Talk:Filioque/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Niketas Byzantinos

For a long long long long long time I have been trying to add the theological refutations of the filioque from Niketas Byzantinos. The argument of why does the filioque not make the Holy Spirit a grandson and also the argument that sender and sending properties given to Father and Son but not Holy Spirit is not consistent. I would like to create a wiki article on Niketas Byzantinos.[1] LoveMonkey 03:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Why can the points not be addressed here on the talkpage first?

Why is it that Esoglou can't address his grieves here on the talkpage first? Lets start with Bulgakov. Was Bulgakov as representative of Orthodoxy and Orthodox theology for the rest of Christendom? No. Is Alexander Schmemann saying that Bulgakov represents the Orthodox church and is the definitive word on its theology NO. Does he say that Bulgakov was a theologian in passing yes. That's called undue weight. As even Alexander Schmemann is not without his own controversies [2]. LoveMonkey 15:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Wlbw68 and I are authorized to edit this article in the same way as you are, without having to go through special procedures that you believe do not bind yourself. You must have utterly misunderstood WP:RESTRICT. Read it. Read also what I have written. I did not say that Bulgakov is representative of (all) Orthodoxy and Orthodox theology. But a reliable source shows that Valliere reports Schmemann as considering Bulgakov an Orthodox theologian. If you disagree with Valliere's report, find a reliable source that says the opposite, and don't delete the sourced information just because you personally dislike it! If the reliable source that you (perhaps) find is of more weight than Valliere, then there will be a question of applying due weight; until then, Valliere has much greater weight than your personal likes and dislikes. And Valliere is by no means the only reliable source cited that calls Bulgakov an Orthodox theologian. Esoglou (talk) 17:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Esoglou is not authorized to own this article. No matter what type of declaration he makes here on the talkpage. LoveMonkey 18:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree: Esoglou is not authorized to own this article. Neither is LoveMonkey. Agreed? Esoglou (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Look at the article history log Esoglou is the one doing the most reverting and bickering with other editors. LoveMonkey 22:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply by Wlbw68

Hello. I wish everyone good health. Bulgakov is an authority in Orthodox theology, among the Orthodox in the Russian firm belief that the heretical writings. None of the self-respecting modern theologians will not quote Bulgakov did not do, and never one local council. Bulgakov's doctrine was anafemastvovano the Orthodox synod.

Now for the Great Cappadocians. It is on the basis of their terms and on the basis of their understanding of the Trinity, a new the Creed of Constantinople. There is no place for Latin understanding of the Trinity, nor the understanding of Cyril, or Epiphany. Did you decide to exclude a very important thing: it is all completely terminology and understanding of the Cappadocian Trinity became the basis of the creation of the Creed. the Creed was written precisely Cappadocia, not Augustine or Alexandrians. Now for the 7 canon Council of Ephesus. This canon was not accepted at all in the Ephesus. In the documents of the canons of the Council of 6. You can look: Mansi. http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/04z/z_1692-1769__Mansi_JD__Sacrorum_Conciliorum_Nova_Amplissima_Collectio_Vol_004__LT.pdf.html p. 1474. 7 canon have no Dionysius the Small, who did a translation from Greek into Latin canons in the first half of the VI century. Codex Canonum vetus ecclesiae Romanae : http://books.google.ru/books?id=i4hAAAAAcAAJ&pg=PP9&dq=Codex+canonum&hl=ru# Wlbw68 (talk) 19:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Esoglou. You have made the same changes that distort the true facts. Example.

In the beginning you have removed the phrase that entered the Filioque in Rome only in the 11th century. Why did you do that? Why do you change my text, which I wrote about the Nicene-Constantinople Creed to the Nicene Creed? That's just wrong.The Nicene Creed and the Nicene-Constantinople line length of faith are two different characters. They used different terminology.You removed the explanation that it was built on the terminology Cappadocian faith. Cappadocia made ​​it up. Explain please. Why did you do that? I have more questions. Who ask after you answer me on this. Wlbw68 (talk) 19:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree Wlbw68 I think Esoglou's edits need to be reverted (again) and discussed on the talkpage. Esoglou is edit warring to push his Roman Catholic POV. LoveMonkey 22:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Dear Esoglou, 7 canon does not belong Council of Ephesus.It's just an opinion, not canon. Here on this in Bolotov: http://www.omolenko.com/photobooks/bolotov4.htm?p=218 Unfortunately a full translation of the text "Acts 4 Ecumenical Council" no English. It is either in Russian: http://omolenko.com/istoria/sobory-tom3.htm?p=80#book10 or on the Latin and Greek: http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/04z/z_1692-1769__Mansi_JD__Sacrorum_Conciliorum_Nova_Amplissima_Collectio_Vol_006__LT.pdf.html p.631

I remind you of your questions. And I'm waiting for the answers.

Partiality is generally very bad. When writing this article we need to rely on documents and facts, not our religious beliefs. Wlbw68 (talk) 03:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Wlbw68, for your participation.

1. Bulgakov, being condemned for heresy, is not an orthodox theologian (with small o for "orthodox"). But he is generally considered an Orthodox theologian (capital O), as shown by the cited sources. That is a fact, even if a regrettable fact. If other sources can be found that state he is not an Orthodox theologian (capital O), they can and should be cited and may even outweigh the sources that call him an Orthodox theologian (capital O).
2. Citation of reliable sources is also needed for inserting into a Wikipedia article the view that the Creed of 381 excluded the tradition represented by Cyril of Alexandria, Epiphanius of Salamis and the Latin Fathers.
3. The existence of canon 7 of the Council of Ephesus is supported by many reliable sources. Take this and this and this and this (which gives the original Greek text, together with Latin and English translations, on pages 65-66). I can find no account of the Council of Ephesus in one of the sources you mention without specifying the page number, nor in column 631 (Mansi, like Migne, numbers the columns, not the pages) of this other source, which is about the Council of Chalcedon, not the ecumenical Council of Ephesus. (Downloading and searching these this morning has unfortunately delayed my response to you.) If indeed you can show that there is no canon 7 of the Council of Ephesus, somebody (you?) will have to alter the English Wikipedia's article First Council of Ephesus and also the Russian Wikipedia's article ru:Эфесский собор. I was never long enough in Russia to learn the language, but it is similar enough to other languages for me to understand its quotation of the Council's 7-е правило: "Епископ, проповедующий другую веру, кроме Никейской, лишается епископства, а мирянин изгоняется из Церкви. Тот, кто, кроме веры, составленной святыми отцами, собравшимися в Никее, предлагает иной нечестивый символ на развращение и на пагубу обращающихся к познанию ис­тины из эллинства или иудейства или от какой бы то ни было ереси, если мирянин, должен быть предан анафеме, а если епископ или клирик, должен быть лишён епископства и служения в клире." The Russian article even associates this canon with the Filioque question.
4. I thought it might be out of place to do so at so early a point but, since you insist, I will now make this article mention right at the start (and in good English, unlike what has been reinserted this morning) the fact that the popes resisted inclusion of the Filioque in the Creed until as late as 1014.
5. I explained above the reason why, in the English Wikipedia, I thought it best to follow the common English usage, exemplified also in the title of the Wikipedia article Nicene Creed, of using the name "Nicene Creed" for what, more strictly speaking, is the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. If you get support from some other editor (LoveMonkey?), I will be happy to have this article use the term "Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed". The change would affect not only the opening words but many other mentions of "the Nicene Creed" throughout the article. Esoglou (talk) 07:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

7 canon really was not. I guess just do that and from 1 to 6 canons were not. In Dionysius the Little, in his translation of the 6th century book "canon" is not at all any of the canon the Council of Ephesus. I corrected the article in the Russian version of Wikipedia, there is a link to the primary sources. Read through her ​​interpreter. If that is not clear, please ask.ru:Эфесский собор.Bolotoff very good specialist, he is serious books, he still has a very good feature: objectivity. I beg you not to fight a war of edits, and get my important information in section 2 of the Ecumenical Council that the Creed this council was made on the terms and teachings of the Great Cappadocian. Since you have not explained the reason for removing this important information from the article. Otherwise the article will not be objective.This is not good.Wlbw68 (talk) 02:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

It is not enough for you to argue, on the basis of your personal interpretation of Dionysius the Little, that, in spite of the many sources that report and quote canon 7 of the Council of Ephesus, there was no such canon. Find a reliable source that explicitly states there was no such canon and put it in along with the sources that quote the canon. Then we can see which sources are the more weighty. Until some reliable source is cited in the English Wikipedia that denies the existence of canon 7, the English Wikipedia must continue to accept what the cited reliable sources say.

No doubt you know that Bolotov, whom you cite in relation to canon 7 of the Council of Ephesus, denied that that Council was ecumenical (see this study).

I wonder too what does LoveMonkey think of your high praise of Bolotov who in the last of his famous theses says it is not the question of the Filioque that caused the split the Church, and so the Filioque, as a private theological opinion, cannot be regarded as a diriment impediment to reunion between East and West. Esoglou (talk) 09:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Dear Esoglou, you read my article?

It has all the necessary references to the documents themselves the Council of Ephesus, in the documents themselves, the primary source no 7 or 8 canons. About the same at the Council of Chalcedon said Eutyches, Dioscorus, and Eusebius, it is also written in the documents of the Council of Chalcedon. Tell me, do you understand texts in Latin, Greek or Russian? If you do not understand the texts in these languages​​, I'm wasting my time. All of this is set out in the documents themselves Councils, unfortunately these dokumentonet in English, German or French, they have not been translated. If you read these texts, the conversation makes sense if you find it hard to understand them, the conversation is useless. I have the original, and you have secondary sources.Wlbw68 (talk) 11:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

If you have the original, and I have secondary sources, you are in a very weak position in Wikipedia, which has a rule that "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources. ... While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. ... All interpretative claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."

As I already said, I do not understand Russian at all well. When I asked for page numbers, I was hoping that you would respond, as a Wikipedia editor should, by indicating where in a long article or book, even in English, the statement that you claim to find there is to be found. I was hoping to help you by working out the meaning of that part, although I would be incapable of searching through the whole article or book written in a language I do not know.

I do understand Latin and Greek. In the case of Greek, various pre-classical forms, and classical Attic, and Koine, and Byzantine, and modern Greek. So I was accepting whatever explicit statements in those languages of what you want Wikipedia to say. You surely know that you cannot put in Wikipedia statements that are merely conclusions that you draw from documents in any language, whether English or Greek or Russian or Japanese. I repeat: All interpretative claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

The polemical tone of the observation about "the conversation being useless" forces me to draw your attention to something I was choosing to turn a blind eye to. On the English Wikipedia you cannot quote sources in Russian without accompanying them with an English translation. The Wikipedia rule is: "When quoting a non-English source (whether in the main text, in a footnote, or on the talk page), a translation into English should always accompany the quote. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations. When using a machine translation of source material, editors should be reasonably certain that the translation is accurate and the source is appropriate. Editors should not use machine translations of non-English sources in contentious articles ... If needed, ask an editor who can to translate it for you." I was offering, if only you had been good enough to indicate on what page to find a text in Russian, to struggle at understanding it. There was and is no obligation on me to do so. The obligation is on you to provide a good English translation of the relevant part. (Not - especially in a contentious article like this - a machine translation that, for instance, cannot distinguish between the English words "council" and "cathedral" and is in fact incomprehensible.) I must now tag your references with something stronger than merely asking for the page number.

If you ignore reliable secondary sources in English and choose to cite only works in Russian, you should perhaps concentrate on the Russian Wikipedia. Esoglou (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Yep that's right Esoglou telling people to not contribute here. It's Esoglou saying go contribute somewhere else but it's not, no wait it actually is. Where does Esoglou get off saying this and who made Esoglou boss? LoveMonkey 22:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Unexplained revert

Would Love Monkey please be so good as to explain what grounds he would allege for this revert by him. The statement by William J. La Due about modern Orthodox theological scholarship is well-sourced and pertinent. The subsection on the opinions of reputable scholars on the prevailing view among modern Eastern Orthodox theologians is well-sourced for every statement it makes about those opinions. The subsection clearly identifies every one of its well-sourced statements as opinions, rather than as factual information about the nature of the prevailing view among modern Eastern Orthodox theologians, so in what part of the subsection does Love Monkey imagine there is original research? Esoglou (talk) 09:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC) ,

Anybody not reading this talkpage might buy your disinformation Esoglou.

However Esoglou is propagating a lie- here's why. Esoglou can not post here the Eastern Orthodox position from Eastern Orthodox, how can I be so sure of this? Because the great opinion and consensus on the filioque from the Eastern Perspective is not only what Esoglou continually attacks (read the talkpage and it's archives here including Esoglou frustrating treatment of Montalban and Wlbw68). BUT Esoglou also is going into Eastern Orthodox sections here in the article and adding and writing them with Roman Catholic POV and sources. Esolglou gets this pointed out here on the talkpage and for MONTHS ignores it and does not reply.[3] However after waiting and getting no reply, I acted upon that comment,[4] and Esoglou REVERTED it.[5] Esoglou is WP:OWN all over these subjects and at the same time distorts and misrepresents the Eastern Orthodox side of them. Because the actual Eastern Orthodox opinion does not conform to his pro-Roman Catholic POV. LoveMonkey 17:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Your claim that Esoglou cannot post here is based on no Wikipedia rule. On the contrary, a Wikipedia rule says explicitly that "Esoglou may add information about Roman Catholic commentary (positive or negative) on Eastern Orthodox teaching/practice".

Perhaps you are not now claiming the right to delete the commentary by William J. La Due and Hans Urs von Balthasar at present in the article about division among Eastern Orthodox scholars on the Filioque question. If so, thank you.

Perhaps also you are not now claiming that there is original research in the subsection about the opinions of reputable Western scholars on the prevailing view among modern Eastern Orthodox theologians. If so, thank you. Esoglou (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Esoglou is dodging and distracting. Esoglou can post here the Eastern Orthodox perspective with Eastern Orthodox sources but he won't because he can't because he doesn't know. Esoglou can post about rules and restrictions but nothing of the sort will cover up Esoglou edit warring and attacking Eastern Orthodox editors contributions because Esoglou does not like what the contributions says no matter how well sourced they are or not. Esoglou can't post because he is ignorant (not due to rules) and Esoglou is here protecting his Roman Catholic POV and edit warring to do that. Thats what happening here. LoveMonkey 22:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

AGAIN WHY THE FILIOQUE IS WRONG

Summa Theologica -[6]
To teach that uncreated hypostases come from anything other than strictly uncreatedness is to teach the Father is not the Father. No one but Christ or God's Holy Spirit can see or experience God the Father EVER. The filoque implies that created beings will or can experience God the Father..What the Creed did was to clarify the incomprehensibility of God as Father and or the incomprehensibility of God the Father. This is the fundamental difference, as in Eastern Orthodox theology created beings will never see and or experience (to know) directly God the Father in this life or the next i.e. NEVER. To teach beings can do such a thing is called gnostic (due to the nature of magic (as knowledge to control and manipulate God, uncreatedness) of the Mystery Religion systems that reduce the infinite to a loop or circle (ouroborus) and therefore comprehensible). Where as Western Christianity and Islam teaches created beings will see the uncreated essence of God (what the East calls Father) in the next life. This means that teaching that God's incomprehensibility will be made comprehensible IS HERESY. This is what is skirted, ignored and danced around in this article. This difference is completely ignored by the West time and time again. I repeat according to Eastern Orthodox theology created beings will never see God the Father. One can only experience God through his Son (as King and ruler in heaven forever and ever) or his Holy Spirit (the lord, life, existence, the impulse to do good) or his Holy energies (activities of God and his church and or saints). To say that the Holy Spirit is God's grandson and not directly from God the Father opens this implication. LoveMonkey 00:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

LoveMonkey please read, WP:NOT#FORUM and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Wikipedia is not a place for your opinion, arguments or original research, even the talk pages. CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)]

Please CombatWombat assume good faith. LoveMonkey 19:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

What about my request dosn't assume good faith? I believe you are trying to do what you believe is good, you are just not following wikipedia policy. "AGAIN WHY THE FILIOQUE IS WRONG" in all caps implies shouting, which is just rude. It is impossible to prove the validity of the filioque, nor would wikipedia be the place for that. Wikipedia is a place to point out the existence of filioque, and provide cited, verifiable information as to controversies about it. CombatWombat42 (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

And you are? Because if you are not an administrator who are you to post that you assume that I am soapboxing I am engaging in Original Research I am using the talkpage as a forum? Tell me where it says that I can not post to the talkpage the content I would seek to include in the article? If you can't then why are you assuming anything about me and or my intentions? Most certaintly you are not assuming that I am trying to contribute and that I am posting here FIRST to reach a consensus and gather sources and see what potential conflicts might be caused by whatever content I suggest. (Which would be to assume Good Faith). Your comments are combative and argumentative. Are you here to pick a fight? If you are here to improve the article. Post here your suggestions. I appreciate any help I can get for this article. That includes Russian Theologians whom work on the Russian Wiki and whose English may not be so good. But if you are going to keep being combative and making unfounded assumptions and then trying to justify disruptive behavior then this can be an ANI and you can open it yourself. LoveMonkey 20:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, "AGAIN WHY THE FILIOQUE IS WRONG" is shouting. It is using wikipdia as a soap box, as nothing you said is cited and is opinion. It is original research as you make unsupported conclusions. You are welcome to ignore me. You are also welcome to ignore wikipedia policy, but I believe you are going to run afoul of other editors. You are getting very aggressive, so this is the last time I will respond to you, I simply suggested you take a look at wikipedia policy and you assumed it was an attack. CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

How or why I posted that

God the Father[7]
"Because to do so is to attribute to Jesus Christ what belongs to God the Father alone." What Jesus Christ (Orthodox Christology) is and why the monophysite heresy is wrong. Arianism taught that human beings will be just like Christ (in how life plays out for all persons). And that human beings should be like Christ and follow Christ (Christ's example) BUT so did the monophysite. What Arianism and the monophysite did not understand about theosis was that when a person begins to experience God or Holiness in this life they begin to see that God the Father is truly incomprehensible (God is truly incomprehensible God is truly apophatic beyond being and non-being in essence, in Father). And that people should not speak of God the Father as anything but this. To do so is call speculations and strange divers as to even try and speak to this is to deny the mystery of God as truly infinite. Both the monophysite and the Arians are saying if one takes their conclusions to their end or logical conclusions, is actually the same thing. That created person's experience God the Father either through being subsumed into the Father as createdness was in the Christ. As according to the monophysite, the createdness in Christ, was absorbed or subsumed into God the Father like a drop of water in the ocean and what happened to Christ happens to all created beings or persons. The Arians treated Christ as a potential that each of us could reach by following his example and that the goal was to submit to God the Father and worship God the Father alone as truly God and this is the God we will met and see in the next life (both teach this). To say that Orthodox Christology teaches that Jesus Christ is the Father and can originate the Holy Spirit is to deny the incomprehensibility of God the Father. To word the Creed to say this and then make caveats OUTSIDE the Creed to clarify it is nonsense. We as created beings can experience Christ we can experience God's Holy Spirit we can not experience God the Father (incomprehensibility). LoveMonkey 00:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The grammar of this article is unreadable.

This article is a mixture of run on sentences and incomplete sentences. It needs to be fixed and is too long and technical for a casual editor to fix. If there is no fix I would advocate for implementing WP:TNT CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Responsibility for the most recent incomprehensible grammar and incomplete sentences rests on a Russian editor who is making contributions in machine-made (Google Translate) English. Earlier incomplete sentences, such as those that began and ended with an "As" clause, but which now have perhaps all been cleaned up by other editors, were the work of someone whose first language must, like Russian, have no definite article, but whose English has over the years improved from living in the eastern United States. They are both very active, although one proclaims himself retired. Even if you were to start all over again, they would continue to edit. Would you be so good as to do some work on the text? Help is certainly needed. Esoglou (talk) 18:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I will attempt to help, but I cannot decipher the meaning of much of the content to which I refer, so my only option would be to delete it. That is why I referred to WP:TNT as I believe that most editors cannot read this article and therefore cannot improve it. I made this request to hopefully avoid WP:TNT. Can I ask, why someone is contributing to english wikipedia with "machine-made (Google Translate) English"? It seems that they should be contributing to the wikipedia for the language which they speak. The Google Translated sections are, in my opinion, causing more harm than they are doing good. CombatWombat42 (talk) 19:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I did recommend to the Russian editor to contribute instead to the Russian Wikipedia, also because of his inability to comprehend and provide reliable secondary sources in English. Deleting the incomprehensible does seem to be an option, but I don't dare do it myself. Perhaps give him until tomorrow to respond to the requests for clarification and then, if there still is no other solution, begin to delete, a bit at a time, whatever cannot be understood. Esoglou (talk) 20:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Post here a bit at a time the content that is contentious so that we can re-word it. The Russian editor here is the one that works on the Russian Wiki and did this article there. They have a very good understanding of Christian history and Orthodox theology. Instead of slinging mud lets post the content and start rewriting it. I would ask the Russian editor to post to the talkpage but his issue is that Esoglou is edit warring against him and that when one editor is engaging in WP:OWN then it is almost impossible to get consensus first. 20:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoveMonkey (talk • contribs)

Unsourced material, as you know, may be deleted and remains deleted until support for its statements is presented as found in published reliable sources accessible to English speakers. Much of the article can legitimately be deleted for lack both of such reliable sources and of article text intelligible to speakers of English. As each bit is deleted, one or more editors can try to restore it in intelligible English and with sources that correspond to WP:NONENG. So if CombatWombat42 wishes, he may go ahead at any time. He may prefer to deal first with the off-topic parts of the recently added discussion of the 381 and 382 Councils of Constantinople. Esoglou (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

No opposition has yet been expressed to the extremely limited pruning that CombatWombat42 has done. He has not yet dealt with, for instance the off-topic material concerning 381 and 382. Work even on that may also turn out to be unopposed. Esoglou (talk) 09:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Very interesting and readable article. I think the grammar problem is exaggerated. whizky (talk) 18:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Councils of Constantinople in 381 and 382

Since there is no certainty that the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, to which Filioque was added, was composed at any of these councils, there is no reason to give such detailed information here about either the 381 council, or the two councils held in 382, one in Rome, the other in Constantinople, or the synodical letter of the 382 Council of Constantinople. It is enough to give information about the Creed and about the contested belief that it was composed at the 381 council. Agreed? (This is apart from the question of the unintelligibility of the material, which is another reason for deleting it.) Esoglou (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you want to delete the information about the message of the Council 382 years for another reason. In the Catholic literature, wrote that in Rome learned of the Creed only 451. But it is not. In a message to the Council, the 382 just says that faith and documents were published by the Council of Constantinople, in Rome can read them in Rome sent three people to do this. In the 4th century in Rome at the Creed without the Filioque, and used it before the 11th century. But there are works of Augustine, who lived in Africa in the 4-5 century. In his works, the Spirit proceeds from the Father: "printsipaliter" and from the Son: "media". Goths and Franks when added Filioque at 7 and 8 th century did not make any difference. They have exactly the same way the Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son. Therefore, the insertion was made Filioque into the Creed. Necessary to search for the cause of the Filioque. For this purpose, 382 year changed to 451 years. And they say that in the West have used only the books of Augustine. But this is not true. The Creed was already known in the West. Augustine wrote his books later. Terminology Augustine had a local character in the 5th century, it is only North Africa. At 6 - 7 century Christians of Africa have moved to Spain because of the Arab invasion. In Spain, in the 7th century would have added the Filioque, but no difference in the procession, which was in Augustine. After that, pressed by the Arabs, the Spaniards came to the kingdom of the Franks. Franks took over the Filioque from the Spaniards in the 8th century.In the 11th century, Pope at the coronation of the King of the Franks introduces Filioque.Wlbw68 (talk) 01:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

You seem to to have misinterpreted "accepted" as meaning "learned of". Rome, not being that far from Constantinople, learned of the 381 eastern council in 381: it didn't have to wait until it received a letter sent in 382 by a different council. There is no clear evidence that the 381 council decreed the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, the first mention of which appears 70 years later. The letter that the 382 council sent to Rome certainly did not mention it: it summarized the faith professed by the eastern bishops as: "According to this faith there is one Godhead, Power and Substance of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost; the dignity being equal, and the majesty being equal in three perfect essences and three perfect persons".

Thank you for stating with regard to Augustine: "In his works, the Spirit proceeds from the Father 'principaliter' and from the Son 'media'" (emphasis added). Esoglou (talk) 07:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

This page is riddled with WP:NOT#FORUM, WP:NOTSOAPBOX, and WP:ORIGINAL issues.

I can barely read this article, but what I can read has issues with WP:NOT#FORUM, WP:NOTSOAPBOX, and WP:ORIGINAL CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

You are taking this all a bit too personal don't you think? Post here what theological studies you've read and that you would like to contribute to the article and or how what is already in the article does not confirm and or comes in conflict with yours sources. If not then your soapboxing and your here to pick a fight. LoveMonkey 20:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I am very upset.‎ Here are removed entire sections.(Esoglou) For example section Cappadocians. My text was deleted. It's just not fair. Prior to that were removed two of my quotes. This is a quote Gregory the Theologian and Blachernae Council (1285 year) decision. No sense to write in Wikipedia. Now the text distorts the situation. Wlbw68 (talk) 04:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

On the Cappadocians, the English Wikipedia requires intelligible statements based on sources that are intelligible for English speakers. The Blachernae Council's condemnation was of Bekkos ("the same"), who, like his supporters, was a Greek; presenting it as a condemnation by "the Greeks" of the West was WP:SYNTH. Esoglou (talk) 06:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The Greeks set out his view on the Filioque on Blachernae Council. This is very important. Why did you deleted a quote Gregory the Theologian? Cappadocian doctrine was set forth and this quote and it was all very clear. You specifically delete the doctrine of the Cappadocians and information that Creed was based on the doctrine of the Cappadocians. The article does not pose the question of the Filioque, it is one-sided. Your actions are dishonest. The article is spoiled.Wlbw68 (talk) 07:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

If it is/was spoiled, it became so when additions in incomprehensible English were added. No intelligibly sourced quotation of Gregory of Nazianzus has been deleted. No intelligibly sourced doctrine of the Cappadocian Fathers was deleted. You surely know that only edits based on reliable sources are admitted to Wikipedia. The article is about the Filioque and references are now made to statements by the Cappadocian Fathers that reliable sources (not just a Wikipedia editor) say are related to the Filioque question. As for the quotation you gave as from the Blachernae Council, look it up and you will find that it was a condemnation of certain Greeks by other Greeks. Did you fail to notice that the whole document is headed Ἔκθεσις τοῦ Τόμου τῆς πίστεως κατὰ τοῦ Βέκκου (Exposition of the Tomos of the faith against Beccus), and that your quotation, given under number 4 (δ') in the document begins with the words Τοῖς αὐτοῖς (To the same), referring to Ἰωάννῃ τῷ Βέκκῳ καὶ τοῖς ἐξακουλοῦσιν αὐτῷ (To John Beccus and to those who follow him), mentioned under number 1 (α')? It is of these that the council said that it "cut them off from the membership of the Orthodox, and we banish them from the flock of the Church of God": you surely don't think that the Blachernae Council felt that until that moment the Latins were members of the Orthodox and part of the flock of the Church of God! If you want to say that "the Greeks" rejected the agreement made at the Second Council of Lyon, do so, but you must cite for it a reliable source that says so. There are many such sources. Use them. Esoglou (talk) 11:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Personally, you do not understand the meaning of quotations and so delete them. I understand you correctly, is not it? But the case is different. You understand that the quote Gregory the Theologian against the Filioque and so it is removed.

Here it is: "But Monarchy(μοναρχία) is that which we hold in honour. It is, however, a Monarchy that is not limited to one Person, for it is possible for Unity if at variance with itself to come into a condition of plurality; but one which is made of an equality of Nature and a Union of mind, and an identity of motion, and a convergence of its elements to unity—a thing which is impossible to the created nature—so that though numerically distinct there is no severance of Essence. Therefore Unity having from all eternity arrived by motion at Duality, found its rest in Trinity. This is what we mean by Father and Son and Holy Ghost. The Father is the Begetter and the Emitter; The Son is the Begotten, and the Holy Ghost the Emission. Therefore let us confine ourselves within our limits, and speak of the Unbegotten and the Begotten and That which proceeds from the Father, as somewhere God the Word Himself saith." Gregory the Theologian Oration XXIX. The Third Theological Oration. On the Son. Λόγος κθ΄. Θεολογικός Γ', Περὶ Υἱοῦ. Συγγραφέας: Γρηγόριος Ναζιανζηνός

God the Father is the "only the beginning" or "Monarch» (μόν-αρχος) in the Trinity for the Son and the Spirit.

The same is the second quote.

The Greeks refused decisions from the Second Council of Lyon and the Council of Blachernae in 1285 decided: "To the same, who affirm that the Paraclete, which is from the Father, has its existence through the Son and from the Son, and who again propose as proof the phrase "the Spirit exists through the Son and from the Son." In certain texts [of the Fathers], the phrase denotes the Spirit's shining forth and manifestation. Indeed, the very Paraclete shines form and is manifest eternally through the Son, in the same way that light shines forth and is manifest through the intermediary of the sun's rays; it further denotes the bestowing, giving, and sending of the Spirit to us. It does not, however, mean that it subsists through the Son and from the Son, and that it receives its being through Him and from Him. For this would mean that the Spirit has the Son as cause and source (exactly as it has the Father), not to say that it has its cause and source more so from the Son than from the Father; for it is said that that from which existence is derived likewise is believed to enrich the source and to be the cause of being. To those who believe and say such things, we pronounce the above resolution and judgment, we cut them off from the membership of the Orthodox, and we banish them from the flock of the Church of God."The Council of Blachernae in 1285ΡG 142 "Ἔκθεσις τοῦ Τόμου τῆς πίστεως κατὰ τοῦ Βέκκου" col. 240 δ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wlbw68 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC) Wlbw68 (talk) 18:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

What does the first quotation say about Filioque? Does it say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son or does it deny that by saying the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone? It says neither. So it says nothing about Filioque. You imagine that the expression μοναρχία contradicts Filioque, but that is just your (mistaken) opinion. Read the paragraph in the article that begins with "The monarchy of the Father is a doctrine upheld not only by ..." and learn. And you should know that arguing for a particular interpretation (your own) of a primary source is synthesis. Wikipedia allows only what is explicitly stated in the source, not original research.

Тhe first quotation say that the Father is Monarchy. Monarchy is Mon (μονο) + archy(αρχος), μονο = one,

αρχος = source. The Father is one sourse. But the Sun is not sourse. Then Gregory says: "The Father is the Begetter and the Emitter; The Son is the Begotten, and the Holy Ghost the Emission. Therefore let us confine ourselves within our limits, and speak of the Unbegotten and the Begotten and That which proceeds from the Father, as somewhere God the Word Himself saith.(even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father - Ioannem 15:26)"

The Holy Ghost proceeds only from the Father. Wlbw68 (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

It is your opinion that the Father's monarchy means that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. Siecienski and Moltmann say that upholders of Filioque also uphold the monarchy of the Father. Siecienski and Moltmann are reliable source for Wikipedia. You are not. Esoglou (talk) 08:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Theodoret: Si vero tanquam ex Filio, aut per Filium existentiam habere , hoc ut impium blasphemum rejiciemus. habeat. Credimus enim domino dicente: Si vero tanquam ex Filio, aut per Filium existentiam habere , hoc ut impium blasphemum rejiciemus. habeat. Credimus enim domino dicente: Spiritus que ex Patre procedit sed et sacratistimo Paulo dicente fimiliter: "Nos autem non spiri­tum mundi accepimus, sed Spiri­tum, qui ex De­o patre est"

Cyril says: Procedit unim ex Deo et Patre Spiritus sancti secundum salvatoris vocem. http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/04z/z_1692-1769__Mansi_JD__Sacrorum_Conciliorum_Nova_Amplissima_Collectio_Vol_005__LT.pdf.html col. 123 Wlbw68 (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

This, as I have already had to tell you, is the English Wikipedia, not the Russian nor the Latin. Either present an English translation or take to the Latin Wikipedia your quotation of Theodoret, whose writings against Cyril of Alexandria, such as what you quote, were condemned by the Second Council of Constantinople in 553. Yet you omit from your quotations from Mansi 5, column 123, important parts of Cyril's response to Theodoret, in which he says: "Erat enim et est eius Spiritus, sicuti certe et Patris", which means: "For he (the Spirit) was and is his (the Son's) Spirit, as he certainly is also the Father's." And you took out of context the quotation that you do give (mistyping "enim" as "unim") of Cyril's response. Without a break, that quotation continues: "sed non est alienus a Filio: omnia enim habet cum patre, et hoc pie edocuit, dicens de Spiritu sancto: Omnia quaecumque habet Pater, mea sunt. Propterea dixi vobis, quia de meo accipiet, et annuntiabit vobis", which means: "But he (the Spirit) is not unassociated with the Son, for the Son has everything in common with the Father: he himself taught this, when he said of the Holy Spirit: 'All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you'." Cyril explicitly applied that phrase from John 16:15 to the Holy Spirit ("when he said of the Holy Spirit"). Discussing whether Cyril was nevertheless saying that the "everything" that the Son has in common with the Father and receives from the Father does not, however, include being that from which the Holy Spirit proceeds, as you believe, would be making this a forum. That is precisely what CombatWombat42 is rightly complaining of. Esoglou (talk) 08:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Council did not condemn the objection of Theodoret and Cyril answer to the ninth anathema. You do read the papers Council? - No, you have not read. Council documents not in English translation. They are in Greek, Latin, Russian. Theodoret and Cyril professed that the Spirit proceeds only the Father. The Spirit does not get the essence of the Son. He has being from the Father. You specifically delete all of the theme testifies for the fact that the Spirit proceeds from the Father only. For this purpose, you have removed from the topic quote Gregory the Theologian. LoveMonkey was right when he wrote that article is not objective and is incorrect. All the best to you.Wlbw68 (talk) 13:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I hope I am correctly interpreting your hard to understand English.

Cannot you read Latin or Greek? Your quotation from Mansi comes from Theodoret's responses to Cyril's twelve chapters or anathemas (and surely you realize that the ninth is part of the twelve) against Nestorius and Cyril's counter-responses, all given in Mansi, beginning at columns 85-86: Κυρίλλου Ἀρχιεπισκόπου Ἀλεξανδρείας πρὸς τοὺς τολμῶντας συνηγορεῖν τοῖς Νεστορίου δόγμασιν, ὧς ὀρθῶς ἔχουσι, κεφάλαια ιβ' /Cyrilli Archiepiscopi Alexandriae, adversus eos, qui audent Nestoris dogmatibus, ut rectis, patrocinari capita duodecim

What makes you think there is no English translation of the acts of the Second Council of Constantinople, and that it is available only in Greek, Latin and Russian? Take Schaff's English translation, which has been available for well over a century. It can be consulted also here and here. A more modern translation is also available. The council's Sentence and Anathemas are also given in a translation perhaps easier to understand here.

The Sentence of the Synod includes the phrase "those things which Theodoret impiously wrote against the right faith, and against the Twelve Chapters of the holy Cyril" (end of page 310 of Schaff). The thirteenth chapter or canon or anathema of the council says (in the Schaff translation): "IF anyone shall defend the impious writings of Theodoret, directed against the true faith and against the first holy Synod of Ephesus and against St. Cyril and his XII. Anathemas, and [defends] that which he has written in defence of the impious Theodore and Nestorius, and of others having the same opinions as the aforesaid Theodore and Nestorius, if anyone admits them or their impiety, or shall give the name of impious to the doctors of the Church who profess the hypostatic union of God the Word; and if anyone does not anathematize these impious writings and those who have held or who hold these sentiments, and all those who have written contrary to the true faith or against St. Cyril and his XII. Chapters, and who die in their impiety: let him be anathema." Esoglou (talk) 19:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The second quotation says that Beccus and his followers were wrong in claiming that Filioque is proved by the Fathers' statement that "the Spirit exists through the Son and from the Son"; it does not say that "the Greeks refused decisions from the Second Council of Lyon". Just cite some source - any reliable source - that does say the Greeks rejected the declarations of Lyon II about Filioque. Esoglou (talk) 19:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a very important quote, it set out the teaching of the Orthodox Church of the Holy Spirit. Why did you remove it?Wlbw68 (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Because you presented it as a reliable source for the statement that "the Greeks refused decisions from the Second Council of Lyon". That's not what the source says. Esoglou (talk) 08:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Unreadable grammar

I can't really follow the threading of this discussion which is part of the problem. Another problem is this should be discussed in the section "The grammar of this article is unreadable." Finally Wlbw68, you seem to be taking edits to the article personally, I do not intend it that way. I have done my best to clean up grammar but some of it is so unparseable it looks like a jumble of words to me, a native speaker of english, therefore I believe it is well withing wikipedia policy to delete it and ask for it to be written in a way most people can understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CombatWombat42 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Strongly agree with CombatWombat42, this article is muddled by incomprehensible grammar, clearly biased edits, aggressive arguing and poor threading in the talk page. ~ Joga Luce(t)(c) 08:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Someone (CombatWarrior? Joga inex Luce? another editor?) should simply act on CombatWarrior's suggestion: delete unreadable passages, a few at a time, and let anyone who supports what he or she thinks they mean restore them after rephrasing them in intelligible English. Having been involved in the discussion about the content, I don't want to do that myself. Esoglou (talk) 13:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Icon

I don't think that the illustration for this topic is appropriate. Rublev's icon illustrates an event from the Old Testament. It is a stretch to conclude that the angels in the painting are related to the "filioque" controversy. Guastafeste (talk) 14:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The beautiful icon Rublev's Trinity adds nothing to the substance of the article. The article is about the nature, meaning, purpose, history and implications of the Filioque Clause. A more apposite image may be the image of Benedict and Bartholomew holding hands at a meeting where they recited the creed together - without the Filioque Clause in the effort to move to repair the great schism.

Philip Barrington (talk) 03:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC) May 16, 2015. Philip Barrington.

I removed the image from the article. It really has no connection to the Filioque controversy. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Dialogues of Pope Gregory I may be pseudepigraphical

Relevant discussion at

→ Talk:Pope Gregory I#Dialogues pseudepigraphical

Dialogues of Pope Gregory I may be pseudepigraphical according to a scholarly source (see reference).

Content based on a 2004 conference paper, written in Italian, that quoted from Dialogues was added in 2015. The content is about how Gregory (or pseudo-Gregory?) uses the language of double procession: "The text proposes an eternal procession from both Father and the Son by the use of the word "always" (semper). Gregory's use of recessurum and recedit is also significant for the divine procession since although the Spirit always proceeds (semper procedat) from the Father and the Son, the Spirit never leavex (numquam recedit) the Son by such this eternal procession." Should it be included since it is based on potentially spurious pseudepigrapha? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 18:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

It's hard to say why the author of the dialogues would matter, the only that matters is how influential the dialogues were in the history of the dispute. That said, I don't have a problem with the wholesale removal of the history section, so I'm hardly going to argue for the inclusion of this one little piece. Rwflammang (talk) 19:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Council of Toledo in 400

An IP user added: "Though The First Council of Toledo (397 - 400 AD) didn't use the Creed formula of Constantinople, the statement of Faith of the First council of Toledo does include a proclamation of the proecesion of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son" and added a bare url to a poor source as a reference. The poor reference was improved, but not replaced with a reliable reference.

That combination eventually morphed into: "The erroneous idea that the First Council of Toledo (400 AD) adopted a profession of faith that included a repeated statement that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son is based on a forged collection of canons."

I replaced the reference and reworded that factoid. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 02:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Monarchy of the Father and Subordinationism

Something to also consider is this article here about how the Roman Catholic accepts the Monarchy of the Father which appears to deny the theology of the filioque. [8] The argument given by the pro filioque side in the past has been that the Eastern Orthodoxy are engaging in Subordinationism when professing the monarchy of the Father.[9] LoveMonkey (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I think that would be good to refocus the current content, there is a link to Subordinationism article already – especially from the current sources. Arianism and Eastern Christianity were located in the same places for centuries. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Well in the East it took violence (Islam and material atheism) to keep people from the mystical experienced called Christianity, the same that replaced the Mystery Cults based on reason. So in the West it will be just a matter of waiting it out. As all the arguing and all the reason and rationalizing of a God people don't even really know will not bring people back to church nor to Christ. These heresies above were based upon rationalizing God and the intent in them was to find by reason a way to rationalize and reconcile Christianity with various philosophical goals (unity and ecumenism). Philosophical goals that are not Christian goals. Human reason and or human reason alone is far too deficient to use as the means to obtain salvation. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing Ware quote

"Ware said, that he had changed his mind and had concluded that "the problem is more in the area of semantics and different emphases than in any basic doctrinal differences": "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone" and "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son" may both have orthodox meanings if the words translated "proceeds" actually have different meanings." This cites a speech Kallistos Ware gave. The quote and the reference was from a geocities.com page. The quote is also paraphrased in the Wikipedia article with a different source. The quote on the geocities.com page was duplicated on catholic.com:

[...] Ware [...], who once adamantly opposed the filioque doctrine, states: "The filioque controversy [...] is more than a mere technicality, but it is not insoluble. Qualifying the firm position taken when I wrote [my book] The Orthodox Church twenty years ago, I now believe, after further study, that the problem is more in the area of semantics and different emphases than in any basic doctrinal differences" (Diakonia, quoted from Elias Zoghby's A Voice from the Byzantine East, 43).

The source cited by catholic.com is the source for the paraphrase in the article with a quote that I tagged with {{Better source}} because it is a translated work but may not be a translated quote. According to Orthodoxwiki:Kallistos (Ware) of Diokleia, Ware was interviewed by Diakonia. Diakonia according to JournalSeek does not have a website.

I think reducing the sources would be good but pointing to the Diakonia interview without verifying the citation is not good. Any suggestions?

References

–BoBoMisiu (talk) 17:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Well you can disagree. As such I can disagree. I disagree with Kallistos Ware just as much as the Eastern Orthodox can disagree with George Metochites. Kallistos is not a monk from Mount Athos and I do not think of him as enlightened he has a degree in theology and is an English convert to Orthodoxy, by that criteria I accept Sophrony (Sakharov) as someone that people should consult to understand Orthodox theology. What you posted that Ware said appears to contradict the Fourth Council of Constantinople (Eastern Orthodox). But again because Sophrony does not have a degree in theology his opinion can't be used here. I hope this is at least somewhat showing the problems with scholasticism as the de facto standard for valid epistemology. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

You can write about Sakharov's opinion about the filioque in the Sakharov article and then link to it. Why not. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes exactly I can not use an Eastern Orthodox theologian and saint on an Eastern Orthodox theology article because he has not gone to a European credentialed institution to confirm his theology. Hence why this issue can not be resolved by scholasticism as it can't even be properly expressed by it. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I hope that you see that you are insisting that the Eastern Christian community conform to the European scholastic model of knowledge in order for them to even have an opinion. It seems that since the theology in the East is not something done by Professors and academics then it is not valid and it can not be represented here. It seems that the Eastern Christians can not have a voice without a degree in theology? You are insisting that an entire people conform to your standard in order for them to even state their position. And if they can not then you will discard them. And the few whom actually did as you insist (Romanides and Yannaras) you do ad hominem attacks on? I have not made any substantive edits to this article and I am trying very hard to collaborate with you but it seems mostly what I am doing is trying to change your mind and I don't have time for that nor should anyone trying to post the Eastern Christian position. LoveMonkey (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not insisting on anything about Sakharov; I don't know anything about Sakharov; it was just a supportive comment. On the other hand, there is scholarship that discusses both Romanides and Yannaras, it is not my ad hominem. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Lossky in Kulakov

Kulakov (2007, p177) was added in 2010 to a sentence citing Lossky (2003, p176) that was tagged with {{failed verification}} in 2010 for "the sourced cited does not contain the expression 'double procession' and in fact says nothing about the interpretation of the words of Saint Maximus quoted here." Yet Kulakov (p178) points out that "Lossky was often unjust and inaccurate in his criticism of the Western scholastic understanding of the nature of the Trinity, and of the distinction between 'person' and 'individual'. Some of Lossky's generalizations contain factual errors." Kulakov (p177) seems to be used without the context of (p178) or a potential analysis of Lossky on (p177) which is not available in Google Books preview. This combination is used to support that:

In the judgment of these Orthodox, the Roman Catholic Church is in fact teaching as a matter of Roman Catholic dogma that the Holy Spirit derives his origin and being (equally) from both the Father and the Son, making the Filioque a double procession.

I tagged it with a {{discuss}} and I think that page (p177) needs verification. LoveMonkey do you remember anything about this? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 21:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Undue weight

As this currently 42 page long article stands, it has 3 pages on the current Western positions, and 7 pages on the current Eastern position. Is this nuts? Last time I checked, this was a Western doctrine, and not an Eastern one. Or does anyone think that the Incarnation of Christ article could be improved by a seven page digression on the Islamic position? Rwflammang (talk) 23:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Balance is called for, yes. But the real point is that it is a western doctrine, and not an eastern one. It was divisive, and had consequences that helped cause the separation of east and west. Surely balance calls for adequate coverage of the divergent views (and even the ones that can be held in common). If the article is out of balance, I see nothing to prevent it being edited to bring it into balance. But page count is not the base metric I would use. The real measure lies in what it takes to give a complete coverage. A balanced view comes from understanding diverse views. When the article does that, it's good. If it doesn't now, let's edit. Evensteven (talk) 02:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

And yet the doctrine of purgatory is also divisive, yet I do not see that the Protestant section of that article is twice as long as the Catholic section. The Incarnation of Christ is also a divisive doctrine, still I don't see an Islamic section which is twice as long as the Christian section. The page count needed to give a complete coverage of a doctrine for a church which does not believe in it should be very short indeed. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, and not an argument for or against a theological doctrine. Rwflammang (talk) 19:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

You're just arguing size in a vacuum with no facts to back them up. Perhaps you should count Catholic sources vs. Orthodox sources and see how due/undue the weight really is, rather than just making vague accusations? Elizium23 (talk) 19:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing vague about my accusations. This article sucks because it goes on and on about the Eastern views of this Western doctrine, without ever convincing the reader of the relevance of such views. I am not complaining about source counts, but page counts, and that is because page counts are most definitely the problem here. Rwflammang (talk) 22:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I render no opinion about the current state of the article. I do render the opinion that page count is not the proper metric. A section needs to be as long as it needs to be in order to cover its area. Filioque has many implications, and it is not easy to describe either Catholic or Orthodox positions (in and of themselves) much less to cover their responses to the others' positions. I will argue that the proper length is that length that covers the topic, not some artificial quantity of words. If we can find ways of saying the same things more concisely, that's a job to do just by editing, and well and good. If there is anything POV in there, including arguments for or against, it needs to be neutralized. And solid proper coverage of Catholic and Orthodox positions in and of themselves ought to do much to diminish any need for "point / counterpoint" (in other words, arguments). Once one understands the primary issues, it takes much less effort to contrast the positions. And I am very much in favor of minimizing the infamous "debate/argument/controversy/belief/opposition" contention that abounds both here on WP and in the world in general. The very nature of that continual dissent and scoring of points drains the content of the writing, whereas we are trying to be informative. No one is informed by an argument, except to the idea that people like to fight. It is my opinion that this business of page count is a bit of score-keeping. I would rather that we focus on the article's information, keeping it neutral, presenting a mass of information as concisely as possible. For there is little known in the west about Orthodoxy in general, making that job all the more difficult. Difficult, maybe, but that doesn't necessarily mean it needs to take up more room for that reason. All the writing in the article should be kept to the same standards of brevity, and that should be possible. But nothing should be suppressed just because someone doesn't want to hear it. I think we have plenty of WP guidelines to provide the standards we need, including undue weight. However, I will not agree that weight ought to measured by page count. Rwflammang, I have yet to hear what you would like to do to improve the article. Let's see some edits. Or let's hear (here) about some passage(s) that you feel throw things out of balance. (What to cut? What is argumentative? What is wordy?) Pick the spots and point out their flaws. Then we'll have something to work on. Evensteven (talk) 21:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

One more thing. It is not doctrines that are so divisive. It is people. Let us do what we can to work together despite having different opinions, and express that attitude in the article, and then we will help to show that it is normal for people to have different opinions, but that they need not divide themselves over them. I think that would also be a useful piece of information to reveal to those who don't understand it. Evensteven (talk) 21:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

@Rwflammang, Evensteven, and Elizium23: I think Filioque § Summary should just be in a good lede. ... and a beginning at trimming the history out of this article. Moreover, there is a History of the Filioque controversy that should contain most of the content instead of this article.

There is too little political background, e.g. Michael III the Drunkard's influence over the church and uncanonical deposition by an enraged Michael of the legitimate Patriarch Ignatius I of Constantinople (ultimately for not giving communion to Michael's drinking buddy who had seduced a relative) and the uncanonical replacement with Patriarch Photios I of Constantinople, who was already a great layman who studied at Abbasid Bagdad. Photios had specific practical reasons to argue about papal authority, i.e. that the papacy has no authority to tell Photios that his appointment was clearly uncanonical – since Photios could not argue that his appointment was in any way canonical – Photios needed to legitimize himself. Photios died in union with the papacy but left a legacy of a culturally anti-Latin theological rationale, that was used by a then culturally and linguistically homogenous (since the 7th century Muslim conquests) Byzantine monastic hierarchy from within a geographically much smaller Eastern Roman Empire, of anything that deviated from standard Byzantine ideas in later centuries to rationalize schism and accept imposition of caesaropapism.

I agree with Evensteven that "solid proper coverage of Catholic and Orthodox positions in and of themselves ought to do much [...] Once one understands the primary issues, it takes much less effort to contrast the positions"; in this and the history article.

Removing the content by Cleenewerck, who is in my opinion a questionable WP:SELFPUBLISHED WP:FRINGE author (see "The catholic Church as a hologram" in the referenced work His broken body talk and was involved with a pseudo-state with "sort of a camouflage passport" talk), and content sourced from geocities etc.; reducing the extensive quotes in references from websites. E.g. romanity.org which seems questionable to me – it includes pages such as "Examples of the science of the ethnic cleaning of Roman history and a vision of the future United States of Franco-Romania" which is fringe revisionist history about such things as "the real name of France is Franco-Romania. This should be the name of not only of United Europe, but also of her descendants in the Americas, Australia and New Zealand. So this reality should give us The Real United States of Franco-Romania with [...] one united currency." Also on the same page, "an electrical short circuit between the blood system [...] and the spinal fluid" causes certain behaviors. Yes, those are the kinds of authors that populate this article and should be removed. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 03:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC); modified 03:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, BoBoMisiu, for your diagnosis. I think it is spot on. Given the obvious superiority of the article History of the Filioque controversy, I think we can delete a big chunk of this over-big article. I think removing all references to Cleenewerck will result in an improved article, and I will be happy to help you also in de-romanidifying this article, which will give it a far less cranky tone. Rwflammang (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

There is an enormous amount of sources that more-or-less duplicate almost identical content. For example, this article doesn't need primary Greek or Latin sources that are contained in scholarly secondary sources with translations. The article is not, in my opinion, "count Catholic sources vs. Orthodox sources" but a source over-weight problem. I cleaned up quite a bit but there is still over 90 references not wrapped with citation templates – some are links with a title that will easily WP:LINKROT. There are over 250 cited works – an uninformed reader has no hope of understanding the basics, e.g. that there are two theologies and each has a different interpretation of the phrase. I have a fair understanding and I was left with a headache after reading this article. It has many good references and much good information, but it fails to just explain. It needs a radical pruning. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 20:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@LoveMonkey: look carefully at what I did before you trash the sources. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 21:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand. I don't know what you mean by "trash the sources" please clarify. Also this does not appear to be assuming good faith. I find Wikipedia a hostile work environment and as such I dread coming here and contributing. Your post just re-enforced that. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@LoveMonkey: sorry, when I wrote that I didn't think it was hostile. I did assume good faith, I did some intricate changes and wanted you to be aware of that. For example, adding the Yannaras reference did not change that LaDue 2003 did not connect these people. I was also removing duplicate wikilinks as with duplicate highlighter. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 01:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

On a separate note, I removed the Romanides cruft (which remains in the Eastern Orthodox teaching regarding the Filioque fork). –BoBoMisiu (talk) 01:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

@BoBoMisiu: Please be aware that I have not looked at any specific editing. I am away from WP at this time. However, having encountered "trash the sources", I need to let you know that, at least from my perspective, that implies someone else was deliberately damaging something, definitely not good faith behavior. I think there might have been a better way for you to express yourself. Evensteven (talk) 03:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@Evensteven: thank you for your concern, I am not implying anything, as I wrote previously. Look over what I did – which is almost completely improving references and some copy edit. I created Talk:Filioque/dumping-ground as a WP:Dumping-ground page for new content if you care to look. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 03:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Sanda in Pomazansky

In the English translation from Russian, Pomazansky constructs a conspiratorial ingroup outgroup dichotomy by insinuating that there is a difference between Roman Catholic public information and Roman Catholic private information "in Latin dogmatic works, intended for internal use, [where] we encounter a definite treatment of the Orthodox dogma of the procession of the Holy Spirit as a 'heresy'." Pomazansky writes that, Vojtěch Šanda wrote that, "in the year 808 Greek monks protested against the introduction by the Latins of the word Filioque into the Creed . . . Who the originator of this heresy was, is unknown." Pomazansky uses ellipsis to separate the text about an incident between monks (which is mentioned in non-theological works about the Early Middle Ages[10]) and a commentary sentence by Šanda. Seemingly, Pomazansky redacted what Šanda pointed to as being heretical.

The work (OCLC 13775875), by Šanda, that Pomazansky cited is not available online to clarify what (or even if) Šanda described about the Orthodox dogma as being heretical.

21st century sources describe the 808 incident in context: the founder of the Carolingian Empire, Charlemagne, king of Francia (r. 800–814), "supported the Christians of [Jerusalem, which was governed by the Abbasid caliphate,] and there was renewed pilgrim traffic at that time. A Frankish monastery was established on the Mount of Olives; the Frankish monks there recited the Nicene Creed with the Filioque insertion, which scandalized the Greek monks in the city."[11]

The current (2015-11-22) revision of Filioque gives the impression that a group monks are the only ones who made such a claim. The incident is described in Louth (2007, p. 142) who does not mention this. Congar (1983, p. 57) describes that a monk "proclaimed the heresy of the books and conducted a campaign against the Frankish monks, who, [ ] appealed to the Pope, who, [ ] wrote to the emperor." There is nothing that I read that corroborates Pomazansky's claim.

Outside sources, e.g. Sloan (2012, p. 70) who states that he followed Lagarde (1915, pp. 427–428), and Tixeront (1916 p. 508), do not mention Pomazansky's claim.

Is there a source currently in the article to support Pomazansky's claim of "a definite treatment of the Orthodox dogma of the procession of the Holy Spirit as a 'heresy'" by Western Christians?

References

–BoBoMisiu (talk) 21:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Etymology

While WP:NOTDICTIONARY, the WP:WORDISSUBJECT. The etymology of the term filioque is:

< filio (ablative or dative case of filius ("son")) + -que (enclitic "and").

So it can be an ablative or dative form of the lemma filius – it is ablative in the creed. I do not think the English term from needs to be interpolated because of the ablative form; e.g. OED entry for "filioque, n" and other English dictionaries show "and from the son".

The ΛΟΓΕΙΟΝ entry for que shows how that suffix, -que, is used. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 22:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Khomyakov in Lossky

A faximile of Lossky is found on scribd.com.

Concise Sacramentum Mundi shows that although Khomyakov's was censured in Russia until the 20th century, it has "popularity among the Orthodox", mostly Russian emigre priests (Florensky, Bulgakov, etc.), and "largely unknown" among the Greeks. His opinions have been critisized by Greek theologians. He influenced neo-Russian ecclesiology along with Soloviev who criticized Khomyakov's concept of Church.

Khomyakov's "approach to historical problems" was to look for "the sources of Western religious error in the fundamental principles of Western civilization itself." He constructed a dichotomy that "depicts the contrast between Eastern Orthodoxy and Western Christianity as the contrast between peoples whose historical peculiarities and cultural physiognomies are reflected in their religious psychologies." The same article notes that Khomyakov, who is described as "bitterly hostile to the spirit of Western Christianity", wrote durring the reign of Nicholas I and "was forced by censorship to paint all contrasts between Holy Russia and the 'rotting West' in great relief."

Searching through other sources online, it does not seem that Khomyakov wrote more than one sentence about filioque in English – Lossky discussing Khomyakov is WP:COATRACKing.

References

–BoBoMisiu (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)