoglou (talk) 14:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Look at the diff Esoglou.14:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I did, but I imagined (wrongly?) that you might perhaps be courteous enough to specify what you mean by "it". Esoglou (talk) 14:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Lets start here.. [18]LoveMonkey (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Now baby steps.. Who is Thomas Aquinas? And in the teaching from the OCA website what does the last sentence of the teaching say about Thomas Aquinas? Next step, what is scholasticism? Who is considered the official founding person of Western Scholasticism? Now who is Duns Scotus? And what is it that Mr Scotus had as a point of contention with Mr Aquinas and his Thomism group?[19]. Why is there a conflict in the Roman Catholic church for something that is agreed upon and so clearly at that, so that it also agrees with the Orthodox Church? As the Roman Catholic Church does indeed teach Augustine's predestination.[20] As my next set of edits and section was going to be on Supralapsarianism. And how it is an outgrowth of Augustine's Predestination. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
As indicated above, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (rather than speculation by one or more of the diverse schools of thought) will tell you what is the actual teaching of the Catholic Church. Esoglou (talk) 16:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh so you didn't read any of that. Nor can you answer it. So what does this statement from the website named RomanCatholics.org mean?

Augustine’s teaching was codified in canons infallibly approved by Rome as a rule of the doctrine of the faith. For instance, the II Council of Orange, approved by Pope Boniface II and recognised by all Catholic theologians as infallible, defined in AD. 529, using sentences taken from Augustine, the doctrine of the two loves, caritas (love of God) and cupiditas (worldly love).[21]

What misconceptions Esoglou claims I have, are at least informed ones. But then this is not what Esoglou has been saying or fighting about and Esoglou denies that Augustine's teachings of Original Sin and Predestination are actually taught by the Roman Catholic church. the tactic that Esoglou is engaging in is called duplicitous or duplicity. In that Esoglou is taking both sides of the issue. And claiming to be both for and against.LoveMonkey (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations, Love: I believe you've concluded that Augustine's teaching on predestination is the same as the RCC's teaching on predestination (which you'll find indicated in the parts of the Catechism of the Catholic Church cited above), and I suppose you must therefore have concluded that Augustine's teaching too admits free will. As I said above, what the RCC does not teach is an interpretation of Augustine's teaching on predestination that denies free will, an interpretation that I perhaps mistakenly thought to be yours. Esoglou (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

What? More gobble-dy gook. First the Roman Catholic Church doesn't teach Augustine, then they kinda do and now well, they finally do. Taking both sides again. Well congratulations to Esoglou for finally facing what people actually hear and see in a Roman Catholic church on any given Sunday. Which is not about people coming to God of their own volition and synergy or Cassian. No its about Augustine and Aquinas and a deterministic God, a benevolent dictator.[22] Still not going to address Aquinas and Scotus.LoveMonkey (talk) 23:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for third opinion

May I repeat my request for a third opinion on the question whether LoveMonkey's blanket reverting of all edits by me, without attempting to give reasons for more than a couple of them (at best), is justified? He has done it again. As I remarked above, one could understand reverting individual items on which an editor disagrees, but I do not see how one can justify blanket reverting while reserving to oneself the right to continue to make edits. So is LoveMonkey's repeated blanket reverting justified or is it not? Esoglou (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you wait for the process to run its course or is it your to afraid to see what the results of it will be? We are not done it is just escalating.LoveMonkey (talk) 14:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
On the contrary, I want to see the results from the process that I initiated. Instead of letting it go off on a tangent, I would like it to deal with the question I raised. Do you yourself, Love, really believe you can justify your blanket reverting? I split my editing up into individual elements so as to enable you to distinguish between these elements and say what, if anything, you find wrong with each of them. Yet you persist in your to my mind quite unjustified total reverting. Esoglou (talk) 14:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
You wanted to see the results after you ignored that the process was still ongoing?LoveMonkey (talk) 15:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The Page is now Locked from anyone (Except Admins) editing it for 72 hours Weaponbb7 (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I responded to a request at WP:RFPP for "full protection for 72 hours". As I mentioned at RFPP, my preference would have been to WP:BLOCK the two editors concerned, rather than fully protect the article. I chose to protect instead because there's clearly mediation occurring, and preventing the editors involved from participating would have been counter-productive. For that reason I hope mediation will succeed. TFOWR 15:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
While the page is protected, if a consensus emerges for a change to the page then that can be requested using the {{editprotected}} tag. Any admin seeing the request will - assuming there's a consensus for the change - make the change. I've also got this page watchlisted, so naturally I'll make any change I see requested. TFOWR 15:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to Relevant Wikiprojects

I have post an Invitation to Wikiprojects, on the Talk pages of WP:JESUS, WP:EO, WP:CATHOLIC I want both Editor to Discuss the Dispute with out refering to the other editor in the text

Esoglou Issues with E-W-Schism

The only issue I have raised is another editor's refusal to let me edit the article, reverting en bloc anything I add, while adding whatever he likes. This has been persisted in even when I split my editing of one section into individual small elements. Diff. 1; Diff. 2; Diff. 3. While reverting of individual elements could be a normal exercise of editing, I do not see as legitimate the unexplained reverting of absolutely all changes done by a fellow-editor. I would warmly welcome interventions by others. Esoglou (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

LoveMonkey Issues with E-W-Schism

I would like a third party to authorize any edits and or suggestions that either I, LoveMonkey and or Esoglou purpose to the article here on the talkpage first. That means posting whatever changes or suggestions that either party would like to make here on the talkpage and receiving consensus from a third party first. But not just anyone. As the editor Weaponbb7 has already purposed the authorities would participants from BOTH churches not say a Roman Catholic working on the Orthodox Christianity project per se. Just for starters. Esoglou is distorting and I want other editors to see the type of nonsense and distorting Esoglou is engaged in.LoveMonkey (talk) 15:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you stike that and Name specific issues with Diffs? Weaponbb7 (talk) 15:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
PS I am having issues adding content where the pages are not responding and or I make the edit but it does not show up immediately. Very frustrating.LoveMonkey (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Diff 1 [23] Esoglou arguing that Constantinople was ever named or called New Rome by Constantine.
  • Diff 2 [24] Here Had to fight Esoglou to even acknowledge that Constantine name his new city New Rome. And here I thought that was a commonly know historical fact. But Esoglou fought me over that. Why?
  • Diff 3 [25] After I created several sections Esoglou goes in and almost completely rewrites them. Why? no discussion. None.
  • Diff 4 [26] Again why? Esoglou deleted an entire passage here [27] dealing with Cassian. Also Esoglou added this passage of made up original research and historically inaccurate statement.
"The semipelagian doctrine, as expounded by Faustus of Riez, was denounced as heretical both at Constantinople and Rome by John Maxentius and his monks soon after 520.[2]" NOT! That simply is not true about Constantinople. Nor Maxentius. The council I think Esoglou was implying happened almost a thousand years after Maxentius and the Council of Orange. But again semipelagainism was never outright condemned by Constantinople. If so what Orthodox person says so?

And this one to. Which Esoglou later changed and now denies what Esoglou put in the article.

"In the East it was rejected by the 1670 Synod of Jerusalem, which stated that "for the regenerated to do spiritual good – for the works of the believer being contributory to salvation and wrought by supernatural grace are properly called spiritual – it is necessary that he be guided and prevented [preceded] by grace … Consequently he is not able of himself to do any work worthy of a Christian life".[5]

There is no Orthodox teaching to this effect what Orthodox source says so? Here Esoglou is quoting a primary source to try and validate Esoglou's OR opinion. Again no Orthodox source to be found from Esoglou.

  • Diff 5 [28] Here Esoglou deletes and rewrites days worth of contributions. And argues over and asks for things already sourced. These have so many things wrong with them. I will post the diffs first and then cover the subtleties of Esoglou's edit warring. Here Esoglou very clearly against the Orthodox sources provided makes the statement.
"The teachings of the Eastern Orthodox Church, like those of the Roman Catholic Church, do not reflect the commonly held beliefs of Eastern and Western Christians, i.e. there is no Wrathful God in the sky,"

What?

Also Esoglou's sourcing for the comment that some Eastern Orthodox believe and teach purgatory -[6]- What is this where does this source make such a clarification?
  • Diff 6 [29] Rewrite of my contribution again. There is no justification for this. Also why does Esoglou call this a response as I am not making my contributions to Esoglou.
  • Diff 7 [30] I again try and restore and write so Esoglou will stop rewriting and deleting. Here Esoglou removes my contributions again.
  • Diff 8 [31] And Esoglou's massive rewrite of my contributions again today.


I would like to also make a very clear statement. That the contributions to these articles, I have added do not spring from my own opinion. As I am not speaking officially for the church but rather am as best I can posting what the church officially is saying. They are commonalities being given by the Orthodox church. It seems that they are not allowed to be declare, clarified or documented here but rather Esoglou as an edit on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church seem to engage in Original Research here and is seeking to refute them. I personally find this inappropriate for the Wikipedia forum.

I also find it frustrating that such a point should even need to be pointed out. As I really thought that someone of position there at Wikipedia would have seized upon this. But oh well. Again there is a schism. It is not my place to use Wikipedia to attempt to resolve that. All I am doing is trying to post the side of the conflict that I am familiar with and trying to put forward what objections that side holds. I am not here to correct any misconceptions of the Roman Catholic church. Nor do I want to. I am not here to state the Roman Catholic side of this conflict.

I am however trying to add to the article about the conflict what are the causes of the disagreement from the Eastern side, as I understand it from sources I have read and posted here. I can not tell you what Esoglou is hoping to achieve that rewording or rewriting those positions to make it seem like one side is just being petty or stupid or misinformed. I really can't. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Respose by Weaponbb7

Frankly, I have been looking at histories here, and Frankly i am astonished at. How much time both of you contribute to Wikipedia and how much you interest overlap, as Wikistalk show you two has editing nearly 5000 seperate articles in common between you. Looking through ANI alone you two seem to have quite a history of disuptes between you two and this appears merley to be the latest between you two. I really don't think any amount of mediation between you two is really going to get us anywhere. Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, then what about answering the question on which I asked for a third opinion: Is systematic reverting of all edits by a user, rather than of individual edits on which another user thinks he can present reasoned objections, legitimate?

When the present block ends tomorrow, will the editor who practises the systematic reverting be allowed to continue that practice, while also continuing to make his own edits, as he seems to have vainly tried to do during the block ("I am having issues adding content where the pages are not responding and or I make the edit but it does not show up immediately. Very frustrating.")?

(Weaponbb7 rightly comments on the amount of time that is dedicated to working on Wikipedia articles that allow insertion of claims that EOC and RCC teachings are in unhealable conflict. When I attempted to make my own changes, I often found them blocked by an edit conflict with yet more large or petty edits by the same user. As a result, I find it best to wait, if necessary, more than half a day for a pause in his activity, after which I try to take account of all the changes made in that waiting period.)

Since no third opinion has been expressed, neither "It is legitimate", nor "It is not legitimate", nor "It depends", may I make a fresh appeal for a third opinion? Esoglou (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

There ya go exactly the problem, Esoglou taking the whole issue both sides and claiming Esoglou speaks for it in primacy. Because Esoglou has the best of intentions, but we know what road, to what place gets paved with the best of intentions, don't we. What Esoglou will not see is the perception that only one side (Esoglou and Esoglou's side) is allowed to be, to speak, to disagree. Thats so typical, that in order to do the right thing, one must do the wrong thing. Now what could be more out of place here then that? You see many Orthodox experience this first hand and are having none of this. How can an article be informative of the dynamics of an actual conflict in the real world when it has editors with the agenda of "Weaponbb7 rightly comments on the amount of time that is dedicated to working on Wikipedia articles that allow insertion of claims that EOC and RCC teachings are in unhealable conflict." Thats the bias I am talking about, my position is "why not just post both sides unmolested so people can decide for themselves".
Right now how can any one read the contested sections in this article and even see what the conflict (which is what the article is supposed to be about) actually is? Is this an encyclopedia article or a place where Esoglou should reword, rewrite and revert out what Esoglou thinks that allow insertion of claims that EOC and RCC teachings are in unhealable conflict. And wikipedia has let this go on and this editor engage in this kind of disruptive distorting. Now watch Esoglou back pedal out of how Esoglou mistaken whatever again and then goes right back to editwarring. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Renewed request for a third opinion

Is systematic blanket-reverting of all a user's edits legitimate, instead of reverting or modifying only those edits against which the reverting user thinks he can present reasoned objections?

There have been only two editors active on this article. One of the two is now systematically blanket-reverting all edits by the other. The most recent such blanket-reverting is this, done on the grounds that there was no consensus (since there are only two active editors, this means that the reverting editor was refusing his consent) for any of the six preceding edits by the other editor. Is this legitimate?

Is it legitimate to have Wikipedia proclaim as fact (with nobody allowed to present other views) that the Orthodox catechism of Metropolitan Archbishop Sotirios does not mention "original sin" but instead says at one point "ancestral sin", at another "their sin and corruption of existence", and at the third an even more complicated expression, when the actual text, available also on the Internet, shows that the catechism does at these points use the expression "original sin" and the so-called quotation in the article is really an extensive falsification by the all-reverting editor?[32][33][34]

Is it legitimate, in the context of alleged differences in teaching between EOC and RCC, to have Wikipedia suggest, by the insistent choice of the heading "Augustine's doctrine of Original Sin", rather than simply "Original sin", that RCC teaching is identical with Augustine's, indeed with a Calvinistic understanding of Augustine's doctrine, while allowing nobody to present other views?[35]

Is it legitimate to have Wikipedia proclaim as fact that it is EOC teaching that man can take the first steps to salvation without the help of divine grace, and to exclude any mention of a synod of the EOC that said the Church's teaching is the opposite?[36]

Is it legitimate to exclude citation of a source that says that some Orthodox have described the intermediate afterlife state of continued perfection and leading to divinization as "purgatory"?[37]

Is it legitimate to suggest, by restricting to Western Christians the mention of belief in a Wrathful God in the sky, that this idea is exclusive to the West?[38]

Is it legitimate to insist, while allowing nobody to present a different view, that the parable of the Lazarus and the rich man says that, after death, the rich man was in the "bosom of Abraham" ("It as the bosom of Abraham is where both Lazarus and the rich men existed"), when the parable's statement that the rich man saw Abraham afar off with Lazarus in his bosom is usually interpreted differently and the parable speaks of the rich man as separated by a large gulf from Abraham and Lazarus?[39]

Is it legitimate to exclude a copyediting that consists in merely putting in a single paragraph the exposition of the teaching of Cassian that one editor prefers to have scattered over three distinct paragraphs, a copyedit that was presented separately from other edits?[40]

The above are examples of the edits that I honestly think ought to be corrected or balanced, but that I am not allowed to do anything about. So, is systematic blanket-reverting of all a user's edits legitimate, instead of reverting or modifying only those edits against which the reverting user thinks he can present reasoned objections? Esoglou (talk) 06:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully a 3O editor will be able to help dig through the case, but the above list of complaints looks like something that might get some attention for the article content to be "fixed" if posted in a place such as the related WikiProject.
It's possible that someone is wikihounding the editor in question. I guess the object of the 3O request is to get an opinion on whether that's the case here. BigK HeX (talk) 21:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I mistakenly thought (my fault) that the editor who turned up in response to my first request for a third opinion and who treated the matter as a request for mediation had posted the matter on the project page suggested by BigK. I have now done the posting myself. If before the expiry of protection of this page nobody from among those who attend to 3O, the participants in the Christianity project, and the many who have this page on their watchlist responds to my request, I may very regretfully have to imitate LoveMonkey's reverting and join his edit-warring, even at the cost of being blocked (both of us?) from editing. It will be better than accepting a situation in which only one user gets to edit the page. Esoglou (talk) 06:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request:
It seems clear to me that what you really need here is additional editors. The consensus concept was clearly not made for a situation where only two people are working on a page, and they disagree, and one person's attempts to edit are vetoed by the other on the grounds that there is no consensus (!) to change the status quo. If requesting additional input via a related WikiProject doesn't help, I'd suggest using WP:RFC to try to get more people involved. Be careful not to treat new editors as ignorant while you two original contributors see yourselves as the only ones who really understand the subject and whose judgments really matter! I'd advise both of you to take care not to act like you (or either one of you) WP:OWN the article and have a veto over what others might say. And finally, I would recommend that no one should descend into edit-warring; this won't solve the problem and could easily backfire (leaving one of the existing editors blocked while the other comes off superficially looking innocent).—Richwales (talk) 19:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Rich that was the first thing I suggested and was told to mark it out. Look above.LoveMonkey (talk) 13:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but I still think this article is suffering from a dearth of editors and urgently, desperately needs more people involved. Otherwise, there will never be any hope for a meaningful consensus on issues where the two current editors can't come to an agreement. I'd suggest trying WP:RFC — and as a so-far uninvolved third party, I would be willing to go make the RFC if the two of you (LoveMonkey and Esoglou) have no objection. It can't hurt, and it could help. Richwales (talk) 01:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection never have.LoveMonkey (talk) 02:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Richwales. I would have done the same earlier, but for thinking that one editor excluding another from editing called for something more than that. Esoglou (talk) 05:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

My thanks are due to all, without exception, who have intervened. The result of yesterday's test edit seems to indicate (touch wood!) that I am now permitted to work on this article: the other editor has been active on Wikipedia (discussing a separate dispute on a related matter), but has not again blocked me. I would very much welcome other editors, whether new or experienced, on this page. It is good to see that one editor, obviously experienced but who has remained anonymous, has already made some changes. Esoglou (talk) 09:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Test

I have made an edit to see whether the other editor will now allow me to take part. I have given above, when objecting to the use of blanket-reverting to defend matters such as the falsification of a quotation from a cited source, the reasons for the changes I have introduced. Esoglou (talk) 16:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for comments (June 2010)

Serious content disputes. There appear to be only two editors actively involved on this page, and thus no possibility of a consensus when they disagree. More input from additional editors is urgently needed. Recent appeals to several WikiProjects (Christianity, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Catholicism) have so far failed to raise any interest. Richwales (talk) 03:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not an expert in this subject, but I do know about it: I am only an interested amateur, in the history of Christianity not a professional, and I make no pretense to have kept up with the modern specialized literature. Although I do know the basic texts, I know them only in English translation. I think the article singularly confusing, to the point that I begin to doubt my own understanding. This is probably a result of the continual non-consensus editing. There are some things about the split everyone can agree one; there are some that are disputed. There are two articles that cover the identical subject: this, and History of the East–West Schism. Of the two, I find the other one the clearer, though I have not checked for details. I would suggest merging the two under the present title, using the History of ... article as the basic organization, though not necessarily of wording. If any part needs to be split & covered separately in detail, it should probably be the modern attempts at reconciliation., not the history, which is basic. DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Rather than discussing the cause of the problem (which, for my part, I think was basically misrepresentation of RCC teaching) let us see what can be done to fix the article. Would DGG be so good as to undertake (with help from anyone else who would be kind enough to volunteer) the merging of the two articles, while LoveMonkey and I stand aside for whatever length of time is necessary? Esoglou (talk) 05:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I hope DGG will indulge me in my (normally discouraged) editing of his/her comment in order to fix the link to the other article (which, like this one, has an em-dash in its title). For what good it may do, I've added this other article to my own watch list. I'm not an expert on this subject and am not sure if I can help very much with the actual editing, but I'll gladly try to help to whatever extent I can. Perhaps the fact that I am neither Catholic nor Orthodox (and thus have no particular vested interest in either side of the Great Schism) will make it possible for me to help here; I guess we'll see. Richwales (talk) 06:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd be glad of a chance to work on something other than the BLPs. Neither I am in either denomination--I am not a Christian at all, by either personal faith or family heritage. My interest in the subject stems from my more general interest in early medieval history. But I must say that I know much better the Western than the Eastern tradition, because the subject as normally discussed in English generally treats that part more fully. I've just taken a look at a third article Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences which has analogous problems; I made some comments on the talk page there which are equally applicable here. And I agree with Esoglou that a good part of the problem is what I will call an oversimplified picture of Western opinion. I am willing to try some rewriting, but I must ask for sometime, because I would need to do some additional reading. I'd like those involved to suggest a few modern and widely-accepted books, and I'll try to read them this summer. But please do not expect too much: I do not think that Wikipedia will resolve a question that has been unresolved for over 1500 years. There's one particular point that the presentation of the Eastern position seems to depend on: the relationship of reason and of what could be neutrally called supra-rational belief. I do know that this is far from monolithic in the Western church, even the RC church--and very certainly not if one includes the protestant denominations. It is presented in these articles as uniform within the Eastern church; I cannot imagine any fundamental issue like this is likely to be quite so generally accepted. I've come to this topic here at Wikipedia because my help was asked at various points in the discussion of sources, and I know that in any tradition there are eccentric sources that are not totally or formally rejected as heretical, but which are not central. (In another tradition, Talmudic Judaism, the inclusion of these is explained by the need to promote the continued study of the questions as a religious duty, and also so that if necessary they can be used to justify an obviously needed equitable legal decision.) We therefore need sources which can be shown to represent the central tradition at various points in its history, and also ones that illustrate the range of opinions --this is part of WP:NPOV. In specialized topics at Wikipedia , we always have the risk of exaggerating the importance of fringe positions. In topics with a long history, it is also necessary to illustrate the change of opinion. (I am therefore less sure than I was that an article on the history of the controversy is inappropriate, but it shouldn't be the present one, which is just duplicative. e.g. Early medieval views of ...) DGG ( talk ) 20:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Again without hesitation. David Bradshaw's Aristotle East and West to DGG and Richwales. [41] LoveMonkey (talk) 23:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

If I don't add a list of books which are included in bibliographies of encyclopedia entries on this subject in the next week or so, please have someone remind me to do so. I have access to a really good academic library or two (one of which is unfortunately Catholic, but it is an older, highly regarded, and fairly large Catholic academic library), and should be able to work such a list up in a week or two. I think sources of encyclopedic material are probably among the best available, and there are enough reference books around here that I think I can probably find quite a few non-Catholic sources for material as well. I might even try to get information from books on such lists which others can't find myself. John Carter (talk) 21:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
These are at least a few of the standard references and some of the more recent sources cited in some of the relevant encyclopedia bibliographies:
  • Chadwick, H. - East and West: The Making of a Rift in the Church
  • Dvornik, F. - Byzantium and the Roman Primacy
  • Dvornik, F. - The Photian Schism
  • Every, George - The Byzantine Patriarchate, 451-1024
  • Fahey, Michael Andrew - Orthodox and Catholic Sister Churches
  • Hussey, J. M. - The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire
  • Meyendorff, John - Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions
  • Nichols, A. - Rome and the Eastern Churches
  • Runciman, S. - The Eastern Schism
  • Sherrard, Philip - Church, Papacy, and Schism
  • Smith, M. H., III - And Taking Bread ... Cerularius and the Azyme Controversy of 1054
  • Ware, K. T. - The Orthodox Church
Hope that helps a little. If anyone finds themselves using one, let me know and I'll try to use one of the others. I'm thinking Ware's book, if I can get it, might be particularly useful. John Carter (talk) 15:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Excellent set John.LoveMonkey (talk) 16:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

First, thanks to LoveMonkey for letting me edit. I applaud his latest edit, as a display of the attitude of some EOC writers towards the RCC. I do not applaud his other most recent edits. One was the removal of a reasoned failed-verification tag without any attempt to answer the objection: the first citation could perhaps be argued about, but the second seems clearly unrelated to the claim made. The other two edits were failed-verification tags about EOC doctrine. The statements originally made (by LoveMonkey) in the text were about EOC doctrine alone, with the innuendo that RCC doctrine contradicted it. I added sources that showed that RCC doctrine agreed, not contradicted. I left it to LoveMonkey to cite similar sources about EOC doctrine. Instead of doing that, LoveMonkey now complains that the sources about RCC doctrine say nothing about EOC doctrine. Of course, they don't. The verification-failed tags attached to the statements about RCC teaching should be replaced by citation-needed tags attached, a few words earlier, to the statements about EOC teaching. I am permitting myself to make that adjustment. I have not now restored the failed-verification tag that LoveMonkey removed, in the hope that, seeing the question raised here on Talk, he will be good enough to explain why he deleted it. Esoglou (talk) 06:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

See this is the same nonsense. The edit esoglou points out is good is not. Why would Esoglou consider me naming one of the old school Orthodox theologians by name in an article good for an article that is not about individuals per se but rather in essences about two different church communities. My last complaint on the filioque article talkpage is this exact argument. Esoglou applauds outing people whom say things that are not to his liking but refuses to admit that the whole body or at least enough of it to be an overwhelming majority might actual hold the opinion that these individuals are actually articulating. Things don't get fixed by silencing one side or marginalizing their perspective. Let Esoglou complain. I am not here to please Esoglou I really would like the article to depict both perspectives not one. Esoglou applauds outing people whom say things that are not to his liking but refuses to admit that the whole body or at least enough of it to be an overwhelming majority might actual hold the opinion that these individuals are actually articulating. Things don't get fixed by silencing one side or marginalizing their perspective. Let Esoglou complain. I am not here to please Esoglou I really would like the article to depict both perspectives not one. Also thank God above Esoglou did not remove Cassian's actual teaching this time but rather moved it. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Let go of the past

To the greatest extent possible, I would urge everyone involved here to "let go" of past slights and grievances (real, perceived, contested, whatever) and concentrate on moving forward with improvement of Wikipedia in general and this article (and/or related articles) in particular. Richwales (talk) 06:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Amen. I repeat my suggestion that both LoveMonkey and I stand aside and let others at it. I hope he will agree. Esoglou (talk) 07:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I already have.LoveMonkey (talk) 12:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Then, from this moment I cease editing this article. Best wishes to those who will undertake to lick it into shape. Esoglou (talk) 13:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I notice that, in spite of the above undertaking, LoveMonkey has again edited this article, reverting an edit by the editor at ISP 24.127.29.133. The edit he reverted seems to be solidly based on sources such as Orthodox Church Listing of Synods and Councils, Kallistos Ware, The Great Schism, Mark Galli, The Great Divorce. The edit summary with which LoveMonkey reverted this edit is "reverted to conform with source". Unfortunately the source to which he refers is unspecified.

I wish, if possible, not to return at this point to editing this article. I therefore request that some editor would kindly undo this reversal by LoveMonkey, which seems to be a breach of the agreement that I hope has been entered into between the two of us and other interested editors, and which also seems to be an unjustified reversal of a solid edit, for which the sources I have indicated here could be cited. Esoglou (talk) 11:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know I am not banned from editing this article let alone reverting unsourced anonymous edits. Since Esoglou is implying that Esoglou must edit if I edit and or not edit if I don't edit. Could an administrator here clarify that please? Also the wikipedia article that the words Pope Nicholas I hyperlinks to when you click them states quote explicitly
"Nicholas was seen in the East as trying to extend his papal power beyond what was the canonical authority asserting a "rulership" over the Church instead of the position of "highest honor among equals" accorded to the pope of Rome by the East."
I was conforming the passage to the source nothing more. What is Esoglou doing? Why is Esoglou complaining about this? Esoglou needs to maybe address the Pope Nicholas article as I noted I was conforming the statement to the source with notes Pope Nicholas' proactive and aggressive attitude.

LoveMonkey (talk) 13:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Regrettably, it seems that LoveMonkey has not, after all, agreed "to stand aside and let others at it". Nevertheless, I will continue to refrain from editing this article except to whatever extent he continues to intervene.
On this occasion I must undo his reversal and add a couple of citations in clear support of the well-founded edit made by an editor who, though making valuable edits for quite some time, has not yet chosen a name. The "source" mentioned in LoveMonkey's edit summary as what he was reverting to conform to turns out to be another Wikipedia article, not a reliable source to cite in Wikipedia. The text reverted to does not even conform to that source: where it has "Nicholas was seen in the East as trying to extend ...", that text puts "Pope Nicholas made it clear that he intended to extend ..." Esoglou (talk) 08:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Regrettably Esoglou has decided to edit war on another article [42].LoveMonkey (talk) 18:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

POV Check

Added a neutrality check. The article seems to be written in favor of the Catholic Church as being the Christian Church as handed down by the apostles without siting any sources whatsoever. Causes, suspects, and reasons for schism need to be expanded on and written out more efficiently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.41.51.48 (talk) 07:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Need input on how to split Catholic-Orthodox theological differences

In case you thought this article might be too long at 135kb, consider that it would be even longer had we not split out detailed discussion of the differences between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church into Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences. However, that article has since blossomed to 215kb! We are now discussing how to reduce the size of that article. One proposal is to split out the "non-theological" topics into a separate article titled something like Catholic-Eastern Orthodox ecclesiological differences. However, I have some reservations as to whether this is the best way to go. Please take a look at the article and then provide your input at Talk:Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences. Thanx. --Richard S (talk) 16:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Inadvertent intervention

I have made a change in the article without adverting to the fact that I had determined not to intervene in this article. I apologize. However, my intervention would doubtless have the support of LoveMonkey, since I simply undid what seemed to me to be a pro-RCC POV change. Esoglou (talk) 07:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think either you or LoveMonkey should keep away from this article. The model I like is WP:BRD which suggests that every edit is subject to reversion and that it is the responsibility of the first editor who is being WP:BOLD to stop and discuss the proposed edit if anyone reverts it.
That said, I support Esoglou's reversion of Resolver-Aphelion's edit but only because the new text was too wordy for that sentence. I don't think the new text was too POV. It provided important detail that needs to be made clear to the reader.perhaps in a follow-on sentence. It's not POV to mention that both sides basically thought the other had fallen away from the "true" Church.
---Richard S (talk) 15:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Although the version that was frozen when we both withdrew from editing this article is, from my point of view, "the wrong version", I think it is better that we two continue to stand aside, and air our differences only over the Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences article, which would profit greatly by some persistent active interest by other editors. If our disagreements over additions to that other article continue, I still intend not to involve myself again in this (although it remains on my watchlist), unless, of course, LoveMonkey takes the initiative of returning to editing it. Esoglou (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I've added a short (and, IMO, neutral) comment to the lede, along the lines suggested by Richardshusr, indicating that each side believes the other was responsible for the split. Richwales (talk · contribs) 16:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Richwales. On reviewing the history, I think my edit was due to a misreading of the edit I reverted. I apologize also for this. Esoglou (talk) 16:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

How porous was my schism

I don't have time today to figure out how to cover this topic in the text. It is, perhaps, a fringe opinion but it is, I think, notable. For now I'll just park this here and invite other editors to comment on it. I'll try to get back to this in the next couple of days unless there is a consensus that it should not be covered in this article. http://palamas.info/?p=5208

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Not a new discovery. I met this observation several times in pre-Internet days. There is still in Greece one annual public Corpus Christi procession through the streets of Kerkyra (Corfu), with participation by the civil authorities and by a representative of the Orthodox clergy. The bishop has to keep his distance (I am not referring in particular to this annual event) because of having been reprimanded in a publication of Mount Athos monks, who have expressed criticisms also of the Ecumenical Patriarch.
I do think that the sourced information (not my remarks) should be included in the article. Esoglou (talk) 20:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ ”The Orthodox Church London" by Kallistos Ware St. Vladimir's Seminary Press 1995 ISBN 978-0913836583
  2. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference ODCC-Semipel was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ "For the regenerated to do spiritual good – for the works of the believer being contributory to salvation and wrought by supernatural grace are properly called spiritual – it is necessary that he be guided and prevented [preceded] by grace … Consequently he is not able of himself to do any work worthy of a Christian life" (Confession of Dositheus, Decree 14).
  4. ^ "For the regenerated to do spiritual good – for the works of the believer being contributory to salvation and wrought by supernatural grace are properly called spiritual – it is necessary that he be guided and prevented [preceded] by grace … Consequently he is not able of himself to do any work worthy of a Christian life" (Confession of Dositheus, Decree 14).
  5. ^ Confession of Dositheus, Decree 14
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference Confessions was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:East–West_Schism/Archive_3&oldid=789373258"