Talk:Theoria (Eastern Orthodox Christianity)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Proposed move to Theoria (Eastern Orthodox Theology)

Per discussion immediately above, this will allow a split of the current article into two articles: Theoria (Eastern Orthodox theology) that focuses specifically on Eastern Orthodox theology and Theoria which covers the general topic of Theoria including a summary of the more detailed article on Theoria from the Eastern Orthodox POV. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh really, so now you propose it after Esoglou resisted it when Paul M. Nguyen suggested it in October and Esoglou told him NO.[1] LoveMonkey (talk) 03:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

[This constant hostility is getting tiresome.]

It would appear that Esoglou misread Paul M. Nguyen's proposal. Reading Paul's comment carefully, it seems that his use of the word "branching this article" could be interpreted to mean "splitting the article into two". Esoglou's reply seemed to interpret Paul's proposal to change the article scope to focus primarily on the Eastern Orthodox view.

Besides, at the time of Paul's proposal, this article was only 93kb long. Pretty long in my book but not yet needing immediate attention to split the article. At 132kb, it has now gone from "very long" to "too long". It's time to seriously consider splitting the article.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 05:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Moreover, I have been known to change my mind when cogent reasons are presented. However, I am still not convinced that the only remedy for the disproportionate space (c. 72%) that this article gives to the view of theologians of one church is to create for their view an article of its own - this isn't Orthodoxwiki. I intended to express no opinion here and abstain, but LM seems to be particularly interested in what I think. I still do not expressly or strongly oppose. Esoglou (talk) 08:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Esoglou, if you haven't already seen this comment that I made on LoveMonkey's Talk Page, you might wish to read it. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 08:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Original Research

Esoglou added a new section the entire section appears to be original research. [2] There is no source for most of it. Take for example the first line of the article passage. There is no source.

---

The teaching of the Roman Catholic Church on theoria (contemplation) and prayer is expressed without polemical disparagement of other Christian traditions, but instead with appreciation of spiritual writings of both East and West.

---

The next sentence has it saying things about Mount Athos. However Mount Athos isn't in the source provided that way. It makes no mention of these sources being out of communion and or in schism with the Roman Catholic church. As the word theoria and or the word contemplation are missing from the source provided.

---

The Catechism of the Catholic Church mentions specifically writers of Sinai, Syria and Mount Athos

---

the next part of the sentence uses a source about which is about the hymns and songs to the Mother of God.

---

and refers not only to the traditions of the Latin and Byzantine churches, but also to Armenian, Coptic and Syriac traditions.

I can't see how the sentence above comes from the source provided.

"2678 Medieval piety in the West developed the prayer of the rosary as a popular substitute for the Liturgy of the Hours. In the East, the litany called the Akathistos and the Paraclesis remained closer to the choral office in the Byzantine churches, while the Armenian, Coptic, and Syriac traditions preferred popular hymns and songs to the Mother of God. But in the Ave Maria, the theotokia, the hymns of St. Ephrem or St. Gregory of Narek, the tradition of prayer is basically the same."

---

LoveMonkey (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The statement at the start of the "Roman Catholic Church" section of the article is well sourced with citations from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It reads: "The Roman Catholic Church expresses its teaching on theoria (contemplation) and prayer with reference to spiritual writings of both East and West, citing in the Catechism of the Catholic Church writers of Sinai, Syria and Mount Athos[161] and referring not only to the traditions of the Latin and Byzantine churches, but also to Armenian, Coptic and Syriac traditions.[162]"

The Catholic Church's attitude is different from the sectarian outlook that finds fault with everything whatsoever is associated with others. She recognizes and appreciates good Christian traditions preserved in groups that are no longer in full communion with her. And so she has no difficulty in recognizing that "this simple invocation of faith developed in the tradition of prayer under many forms in East and West. The most usual formulation, transmitted by the spiritual writers of Sinai, Syria, and Mt. Athos, is the invocation, 'Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on us sinners'", and in affirming the basic identity of the tradition found in the prayers, litanies and hymns referred to in the statement: "Medieval piety in the West developed the prayer of the rosary as a popular substitute for the Liturgy of the Hours. In the East, the litany called the Akathistos and the Paraclesis remained closer to the choral office in the Byzantine churches, while the Armenian, Coptic, and Syriac traditions preferred popular hymns and songs to the Mother of God. But in the Ave Maria, the theotokia, the hymns of St. Ephrem or St. Gregory of Narek, the tradition of prayer is basically the same." The Catholic Church does not need to adopt the attitude of those individuals whose beliefs have to be bolstered by denigrating the beliefs of others. Esoglou (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Esoglou - you sourcing something, regardless of how 'well' it's sourced is still original research. It is your interpretation of the Catechism that makes it original research. If you have a proper source saying that this is what the Catechism means, then you'd be within the guidelines of this site.

As it is you're not.

Montalban (talk) 11:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to your edit, Montalban, and will not argue against it. Esoglou (talk) 11:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Esolgou. I think however that LoveMonkey is better positioned to edit this particular subject Montalban (talk) 02:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Well.. I think the sentence "The teaching of the Roman Catholic Church on theoria (contemplation) and prayer is expressed without polemical disparagement of other Christian traditions, but instead with appreciation of spiritual writings of both East and West" should be removed. However I am restricted from editing Roman Catholic content from Roman Catholic sections in articles so.. It will have to be either Esoglou or Montalban whom removes it. LoveMonkey (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Ask Montalban. I removed the sentence, but he put it back and challenged me about it. I have refused to pick up his challenge. Esoglou (talk) 07:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Esoglou, is it your complaint I restored your sentence without first discussing this edit first? I don't understand this. Does this negate your original research? Montalban (talk) 10:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that if I were to remove something without discussing it - I'd hear a complaint. I get the feeling I should just let others edit war. :-)

Montalban (talk) 10:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I still refuse to step on the tail of the coat you are again trailing: I raise no complaint against you. Esoglou (talk) 14:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes you see there it is Montalban. You did the right thing and tried to handle it correctly and all it boils down to blame blame blame. Montalban you know it is about working together and not about the self. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Which Dionysius?

In the section "Dionysius the Areopagite's Apophaticism", there is mention of the eighth day and the necessity of liturgical experience in the writings of Dionysius. Can you give some references for this? Is it possible that the author of this article is confusing Dionysius the Areopagite (6th century) with Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth (2nd Century)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Widger (talk • contribs) 17:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

A good bit of the article and that section included are based on theologians like Vladimir Lossky.[3][4] Even more specifically his book called Seeing God or Vision of God..[5]. The eighth day article hyperlinked from that section is deficient.[6]..Of Palamas more or less. Is what is being followed. [7] LoveMonkey (talk) 02:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

From widger. I am not finding the theme of the eighth day in Dionysius. If I may offer some ideas to improve your article: Theoria is spiritual vision or perception by the human intellect when it is illuminated by the Holy Spirit. This is the main theme of chapter 1 of Dionysius treatise called, The Mystical Theology. Dionysius says that God dwells in divine darkness i.e. God is unknowable through man's sense and reason. Therefore, one must leave behind the activity of sense and reason and enter into spiritual union with God. Through spiritual union with God (theosis), the mystic is granted theoria and through this divine vision, he ultimately is given knowledge of God. Reference (Dionysius the Areopagite, The Mystical Theology and the Divine Names, translation by C.E. Rolt, Dover Publications 2004, pages 191 - 192) Theoria is possible through noetic prayer and also the Divine Liturgy. Since the Divine Liturgy is the highest form of prayer, it is the most perfect way to be in union with God and to contemplate Him. Hope this helps. Widger — Preceding unsigned comment added by Widger (talk • contribs) 16:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Liturgy is the 8th day. This is not my article and if you could please contribute and help with the article improvement that would be great. LoveMonkey (talk) 02:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello LoveMonkey. I kept the main themes of the first contributor but added a primary source from Dionysius "The Mystical Theology" to introduce his main references to theoria in the analogy of 'divine darkness'. Thanks for your assistace. Widger (talk) 03:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)Widger

Wonderful. Thank you for your time and voluntarism. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of section on Catholic Church

I eliminated Esoglou's section on the Roman Catholic Church and replaced it with text copied from Special:Permalink/567321662#Speculative_theology_.E2.80.93_Philosophy_and_Scholasticism_versus_empirical_theology_.E2.80.93_Theoria. As is stood, the section was riddled with references to Eastern Orthodox views such as those of Palamus. Maybe someone more knowledgable on the subject can do something more encompassing, but i think this is a decent stopgap solution. Timothy.lucas.jaeger (talk) 18:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The reason advanced for deleting the information on the Roman Catholic Church was that "the section was riddled with references to Eastern Orthodox views such as those of Palamus [sic]". Only one paragraph of the section made any reference to the Eastern Orthodox Church, along with references to the Coptic, Syriac and Armenian Oriental Orthodox Churches. I have now restored the section, except for that one paragraph. The editor who deleted the section on grounds of supposed mentions of "Palamus" then proceeded to replace the section with material dealing exclusively with - of all things - the theology of Palamas! Did he perhaps confuse the section on the Roman Catholic Church with that on the Eastern Orthodox Church, which has a subsection headed: "Contemplative differences between Eastern Christianity and Western Christianity"? This material, supposedly about the Eastern Orthodox Church, is indeed "riddled with references to Western Christian views".

There can be no valid objection to the one mention in the section of Saint Gregory Palamas: the deleting editor must have closed his eyes to the fact that the Roman Catholic Church includes those Eastern Catholic Churches that officially venerate Gregory Palamas as a saint. Esoglou (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Palamism is one of the central tenets of Eastern Orthodoxy. Indeed, one of the main differences that caused the Great Schism (East-West Schism) which resulted in the separation of the Roman Catholic from Eastern Orthodox churches is, on one hand, the Experience of God (Theoria) which relies heavily on Palamas's Essnences vs Energies Destinction (see also Heyschasm) of Eastern Orthodoxy and, on the other, the scholasticism of the Roman Catholic (Western) church. Timothy.lucas.jaeger (talk) 21:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

In fact the section i copied in was not Special:Permalink/567321662#Speculative_theology_.E2.80.93_Philosophy_and_Scholasticism_versus_empirical_theology_.E2.80.93_Theoria as I previously stated but Special:Permalink/567321662#Roman_Catholic_attitude. The correct section was copied in, and attributed correctly in the edit history, but on this talk page I linked the wrong section. Timothy.lucas.jaeger (talk) 21:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I think we agree that detailed information about the teaching of Gregory Palamas (1296–1359), who lived long after the East-West Schism had begun, is not information about θεωρία/contemplatio in the Roman Catholic Church. Should something be done about the subsection "Contemplative differences between Eastern Christianity and Western Christianity"? Should it at least be made an independent section, instead of being presented as part of the "Eastern Orthodox Church" section? There is no doubt that, though presented as Eastern Orthodox Church teaching, it is "riddled with references" to the West. Esoglou (talk) 06:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not really concerned about the subsection "Contemplative differences between Eastern Christianity and Western Christianity". That part makes sense to me and I think it illustrates the differences. If it spends more time on eastern christianity, it may be only that theoria is a concept more important to eastern christianity. Talking about theoria in the roman catholic tradition is really more an exercise in saying that its not so important. If you wish to revise that section i would suggest you start a separate section on the talk page and keep this one devoted to the section on Roman Catholicism.

As far as the section in Roman Catholicism, there are a lot of problems still and i think its better to just start from scratch, but if you (Esoglou) prefer to work from your existing section, then i would like to first ask you to remove the stuff about Palamas or address my previous comment regarding Palamism and how it is basically the antithesis of Roman Catholic thought on theoria. There are other issues i will get to after that, but one point at a time and that is the most glaring.Timothy.lucas.jaeger (talk) 14:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

In response to your request, I am provisionally removing the one reference to the theologian whom the Roman Catholic Church venerates even liturgically as a saint, cites as an authority on theology, and whose theology it has never once rejected or even criticized, in spite of the reservations of various theologians in its regard. For the record, I am putting it here. I am also putting here, for the record, the other paragraph that you objected to.

Gregory Palamas, who is liturgically venerated as a saint by the Eastern Catholic Churches of Byzantine tradition (Ukrainian Catholic Church, "St Gregory Palamas", Edward Faulk, 101 Questions and Answers on Eastern Catholic Churches (Paulist Press 2007 ISBN 978-0-80914441-9), p. 67, Byzantine Catholic Archeparchy of Pittsburgh, Memory of our Holy Father Gregory) and whom popes and cardinals have repeatedly cited as an authority on theology (Pope John Paul II, General Audience, 14 November 1990, Pope John Paul II, General Audience, 19 November 1997, Pope John Paul II, Jubilee of Scientists), referring to him as a saint (Pope John Paul II, Homily at Ephesus, 30 November 1979, Cardinal Geraldo Majella Agnelo, "Starting Afresh from Christ"), "saw philosophy and discursive knowledge as a perfectly reasonable set of aids for the Christian. It was only when philosophy, whose created end is the furtherance of knowledge of God, was misused by the philosophers and turned, in effect, into God, that Gregory raised his voice in ardent opposition"(A Knowledge Beyond Knowing: Barlaam’s Objection to Apodictic Theology).

The teaching of the Roman Catholic Church on theoria (contemplation) and prayer is expressed with appreciation of spiritual writings of both East and West. The Catechism of the Catholic Church mentions specifically writers of Sinai, Syria and Mount Athos (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2667), and refers not only to the traditions of the Latin and Byzantine churches, but also to Armenian, Coptic and Syriac traditions (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2678).

Although I see no rational objection whatever to including these two items as useful information about θεωρία/contemplatio in the Roman Catholic Church, I have moved them here to the talk page to please you. May I ask you to make a much simpler change in return: from "===Contemplative differences between Eastern Christianity and Western Christianity===" to "==Contemplative differences between Eastern Christianity and Western Christianity=="? Esoglou (talk) 19:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see what difference it makes that Palamas is a Roman Catholic saint. He's also a highly venerated Eastern Orthodox saint. To reiterate my earlier point, one of the main difference between those two churches is on the issue of theoria vs scholasticism, and that wedge is founded on the writings of Palamas. In other words, Palamas's writings are the origin of the difference between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox views of theoria. Thus it seems absurd to refer to him in a section about the Roman Catholic take on theoria. He clearly belongs in the Eastern Orthodox section on theoria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothy.lucas.jaeger (talk • contribs) 20:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you are mistaken. The Catholic Church has never opposed the ideas of Saint Gregory Palamas. Some Catholic theologians have opposed his ideas, others have accepted them, the Church has not pronounced in favour of one set of theologians or the other. Far from condemning him, the Church authorities cite him and call him a saint and a "great writer" (as here). One might argue that this shows implicit approval by the Catholic Church, an argument that I do not wish to uphold. But it clearly shows that the Church has not condemned him. Esoglou (talk) 07:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

From the wikipedia entry on Palamism (second half of the introduction):

"Historically, Western Christianity has tended to reject Palamism, especially the Essence-Energies distinction, characterizing it as a heretical introduction of an unacceptable division in the Trinity and suggestive of polytheism.[6][7] Further, the associated practice of hesychasm used to achieve theosis was characterized as "magic".[4] More recently, some Roman Catholic thinkers have taken a positive view of Palamas's teachings, including the essence-energies distinction, arguing that it does not represent an insurmountable theological division between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.[8]

The rejection of Palamism by the West and by those in the East who favoured union with the West (the "Latinophrones"), who were necessarily hostile to Palamism, contributed to its acceptance in the East, according to Martin Jugie, who adds: "Very soon Latinism and Antipalamism, in the minds of many, would come to be seen as one and the same thing".[9]

Contemporary historians Emperor John VI Kantakouzenos and Nicephorus Gregoras deal very copiously with this subject, taking the Hesychast and Barlaamite sides respectively."

In my understanding, the entire reason that Palamas was canonized as a saint in the Roman Catholic Church was in an attempt to heal the schism with the Eastern Orthodoxy that Palamas himself was largely responsible for. It was a political move. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothy.lucas.jaeger (talk • contribs) 16:09, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

You need more than "your understanding" to justify adding to or removing from Wikipedia. In any case, Gregory Palamas was never formally canonized by the Catholic Church, any more than was Saint Peter.

I am surprised that you again attribute to Saint Gregory a schism already in existence before he was born.

The Wikipedia article that you quote says Western theologians are divided. The last source cited in your quotation says of the Catholic Church itself: "My own understanding is that the Catholic Church has not dogmatized either view. My suspicion is that the reason the anti-Palamites could find a home in the Western Church was not so much that the Latins necessarily agreed with them, but rather that the West found the dispute too abstruse to focus on and as such accepted their anti-Palamite view as a legitimate theologoumenon. The Palamite view has since also been accepted in the West as a legitimate theologoumenon. There is an irony here as the anti-Palamites were not driven out of the Eastern Church so much for their beliefs as for their troublesome and obnoxious insistence that those who held the Palamite view were heretics. Whether they would have found as comfortable a home with Rome, if they had understood the West’s catholicity as also encompassing their opponents, remains an interesting question" (emphases added). Esoglou (talk) 18:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

We seem to be at an impasse. I'd like to solicit a third opinion via Wikipedia:Third_opinion. Agreed, Esoglou? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothy.lucas.jaeger (talk • contribs) 00:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Please do. But explain what exactly your trouble is. After all, I have acceded to your request to remove from the article the mention of the non-sectarian attitude that the Catholic Church shows by officially expressing appreciation of not only the Latin but also the Byzantine, Coptic, Syriac and Armenian prayer traditions, and the mention of the Catholic Church's similar official appreciation of Saint Gregory Palamas as a great theologian. You are obviously not complaining of my compliance with your wish, of course. Esoglou (talk) 07:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Have we agreed then that Palamas does not belong in this section? I thought you(Esoglou) had removed that text 'provisionally' and we were still discussing whether it should be included?Timothy.lucas.jaeger (talk) 16:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I have accommodated your view as far as the article is concerned. Neither of the elements you objected to is in the article. By now demanding that I accept your view about matters not in the article as the correct one (which I do not), you are turning this talk page into a forum rather than a discussion of the article. Esoglou (talk) 19:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Section on heaven and hell

Should this section be deleted? Its relation to theoria is tenuous. Admittedly, heaven is seen as contemplating God through the "light of glory" (lumen gloriae) or the "light of Tabor", but it is unclear in what way there is a link between those in hell and contemplation/theoria and, while some Easterners say that those in hell see the light of Tabor, the principal exponent of the theology of the light of Tabor, Gregory Palamas, denies that they do. Esoglou (talk) 08:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Copyright violation

The extensive quotating from Romanides (and others) is surely a violation of copyright: "Copying material without the permission of the copyright holder from sources that are not public domain or compatibly licensed (unless it's a brief quotation used in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free content policy and guideline) is likely to be a copyright violation. Even inserting text copied with some changes can be a copyright violation if there's substantial linguistic similarity in creative language or structure (this can also raise problems of plagiarism). Such a situation should be treated seriously, as copyright violations not only harm Wikipedia's redistributability, but also create legal issues" (WP:CV).

"If you suspect a copyright violation but are uncertain if the content is copyrighted or whether the external site is copying from Wikipedia, you should at least bring up the issue on that page's discussion page, if it is active. In that case, please tag the page {{copypaste | url=insert URL here, if known}}, unless your concerns are swiftly resolved. Others can then examine the situation and take action if needed. ... You may also make a note of your concerns at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems" (WP:CV emphases added).

Perhaps the editor who inserted this extensive material will give an explanation that will show that the suggested further action is not necessary. Esoglou (talk) 14:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of material from the Roman Catholic Church section

While LoveMonkey has expressed his views on the sourced information added to the "Heaven and hell" section, he has made no attempt to explain his editing of the section on the Roman Catholic Church, which I am returning to its previous state. Esoglou (talk) 15:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate additions to Wikipedia

Here are some examples of inappropriate Roman Catholic POV pushing that does not belong in a article about the Greek Orthodox word and theological concept theoria. Here are some of the things Esoglou added to this article that are in violation of Wikipedia posting rules.

Copyright violation

Almost half of this section posted by editor Esoglou is COPYRIGHT violation. It is posting copyrighted material from the Eastern Orthodox theologian John Romanides' works directly.===

1.According to Greek Orthodox priest John S. Romanides, "glorification is the vision of God in which the equality of all mean [sic] and the absolute value of each man is experienced. God loves all men equally and indiscriminately, regardless of even their moral statues [sic]. God loves with the same love, both the saint and the devil. To teach otherwise, as Augustine and the Franks did, would be adequate proof that they did not have the slightest idea of what glorification was. God multiplies and divides himself in His uncreated energies undividedly among divided things, so that He is both present by act and absent by nature to each individual creature and everywhere present and absent at the same time. This is the fundamental mystery of the presence of God to His creatures and shows that universals do not exist in God and are, therefore, not part of the state of illumination as in the Augustinian tradition. God himself is both heaven and hell, reward and punishment. All men have been created to see God unceasingly in His uncreated glory. Whether God will be for each man heaven or hell, reward or punishment, depends on man's response to God's love and on man's transformation from the state of selfish and self-centered love, to Godlike love which does not seek its own ends. One can see how the Frankish understanding of heaven and hell poetically described by Dante, John Milton, and James Joyce are so foreign to the Orthodox tradition".LoveMonkey 13:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

LoveMonkey, it was you who added the Romanides quotations to the article, no doubt a violation of copyright. Do you agree then that it should be deleted? Esoglou (talk) 13:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

So Esoglou takes a source and its passage that was used as a source in the article and not in the body of the article and takes source and posts them into the body of the article and then says that because he is committing copyright infringement that the source should be removed entirely from the article. LoveMonkey 14:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

If it makes a difference where the copy is placed, in the body or as a footnote, it may indeed be acceptable to put the copy as a footnote and have a summary - but an accurate summary - in the body. Shall we consult? Esoglou (talk) 14:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

If Esoglou already understands this then why he did not only misrepresent my point but only now try to do what is appropriate according to Wikipedia posting policies? How is it the Esoglou can add this entire passage..

• God loves with the same love, both the saint and the devil. To teach otherwise, as Augustine and the Franks did, would be adequate proof that they did not have the slightest idea of what glorification was. God multiplies and divides himself in His uncreated energies undividedly among divided things, so that He is both present by act and absent by nature to each individual creature and everywhere present and absent at the same time. This is the fundamental mystery of the presence of God to His creatures and shows that universals do not exist in God and are, therefore, not part of the state of illumination as in the Augustinian tradition. God himself is both heaven and hell, reward and punishment. All men have been created to see God unceasingly in His uncreated glory. Whether God will be for each man heaven or hell, reward or punishment, depends on man's response to God's love and on man's transformation from the state of selfish and self-centered love, to Godlike love which does not seek its own ends. One can see how the Frankish understanding of heaven and hell poetically described by Dante, John Milton, and James Joyce are so foreign to the Orthodox tradition"

And then comment it was me as an editor who did that?

• :LoveMonkey, it was you who added the Romanides quotations to the article, no doubt a violation of copyright. [8]

How is that engaging in good faith editing for Esoglou? How does Esoglou's behavior with other editors trying to contribute recently to this article and Esoglou reverting, rewriting their contributions and bureaucratizing away their concerns good for this project? [9], [10] At what point is this considered disruptive? LoveMonkey 15:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, it was you, wasn't it, who added all that Romanides material in the footnotes? If I was wrong in thinking that moving the material in the body from footnotes to body was legitimate - something we can consult about - I apologize for my mistake. Esoglou (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

You apologize while blaming it on me? LoveMonkey 16:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Speculation and original research

This section is speculation created by Esoglou and is original research as not a single source provided by Esoglou mentions either John Romanides and his theology nor Eastern Orthodox theology in general.

2.Both John Milton and James Joyce rejected Roman Catholic teaching, and even Dante has been seen by some writers, including Joyce, as anti-Catholic. Contrary to what Romanides said, it is Roman Catholic teaching that God loves all, even those who choose against him, such as the devil. And again, the understanding of the problem of universals that prevails in the West is that of Aristotelian realism, which understands universals as existing only in the things that instance them, not in God. LoveMonkey 13:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no need for this material to mention either Romanides or LoveMonkey. It is well-sourced material about Milton, Joyce and Catholic teaching and can remain, even when and if the copyright-violating quotation of Romanides is removed. However, in that case I would willingly remove part of it. Esoglou (talk) 13:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

So well known and sourced that you did not actually provide a source for the sentence here in the article? Really show me a source that mentions John Romanides and the sentence you posted. You see if this is also common then why is Esoglou posting comments in an encyclopedia article like this one below?????????????

• Contrary to what Romanides said, it is Roman Catholic teaching that God loves all, even those who choose against him, such as the devil. [11]

Tell me what source you have for this comment? What Roman Catholic theologian made this statement? What source(s) make this statement? Since when is this type of comment appropriate for an Wikipedia article? LoveMonkey 14:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I am glad to have removed "Contrary to what Romanides said," leaving only: "It is Roman Catholic teaching ...", even before you made this complaint about it. Esoglou (talk) 15:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

When is the last time I got accused of posting Original Research, POV pushing? Edit warring? But this is very common behavior for Esoglou. Some how being disruptive and doing inappropriate edits is ok? I would have liked to see what editor User:Timothy.lucas.jaeger had to contribute but Esoglou ran him off from an article that is not a Roman Catholic article to begin with. LoveMonkey 15:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know when was the last time. As for your comment on me, it is good behaviour to comment on edits, not editors. Esoglou (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes typical Esoglou accusing me of.

• LoveMonkey, it was you who added the Romanides quotations to the article, no doubt a violation of copyright. Esoglou (talk) 13:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

And then tell me to do the opposite. LoveMonkey 16:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Stop creating refutations

Why can Esoglou not stop creating his own refutation to John Romanides and use at least Roman Catholic theologians?

3. And again, the understanding of the problem of universals that prevails in the West is that of Aristotelian realism, which understands universals as existing only in the things that instance them, not in God.

[12] LoveMonkey 13:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no need for this material to mention either Romanides or LoveMonkey. It is well-sourced material about Western ideas about the problems of universals and can remain, even when and if the copyright-violating quotation of Romanides is removed. However, in that case I would willingly remove it. Esoglou (talk) 13:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

So well known and sourced that you did not actually provide a source for the sentence here in the article? Really show me a source that mentions John Romanides and the sentence you posted. You see if this is also common then why is Esoglou posting comments in an encyclopedia article like this one below?????????????

• Contrary to what Romanides said, it is Roman Catholic teaching that God loves all, even those who choose against him, such as the devil. [13]

Tell me what source you have for this comment? What Roman Catholic theologian made this statement? What source(s) make this statement? Since when is this type of comment appropriate for an Wikipedia article? LoveMonkey 14:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I have already responded to this question of yours, given identically above. Esoglou (talk) 15:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

References

Why is an article about a Greek Orthodox theological subject being dominated by an Roman Catholic editor?

• Why is Esoglou making very disproportionate (at best) Roman Catholic additions to this article?
• Why is an article about a Greek philosophy and a Greek Orthodox concept (as it is used exclusively in the present) being dominated by the editor Esoglou?
• Why are there recent, very long additions about people like Augustine whom in their writing never used the word (because Augustine could not speak nor read Greek). Being added to an article about the very essential difference between Roman Catholic and Orthodox theologies as specifically noted by scholars of Greek Orthodox theology? [14]
• Why is Esoglou engaging in rewriting this article to say a concept that is almost exclusive spoken of in Greek?
• Why do edits that elongate, obfuscate and confuse this topic about a theological concept so important to Greek Orthodox Theology that is mentioned by Greek Orthodox theologians in that way.[15]
• Why is the actual text for the Roman Catholic church now equal to or more that the Eastern Orthodox? Even though the concept is not spoken of by the RC church per se? Not noted to have prominence within Roman Catholic theology as theoria?
• Why or what evidence is there to believe (outside of what anecdotal evidence Esoglou added) that theoria is now somehow something so Roman catholicity, embraces in the same way the Eastern Orthodox do? (Which it does not.)
• Why is Esoglou using this concept's article to ATTACK Greek theologians (John Romanides)?
• Why is it Esoglou could not make his edits to the article Contemplation instead? Since he uses the excuse that the term Contemplation is the same as theoria even though that is so vague as to miss the entire point of why Greek Orthodox theologians such as John S Romanides and Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos use the term theoria instead of contemplation.
• Why is it that it appears that Esoglou's edits confuse and mislead the whole point of the article and I can not find any Roman Catholic sources let alone encyclopedia and scholarly sources that treat this subject the way Esoglou has rewritten the article?
• Why would it not seem that it is in Esoglou's best interests as a POV pusher to discredit this theological subject because it contradicts his narrative that there is no fundamental difference between the Eastern Orthodox church and the Roman Catholic church.
• Why is it as the article is the specific difference it not to be believed that Esoglou is not POV pushing after he wrote this sentence in the article TODAY..

• Contrary to what Romanides said, it is Roman Catholic teaching that God loves all, even those who choose against him, such as the devil. [16]

• Why is it not in Esoglou's POV interest to either make the article incoherent, discredit the Orthodox theologians in the article or poison the well and have the article deleted wholesale?
• Why (if anyone spends the time to read what has been said on this article talkpage) is it is not clear that Esoglou's behavior has been an attempt to tried all of these things and Esoglou is right now actively ruining the article and running contributors off of the article as his recent reverting and rewriting of the contributions made by User:Timothy.lucas.jaeger show.
• Why does the article not reflection how this concept is being used and presented by Greek theologians but is now peppered with Esoglou's anecdotal original research? His speculation, opinions and interpretations?
• Why is Esoglou behavior being allowed, for Esoglou to do this to various wikipedia articles without even once being banned for an hour let alone 24 hours? LoveMonkey 17:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

---

This article is not uniquely "about a Greek Orthodox theological subject". Neither Plato nor Aristotle were Greek Orthodox theologians, yet they wrote (in Greek) on theoria, which means contemplation. Roman Catholics too, when writing about contemplation, sometimes use the Greek word theoria although, when writing in English, they more often use the English word. All this is amply explained and sourced in the article. As for the phrase "contrary to what Romanides said", I removed this before LoveMonkey explicitly complained about it. That is enough to show that I would surely have done, if asked, what I even did unasked. There was no need for this drama. Esoglou (talk) 18:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Distortion. The term theoria not contemplation is used by Greek Orthodox theologians again the term contemplation which has it's own article is used by Roman Catholic theologians. The distinction (in a modern sense) is on purpose and has nothing to do with Plato. Esoglou is being completely inappropriate and dodging the truth of the matter which is that Esoglou can not post a single Roman Catholic theology article in English where the term theoria is used. I have already posted twice an article in english by a Greek Orthodox theologian using the Greek word in the English article.[17] Esoglou is showing that he is simply not informed enough or component enough to understand what is actually being said and or addressed. Esoglou keeps ignoring what is being said. LoveMonkey 18:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The following, which are all mentioned in the article, are more than "a single Roman Catholic theology article in English where the term theoria is used": Christopher A. Dustin, "The Liturgy of Theory" in Bruce T. Morrill et al. (editors), Practicing Catholic (Palgrave Macmillan 2005 ISBN 978-1-40398296-4), pp. 257-274; Thomas Bénatouïl, Mauro Bonazzi, Theoria, Praxis, and the Contemplative Life after Plato and Aristotle (Brill 2012 ISBN 978-9-00422532-9); Frans Jozef van Beeck, God Encountered: A Contemporary Catholic Systematic Theology (Liturgical Press 2001 ISBN 978-0-81465877-2); Josef Pieper, An Anthology (Ignatius Press 1989 ISBN 978-0-89870226-2), 43; Eugene Victor Walter, Placeways (UNC Press Books 1988 ISBN 978-0-80784200-3), p. 218; Thomas Hibbs, Aquinas, Ethics and Philosophy of Religion (Indiana University Press 2007 ISBN 978-0-25311676-5), pp. 8, 89; Steven Chase, Angelic Spirituality (Paulist Press 2002 ISBN 978-0-80913948-4), p. 63; John Cassian, The Conferences (English translation by Boniface Ramsey, Newman Press 1997 ISBN 978-0-80910484-0), p. 47 - he wrote in Latin, not Greek, but used the word theoria, immediately explaining it as meaning contemplation; and other books dealing with Antiochene exegesis. Esoglou (talk) 18:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Not one of these books speaks to seeing God (theoria) in the context of Orthodox theology, as the seeing of the uncreated light. Not one. At best they warm over the Greek philosophy use of the term making theoria as part of scholasticism and scholastic systematic theology. Not one of these sources is even Greek themselves. As such how does Augustine and the Roman Catholic use not equate to undue weight? LoveMonkey 22:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course they don't say anything "in the context of Orthodox theology, as the seeing of the uncreated light". That's not what they are talking about. They are talking about theoria. Plato and Aristotle likewise spoke of theoria, and can be said to be the first to do so in a technical sense, but they didn't say anything "in the context of Orthodox theology, as the seeing of the uncreated light". There is more to theoria than that. Esoglou (talk) 09:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course they don't say its the same thing theoria for the Greek church because they say it is contemplation like the article on contemplation has. Of course this is the point that has been pointed out to you over and over and over again. But your the one that came to this article and added all of the content that is appropriate for the contemplation article to this one because you don't like what the article originally said and you knew by piling on more data in the intro to the article and through out the article that you would cause confusion about the article's true essence and nature and that you could then obfuscate. All of these things you are doing are edit warring. As the previous editor has been pointing out to you and you have been obstructionism with them. 14:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)