Talk:Filioque

Not a Sentence

"As the Father is unique, as the Son is unique, as the Spirit is unique." This is not a sentence, but three clauses, with no subject or predicate. GeneCallahan (talk) 01:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for catching that and bringing it to our attention. There is an Orthodox editor who seems not to understand the idea that a well-formed sentence requires a subject and a predicate. He seems to get into a groove and write in a near "stream-of-consciousness" mode. I have gone after that section with a machete and hacked out stuff that is incoherent or otherwise poorly written. I'm sure there will be some ajidah about that. Many of the articles related to the Orthodox Church suffer from this problem and there aren't enough people policing those articles to find all of these issues, let alone correct them. BTW, next time, feel free to be bold and fix it yourself. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 02:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Again how "through the Son" is understood in the East is MIA

The Nicene Creed states....

who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man.

When the Eastern fathers are saying "through Christ" or "through the Son" they are referring to this teaching, passage from the actual creed. The West has this backwards. This is completely missing from this article. As most Greek Patristic quotations say "through", which is quite a different notion than "equally" "as from one principle". LoveMonkey (talk) 04:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the following books show the Eastern Orthodox understanding of the Spirit's procession from the Father though the Son as referring to the role of the Holy Spirit in the economy of salvation. "Orthodox theologians argue that Augustine and Western theologians have confused the inner being of the Trinity, or the “ontological Trinity,” and the work of the Persons of the Trinity for human salvation, or the “economic Trinity...Therefore, the term economic Trinity refers to the work of the Persons of the Holy Trinity for the salvation of humanity. Therefore, the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father, according to an ontological understanding of the Trinity, but is sent by the Son for human salvation when the Trinity is understood economically. For this reason, some Eastern Fathers, such as St. John of Damascus, wrote that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. However, St. John is very careful to state that the Father is the “cause” of both the Son and the Holy Spirit.", "In all the cases where there can be seen ' intimations' of a doctrine of double procession in the early Latins the immediate context was of the soteriological mission of the Spirit in the world, what the Orthodox would call the 'economy' of salvation. In Latin thinkers after Augustine, however, this began to change and the Filioque started, more and more, to be referred to the eternal relations of the Divine Trinity. In the context of 'economic' or soteriological discourse about God, the Orthodox too believe that it is perfectly correct to speak of the Son sending the Spirit, just as it is to speak of the Spirit 'driving the Son into the wilderness', but that context has to be distinguished from statements that concern the eternal intra-hypostatic life of God: theologia proper, not economia." Regarding, the western claim that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle, as also mentioned in an earlier discussion, Orthodox theologians have seen this as leading to a form of "Sabellianism" or modalism([1][2][3]). Cody7777777 (talk) 13:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

More editing warring behaviour

Why is Esoglou editing Eastern Orthodox material when he agreed not to?--Taiwan boi (talk) 01:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Theological inaccuracy

The section on Orthodox theology grounds the Orthodox rejection of the filioque partially on the idea that "the Father is the God of the Old Testament." That has nothing to do with the rejection of the filioque. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each fully God, without division, but the revelation of God in the Old Testament is, according to Orthodox theology, primarily a revelation of Christ, the Logos. If no one has any objection, I'll change it... OrthodoxLinguist (talk) 03:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)OrthodoxLinguist

Good spotting! It sounds like someone's written a straw-man into the article

Montalban (talk) 07:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Montalban, are you not rather too harsh in attributing such motives to LoveMonkey's edit? Esoglou (talk) 07:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

double standards?

On the Papal Supremacy article I was told that I could not use direct quotes from Early Church Fathers, because this was synthesis.

The whole section Views of Roman Catholic saints of East and West shows this, and in fact it is misleading in itself to say "Roman Catholic" saints of the east and west, because some many of these saints are also Orthodox saints. Montalban (talk) 09:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that to say "Roman Catholic saints" in the title is bad. If you can suggest a better title, I'd certainly be open to considering it. Are these "Church Fathers" or just "saints"? I haven't checked each quote to get a read on what the group represents.

As for "direct quotes from primary sources", the real problem is quoting a primary source and citing the work of the primary source in support of it. That is what is vulnerable to the criticism of original research and synthesis. A quick scan of the references numbered 20-39 shows a number of secondary sources such as McGuckin, Price, Bray, Schwartz. It might be preferable to mention the secondary source in the article text depending on the context of the quote and what the source is saying. For example, one might change the article text to say "According to McGuckin, Catholics argue for the Filioque by citing Church Father X's dictume '....'". Someone needs to go re-read the references and change the article text if such changes are called for. I unfortunately do not have access to the sources nor do I have the time to take on this task at the moment. If you have access to one or more of the sources, perhaps you could check the citations and determine if a change to the article text is called for.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

This selection of explicit (not interpreted) expressions of early-centuries belief that the Holy Spirit proceeds (procedere in Latin, προϊέναι in Greek, and whatever the verb is in Syriac) from the Father and the Son was inspired by the section Views of Eastern Orthodox saints. Same form of title as that objected to and now changed in the case of Roman Catholic saints. However, I am not asking for a return to the former heading. Esoglou (talk) 20:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick glance at pp. 170-171 of McGuckin (ref #20) indicates that there is a very good discussion of how the East and West came to differ on the Filioque. I would like to see more of that kind of treatment in this article. Time constraints, however, do not permit me to get more deeply involved at the moment. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's how the article is structured. Saint Hilary (c. 300 – c. 368) wrote: "Concerning the Holy Spirit I ought not to be silent, and yet I have no need to speak; still, for the sake of those who are in ignorance, I cannot refrain. There is no need to speak, because we are bound to confess Him, proceeding, as He does, from Father and Son."[21] He also said that the Holy Spirit "receives from both the Father and the Son".[22]

The quote [21] is not a secondary source. [22] is.

More later Montalban (talk) 05:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I have fixed quote [21] although by citing a very old source (1912!). I admit I was being lazy and used the first suitable source that came up via searching in Google Books. I imagine a more suitable source could be found if a bit more effort were employed. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 06:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thems that cite rules all the time have to live by those rules!

However, in the quote is the word "silent" I did a search on that google book and the word appears thrice. None of them at the page that you cite. Therefore I have to ask what is it that you think the quote is backing up?

[30] remains a primary source, so is [35]

[37] is a partisan source

[38] doesn't support the sentence it's supposed to (for e.g. it doesn't mention Leo at all)

[39] has no bearing on the filioque at all

[40] is not sufficiently referenced

Montalban (talk) 07:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

To me it seems downright silly not to accept the text of the writer as evidence that he wrote what he wrote, and to insist instead on having sources that say that he wrote what he wrote. I have added some such secondary sources for Hilary. It doesn't take all that long. Before I add similar secondary sources for others, I think it best to see if other editors insist on their demands. Esoglou (talk) 07:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It is indeed a fine line between silliness and NPOV exactitude. It may indeed be silly to require a secondary source to support the assertion that Hilary wrote "x". Where we really need a secondary source is if we assert that by writing "x", Hilary was supporting the use of the Filioque. If Hilary did not specifically reference the Filioque in his writing (highly unlikely considering that he lived in the 4th century), then we must not quote his writing in support of the Filioque. Instead, we must cite a secondary source that asserts that Hilary's writing can be used to support the use of the Filioque. I confess that a second look at Swete shows no obvious evidence that Swete is talking about the Filioque in discussing Hilary. I suspect that McGuckin is the better source in this regard.

Montalban is right. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If Wikipedia editors are not allowed to create syllogisms of original research in support of Orthodox positions, then neither are they to be allowed to do so in support of Catholic positions. Let's find the secondary sources that make these arguments. The article will be all the better for us doing the homework to support our text.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 08:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Esoglou below)

So, for example, if we do a Google Books search on "Hilary Filioque", we find this source as the first search result. "Hilary of Poitiers, the “Athanasius of the West,” is often listed, along with Augustine of Hippo, as the chief patristic source for the Latin teaching on the filioque." (Anthony Edward Siecienski - 2010). Now, we have a reliable source that links Hilary to the Filioque rather than having to rely on some anonymous Wikipedia editor whose credentials we cannot easily establish, verify or evaluate. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 09:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Hilary was not supporting (or opposing) the Filioque. The Filioque had not yet been included in the Nicene Creed. The Nicene Creed itself had not been written. But Hilary said the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. That is what Hilary is being cited for. Nothing more. You don't need a secondary source to prove Hilary said the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. He did, and so did many others, before anyone ever denied it. Esoglou (talk) 08:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know that Hilary could not have been talking specifically about the Filioque; that's what I meant by the "highly unlikely..." comment. That makes it difficult for us to cite Hilary as a primary source because we are constructing a syllogism that says that what Hilary said should be construed as an argument in favor of the Filioque. (seems obvious but it is still a leap of original research). It is much better to report what Anthony Edward Siecienski said and be impervious to charges of original research. We are not linking Hilary to the Filioque, Siecienski is the one making the linkage. If anyone wants to argue that Hilary should not be linked to the Filioque, let them provide a secondary source that explicitly says there is no such linkage.

Wikipedia editors should not argue about interpretation of primary sources. That is original research. I admit that this particular case is not a particularly good one to be getting bogged down in primary vs. secondary sources because it seems obvious that what Hilary wrote supports the Filioque. However, Montalban is right. It's better to apply the rules uniformly than to make exceptions just because we're too lazy to go find a good secondary source. And, as I showed with Siecienski, it's sometimes quite easy to find a suitable secondary source.

It's quite late here. I'm going to bed. Good night. Happy editing.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 09:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It's funny that these laws being applied here are silly, but synthesis when concerning others elsewhere. I don't know about Hilary 'not supporting the filioque' - I guess this is another case of not reading what I wrote??? Montalban (talk) 09:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

@Montalban, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that you specifically were arguing that Hilary didn't support (or, more precisely, wouldn't have supported) the filioque. What I meant was a much more general comment about the value of using a secondary source over a primary source. In using a secondary source, we are better able to deflect charges of cherry-picking and interpretation. If we just quote Hilary, all sorts of questions could be raised about how important Hilary was overall, how important his writings on the Holy Spirit were, did he mean to support the word "proceeds" to the point of including it in the Nicene Creed and so on and so forth. Esoglou says below that citing Hilary provides "important background information that from an early date in both east and west Fathers of the Church wrote that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son" and nothing else. Actually, Siecienski goes further and identifies Hilary as "the chief patristic source(s) for the Latin teaching on the filioque". This really helps to lock down the value of citing Hilary and deflects charges that the Wikipedia editor is making invalid judgments about Hilary's importance to the article topic. Of course, one might try to challenge Siecienski's assessment by providing quotations from other sources but surely you can see that the debate has shifted away from the total unreliablity of a Wikipedia editor (Esoglou in this case) to the at least arguably reliable Siecienski. As stated below, a more reliable source such as Schaff, McGuckin or Bokenkotter would be preferable but we must make do with what we have for the time being. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The article is making no syllogism leading elsewhere from the fact that Hilary and the others said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. It merely gives the surely highly important background information that from an early date in both east and west Fathers of the Church wrote that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son. It draws no conclusion from this fact.

As you know, Maximus the Confessor wrote that the Romans, who said the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, were able to cite statements by the Latin Fathers (who were unanimous on the matter) and by Cyril of Alexandria. (Is Maximus a secondary source for these?) In a way, the only thing that the other citations in the article add to what Maximus said is to show that belief that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son was also expressed by Greek-speakers other than Cyril and by a Syriac-speaker.

You say: "Wikipedia editors should not argue about interpretation of primary sources." Of course. So don't put in any interpretation of what these Fathers of the Church explicitly state. Just accept that they say what they say and no more. What Wikipedia does not allow is interpreting them in some particular way, or arguing that this or that is what they mean, or that something else is implied in what they say, synthesizing what they say so as to draw some conclusion from them, "constructing a syllogism" upon them.

It is true that many sources show that these statements by the Fathers are in fact used in support of the Filioque. What Montalban calls "quote mines" are egregious examples. I won't oppose your inserting that argument somewhere in the article, but I will not support it. If that is what you want, why not put it in just generically, without then having to apply it individually to each quotation of a Church Father?

Esoglou (talk) 12:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I would certainly prefer to have a broad, sweeping statement that applied to a group of fathers if such an assertion could be found. Is there a source that says all the Western fathers wrote in a way such that they could be assumed to be supportive of the Filioque? Is the phrase "Western fathers" well-defined? What can be said about the "Eastern fathers"? That their writings are such that they must be interpreted so as being unanimously opposed to the Filioque? These are not rhetorical questions for me. I ask these questions in all sincerity. I don't know the answers although I suspect that the Western fathers are unanimously in favor and the early Eastern fathers are less clear on the subject. There are also fathers who are probably less clearly "West" or "East". But I am truly writing as a learner in this field so please forgive any errors caused by my abject ignorance. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

There are sources that explicitly state that the Western fathers were unanimous in believing that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (if that's what you mean by "being supportive of the Filioque". Maximus the Confessor's statement is already in the article: "They [the Romans] have produced the unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers". Another source says: "In the Fourth Century and even before, belief in the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son (ex Patre Filioque—ab utroque) was held unanimously in the West." Another speaks of "the unanimity of the Western Church in receiving" the doctrine. I presume that is enough. The fact that some Eastern Fathers (Epiphanius, Ephrem, Cyril) spoke of the Holy Spirit as proceeding from the Father and the Son is surely enough to show that one cannot claim that "their writings are such that they must be interpreted so as being unanimously opposed to the Filioque". The Fathers who wrote in Latin are clearly Western Fathers. Some few of the earliest Western (living in the West) Fathers wrote in Greek, If anyone wants to classify them as Easterners, it makes no difference, since they are not cited here. Esoglou (talk) 20:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

If after having slept on it you still think secondary sources must be cited that say that each of these writers wrote what he wrote, I will undertake to add them in spite of my inability to see the logic of the demand. Esoglou (talk) 12:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think secondary sources must be cited everywhere. I just think that they should be cited in as many places as possible. Note that I haven't gone on a rampage deleting poorly sourced material.

My view is that there is a lot of unsourced or poorly sourced material in Wikipedia. If we deleted everything that was unsourced or poorly sourced, Wikipedia would shrink by 90% overnight. The trigger is when someone calls an assertion into question. If someone raises an objection to an assertion, then more and better sources should provided. Presenting what Hilary says about the Father and the Son leads the reader to a conclusion whether we state it explicitly or not. It is much better if we can provide proof that this conclusion has been reached by at least one reliable source and that important people have relied on this conclusion. This last assertion is made by Anthony Edward Siecienski. I could not have asked for a better quote than to find a source that says that "Hilary is often listed as (one of) the chief patristic source(s) for the Latin teaching on the filioque". Now, Siecienski himself is not the best of sources being a professor at Richard J Stockton College of New Jersey (Where's that, you ask? My point, exactly.) I should prefer McGuckin, Schaff or Bokenkotter but I am so far from familiar enough with any of those to know if such an assertion exists in their writings. So, for now, Siecienski will have to do until someone finds a better source. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The heading of the section is "Church fathers who wrote of procession from Father and Son". The already well-sourced information it contains is about Church Fathers who did write of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son. I don't see why anyone should draw any conclusion from it other than that belief in the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son existed among some Christians in their time. I don't see how anyone can think it can possibly mean what, you tell me, Siecienski says: that Hilary (or any other of those mentioned) is often listed, along with Augustine of Hippo, as the chief patristic source for the Latin teaching on the Filioque. (Not even by looking up mirror sites have I been able to get a glimpse of Siecienski's work on Google Books.) Siecinski's statement would fit in the "Roman Catholicism" section, where there already is the statement that belief that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son "was held in the West at an early stage". It would not fit in a section about some Fathers, Eastern as well as Western, who, obviously, cannot all be said to be listed as the chief patristic source for the Latin teaching.

Apologies for a rushed comment I made this morning as I was about to go out. I must have been thinking of Irenaeus, when I mistakenly spoke of Hilary as extremely early. Esoglou (talk) 20:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

incomplete citations

At time of writing two new sources [24] and [25] have appeared. [24] is an incomplete reference. [25] is a debatable site, and is simply a quote-mine. Montalban (talk) 09:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Facts

An editor wrote earlier The article is making no syllogism leading elsewhere from the fact that Hilary and the others said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. It merely gives the surely highly important background information that from an early date in both east and west Fathers of the Church wrote that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son. It draws no conclusion from this fact.

The filioque is not simply that the Holy Spirit comes from both the Father and the Son, becauase the Orthodox belief of from the Father THROUGH the Son is encompassed by that statement. The RCC believes in the double procession with the Son also being the cause of the Holy Spirit. This is not supported in listing Church Fathers who say that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father and the Son. It would be misleading to the reader not aware of this distinction. Montalban (talk) 21:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The statement of Orthodox belief, "from the Father through the Son", is encompassed in the statement "from the Father and the Son", and so "from the Father and the Son" is, after all, acceptable, provided it is not interpreted as meaning that the Son also (apart from the Father) is the cause of the Holy Spirit? Have we here on Wikipedia solved the centuries-old dispute? Too good to be true. 22:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• sigh* The belief that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father as the first cause and then THROUGH the Son is part of Orthodox belief. Catholic teaching however is that the Holy Spirit emanates FROM the Son as a first cause.

If only some could be prevented from editing on a subject that they know nothing about! Montalban (talk) 02:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The Son is NOT THE CAUSE of the Holy Spitit in Orthodox theology. Saying he comes from the Father and the Son does not necessarily have the meaning of coming from the Son as the first cause but only from the Son, as through him. This isn't rocket science!

The saying the Holy Spirit comes from the Father and the Son does not denote the Son as cause, therefore it is acceptable. This is why I protested because it could be used to support either the Catholic or Orthodox positions. It does not have enough detail to lend itself to either. HOWEVER the use of it in the article is such as that it's seen to support the Catholic position when some of the quotes do not say that the Son is the Cause.

Montalban (talk) 02:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

So, Montalban, according to you, "the saying the Holy Spirit comes from the Father and the Son ... is acceptable". Marvellous. So there is no Eastern Orthodox objection to the phrase "the Holy Spirit comes from the Father and the Son" (in Latin, "Spiritus Sanctus a Patre Filioque procedit") in itself, but only to (mis)interpretations of it. I make no observations myself on the idea that, after all, Mark of Ephesus should have accepted the phrase with the necessary distinction, and that, after all, there is something to be said for the view of "the Latin partizan" Bessarion and the other "real apostates of orthodoxy" (see here) who saw "from the Father and the Son" as acceptable. But I do think that you should insert your discovery into the article, citing the sources that support it. Esoglou (talk) 11:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Esoglou when you respond to what I write, and not what you'd like to read, I'll get back to you.

Montalban (talk) 11:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

It is regrettable that LoveMonkey does not agree with you: I see he has recently inserted a declaration: "Concerning the Holy Spirit, it is said not that he has existence from the Son or through the Son" - excluding not only "from the Father and the Son", but even "through the Son". In that view, both expressions that the Roman Catholic Church accepts, "and the Son" and "through the Son", are banned. It would be so much a happier situation if, as you said, the Eastern Orthodox Church also accepted both of them. Esoglou (talk) 15:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

From the Father and the Son

One editor earlier said…

The heading of the section is "Church fathers who wrote of procession from Father and Son". The already well-sourced information it contains is about Church Fathers who did write of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son. I don't see why anyone should draw any conclusion from it other than that belief in the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son existed among some Christians in their time

I'll try this one more time. No one questions that the ECFs believed that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father and the Son. However what is in dispute is what this term itself means.

From the Father and the Son could mean either

From the Father and through the Son – Orthodox belief, or;

From the Father and from the Son as so-partners and equal co-cause – Catholic belief (double procession).

To use the sayings of the Church Fathers in support of Catholic teaching is misleading.

To simply say "They believed this..." is therefore also meaningless. It is meaningless because as it stands it could mean support for either case. Montalban (talk) 02:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

But since this is the core of the dispute, both the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox views should be presented and (IMO) they should be presented side-by-side (with appropriate citations to reliable sources, of course!) --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 05:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease! They're not presented as the views of both church, but as proof of the filioque insofar as it's been accepted by ECFs since before even the filioque was thought of Montalban (talk) 05:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Montalban below)

I think you misunderstood me and, in re-reading what each of us wrote, I can see why you missed what I was tryin to say. What I meant is that the "core of the dispute" is whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and through the Son (Orthodox stance) vs. proceeding from the Father and the son (so-called "double procession" - Catholic stance). This point needs to be made early in the article and then just about everything in the article should be tied to this. You may think it is "misleading" to "use the sayings of the Church Fathers in support of Catholic teaching". Anthony Edward Siecienski doesn't think so. In his book "The filioque: history of a doctrinal controversy", he discusses what a number of ECFs wrote on the topic. As is to be expected, only part of the book is available via Google Books. (I have seen enough of the book that I am considering acquiring it for my personal library. I do not have many books on theology in my library but this one seems worth having. )Just because you think the Catholics are wrong in using the ECFs to support their teaching doesn't mean that they are totally unjustified in doing so. Once again, it is not up to Wikipedia to decide who is right and who is wrong. Even if the Catholics are wrong in citing the ECFs to support the Filioque, Wikipedia must mention that they do this. If the Orthodox think that the Catholics are wrong to do this, then Wikipedia must also mention the Orthodox criticism of the Catholics. All that is required is to find the appropriate secondary sources to back up our text.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 06:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

IF you want to preface the section to say that the statements of the ECFs cited do not support the filioque (necessarily) but can support either view, then you'd have a fair article. It's why (surprise! surprise!) writers find that the statements of these people (and popes) was not opposed in the east! Montalban (talk) 05:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I have inserted a sourced statement that asserts that Catholics use the writings of Hilary and Augustine to support the use of the filioque. I plan eventually to look for support in Siecienski's book for each of the fathers currently quoted (or, conversely, I plan to replace what is currently in the article with summaries of Siecienski's discussion of what the fathers wrote). If you wish to add to the section preface some text that summarizes what you wrote immediately above, I am OK with that as long as it is sourced.

The reason that Esoglou keeps getting into tussles with Orthodox editors is that he insists on using primary sources to argue the Catholic side. It is not Wikipedia's job to argue either the Catholic or the Orthodox side. It is Wikipedia's job to describe the Catholic side and the Orthodox side. I have not read enough of Siecienski to tell how objective and unbiased he is. If he is fairly objective and unbiased, then he should serve as a better source than the collection of primary sources that we currently have in the article. Take a look at the link provided in the reference and read a few pages. Then let me know what you think.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 06:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

PseudoRichard you've misunderstood what I wrote. I have nowhere said that Catholics are wrong to use ECF teaching. I'm saying the article is wrong because it suggests that the ECF support the Catholic position ONLY. I'm saying that those ECFs can be used by either side to support either side. However the article doesn't suggest this at all.

As I noted above:

From the Father and the Son could mean either

From the Father and through the Son – Orthodox belief, or;

From the Father and from the Son as so-partners and equal co-cause – Catholic belief (double procession).

Those ECFs saying "From the Father and the Son" could be used to support either side.

I agree with you where you say Once again, it is not up to Wikipedia to decide who is right and who is wrong. However you've missed my point. As it stands the article suggests only that the ECFs support the Catholic position AND THAT IS WRONG (to suggest this).

I'll try this another way.

I am not suggesting that Orthodox is right on this, nor am I suggesting that Catholicism is wrong. However the evidence as it is presented is misleading because although BOTH SIDES could use the same evidence, only one side here is using it to promote their one side.

The use of evidence that could support either stand, but used only to support one side IS WRONG. It is promoting only one side.

It is why I suggested that the evidence should be prefaced that the ECFs saying that the HS comes from the Father and the Son does not support either stance EXCLUSIVELY, or rather that their sayings can be used to support both stances Montalban (talk) 10:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Montalban, I am sorry that we continue to "talk past each other". I have understood your point since the first time you made it. The section in question is not currently in a "Catholic" section and so is quite amenable to the expansion that you suggest to the preface. The only reason that I have restricted the preface to the Catholic use of the ECFs is because that is the quote that I have available to me at the moment. I need to read more of Siecienski to see what he says about the Orthodox use of the ECFs. However, the support for your proposed assertion need not come from Siecienski. It could come from Schaff, Meyendorff, Romanides, Lossky or Bishop Kallistos (Ware). I don't think Esoglou would dispute that the Orthodox read these quotes from the ECFs differently wrt the procession of the Holy Spirit. What would really help is if each of us would go find secondary sources that describe how each side interprets scripture, the ECFs and later theologians. What I notice in Siecienski and Schaff is the use of a historical narrative to explain the development of thought about the procession of the Holy Spirit. This article does not provide enough of a historical approach because it is canted too much towards a Catholic vs. Orthodox conflict rather than towards documenting the ways that theologies about the procession of the Holy Spirit have evolved over time. I don't claim to understand all (or even much) of this. What I can tell is that structuring the article (Catholic vs. Orthodox) is leading towards a polarized understanding of the issue rather than an integrated one. I should like to move towards a more historical outline rather than keeping a "us vs. them" structure. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Ugh... I think I may have confused the structure of Primacy of the Roman Pontiff with the structure of this article thus calling into question some of what I wrote immediately above. I just took a look at the entire article and noticed that there already is a "Historical Overview" section and that the current section in question is outside the "Historical Overview" section. While I am removing my foot from my mouth, I will contemplate how to resolve the issues we are discussing in light of the "Historical Overview" section. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Richard, do you think Montalban is right in saying that Eastern Orthodox accept that, in the phrase "the Holy Spirit comes from the Father and the Son", the words "from the Father and the Son" (what he calls "this term", and which in Latin is "ex Patre Filioque") can mean, as he says, "from the Father and through the Son", as some have understand the Council of Florence to have equivalently (though not expressly) said? I have suggested that he put this claim into the article, supported by the necessary citations. As you know, I don't want to make any edits myself about Eastern Orthodox beliefs. But I am convinced that what he calls Orthodox belief, that the Holy Spirit proceeds "from the Father and through the Son" (emphasis added) is not Eastern Orthodox belief. I think it would be rejected also by the Roman Catholic Church, since it suggests that the Father and the Son are two distinct principles in the procession of the Holy Spirit, which is contrary to Catholic belief. What the Roman Catholic Church does hold, as shown for instance in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, is that the Holy Spirit proceeds "from the Father through the Son". Whether the Eastern Orthodox Church accepts even "from the Father through the Son" (without "and") in the intra-Trinitarian relationships of the Hypostases seems to be disputed. I think Schaff is not alone in saying that some Eastern Orthodox either reject the phrases outright as being too like "from the Father and the Son" or refer it only to the mission or sending of the Holy Spirit, the relationship of the Holy Spirit to Christians in time, to the exclusion of any reference to the eternal relationship within the Trinity. Indeed, I see now that LoveMonkey has [4] inserted into the article a denial of the acceptability of "through the Son".

I am disappointed that you still have the idea that I use primary sources to prove anything other than what they explicitly state or to suggest anything other than what they explicitly state. In view of how you understand as an argument for something or other the information given that Church Fathers spoke of the procession of the Holy Spirit and in view of your insertion of a link between Hilary and Latin theology with the declared intention of doing the same for the other Fathers cited (I am intrigued at the idea of how you intend to make the connection in the case of Ephrem and Epiphanius), I have myself added a link to Latin theology. If Montalban is right in saying that the Eastern Orthodox consider it acceptable to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds "from the Father and the Son", he or someone else should insert also that link to Eastern theology. However, even without a link or links to Western/Eastern theology, the information about the early use in both East and West of "and the Son" in relation to the procession of the Holy Spirit is undeniably relevant to an article on "and the Son" (Filioque). Esoglou (talk) 12:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Esoglou, even the use of primary sources to prove something they explicitly state can lead to issues if what they explicitly state forms part of a syllogism. It is admittedly a fine line and I would not want to say that primary sources should never be used but I think they should be used very carefully and, wherever possible, they should be accompanied with secondary sources that make the point that you wish to make rather than be presented "naked" as it were.

I wish you could see Siecienski's book via Google Books. Chapter 1 is titled "The Procession of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament". Chapter 2, the Greek Fathers. Chapter 3, the Latin Fathers. Chapter 4, Maximus the Confessor. Chapter 5. 7-11th centuries Chapter 6 11-13th centuries Chapter 7 Council of Lyons to Council of Ferrara-Florence and so on up to the 21st century.

In Chapters 2 and 3, Siecienski presents not just what various fathers say but discusses what they might have meant and what others have interpreted them to mean. I think a summary of his treatment would be preferable to the "naked" presentation that you and Montalban have been indulging in.

Now, I'm not suddenly arguing that Siecienski is the indisputable expert on the filioque. However, he qualifies as a reliable source by Wikipedia standards as does Schaff. Montalban and Esoglou do not qualify as reliable sources and so we need to stop working with what they (or I, for that matter) think and start working with what reliable sources such as Siecienski, Schaff et al. think.

We really need to stop presenting what we know (what novice Wikipedians do) and start presenting what reliable sources know (what Wikipedians are supposed to do).

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, I have not been proposing the evidence about what the Fathers said about the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son as evidence about anything else. I have not been saying that there views were right or wrong. I have not used the fact of what they said as a premise, major or minor, of any syllogism. If I did any of those things, it would not be permitted in Wikipedia to use them for those purposes. But as evidence of the views of any person (not about the persons themselves), no secondary source is as good as what the person himself wrote.

"Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals." "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says..." In what way have I supposedly violated these Wikipedia rules about reliable sources?

I presume you are not now going to rule out the Catechism of the Catholic Church as a reliable source for the teaching of the Catholic on the grounds that it is in itself the teaching of the Catholic Church. In the same way, you should not rule out what Ephrem the Syrian said as a reliable source for the views of Ephrem the Syrian.

Montalban was presenting primary sources as evidence that papal infallibility (in some wide sense of his choosing) was false. He was presenting them as evidence for a conclusion outside themselves. He was doing so sometimes by enunciating an argument for papal infallibility and then bringing evidence against that argument, not against papal infallibility in itself. In what way have I been using the views of Ephrem and the others as evidence for or against anything?

You, not I, seem to have wished to use the views of these Fathers of the Church as the basis for some argument (which I suppose you can, in a loose sense, call a syllogism). You were right to use instead another source, such as Siecienski, for that purpose: for the view that Hilary and Augustine were the two chief sources of Latin belief on the matter. As I already said, whether Ephrem can be used as the basis for an argument (by some reliable source, not by us) for some conclusion or other, or whether no such argument has been proposed or could be proposed by anybody, what a 4th-century Syrian such as Ephrem says about the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father "and the Son" is of itself of interest in an article on belief in the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father "and the Son". I myself don't see what conclusion can be drawn from Ephrem's expression, other than that this is the view of one 4th-century Syrian. I don't think he can be said to the basis for the belief either of the Latins (who must have known next to nothing about him) or of the Greeks (who took to a contrary view) or of the Syrians (who I think are not much troubled about the question).

I have not been presenting in the article "what I know".

I have nothing whatever against Siecienski and the like, and I would use them and do use them for statements of the kind that you have in mind, such as the conclusions that can be drawn from what a particular writer said and how influential his writings have been.

However, in spite of all that, I will, in view of your insistence, begin to add secondary sources that say that these writers did actually (surprise!) write what they did write. Not, I think, this evening, but I may find time tomorrow. Esoglou (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I have not time for a long response so I will say briefly that it would be best to use the writings of the ECFs as part of a general discussion of the history of the development of the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit as Schaff, Siecienski and no doubt others have written. If they are not discussed in that context, I don't understand why they are being quoted here at all. It seems as if you have a point you want to make but yet do not want to make explicitly in the article text. If you want to say that the phrase "from the Father and the Son" was used by the ECFs, then say so explicitly in the article text and leave the quotes for the footnotes. This and other articles have way too many quotes leading them to be quotefarms. Montalban will no doubt want to insert text to say that the Orthodox also use "from the Father and the Son" but with a different meaning. Let us seek secondary sources that discuss how the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox differ in their interpretation of this phrase. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I have of course no objection to discussion of whether these writings were part of the development of doctrine. It is easy to find sources that say the quoted Latin Church Fathers were part of the development of doctrine in the West. It would be much harder to find any that say that Ephrem, Epiphanius and Cyril were part of a development towards either of the two doctrines: "from the Father and the Son" and its variant "from the Father through the Son" on the one hand, and "from the Father alone" on the other: I doubt that they were well enough known (except perhaps for Cyril) in the area where the first doctrine that I mentioned developed, and it would be nonsense to say that they influenced development of the doctrine that contradicted them. So I cannot see how you are going to fit the non-Latin Church Fathers into the discussion that you envisage. Esoglou (talk) 20:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Montalban

Montalban inserted this comment in a text written by me, making the preceding part of my text appear to be his, since his was the signature that followed it:

-Pseudo-Richard it is in a Catholic section insofar as the article itself is about belief in the filioque - as Catholics believe it. As you choose not to re-write this, I will have to. As it stands the article is geared to support the Catholic viewpoint Montalban (talk) 04:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I have responded to this point in my comment in the longer section below titled "Catholic viewpoint". In brief, I don't think this article should be viewed as a "Catholic article" any more than the article on "Iconoclasm" should be viewed as a Catholic or an Orthodox article. It is an article about a Catholic doctrine but viewpoints from all religions should be included. (Besides, Protestants use the Nicene Creed also and AFAIK they include the filioque in it when they recite it.) --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Any objection to my editing a subsection not under an EOC heading?

Since there were objections from two editors (LM and T b), on the grounds that I was editing Eastern Orthodox material, to my editing the section on the New Testament (which was then immediately after, not part of, the section headed "Eastern Orthodoxy"), I think it is prudent to ask beforehand whether they have grounds for objecting to my editing the subsection that is now headed "Theodoret's statement against Cyril", a subsection of "Theological contention", not of "Eastern Orthodoxy". I see that that subsection one-sidedly plays down, ignores or perhaps even distorts Cyril's teaching. I think it would be best to avoid having an Administrator again ask them to justify their objections. Esoglou (talk) 20:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth I object. Based on past experience

Montalban (talk) 09:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

On what actionable grounds? Esoglou (talk) 09:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Based on past experience Montalban (talk) 10:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I concur, because it's a breach of the editing restriction 'Esoglou will not make article edits or talk page comments regarding Eastern Orthodox teaching or practice'. The name of the section is irrelevant; you were banned from making edits on this topic.--Taiwan boi (talk) 14:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Montalban's objection obviously wouldn't get him very far with any Administrator he appealed to. Esoglou (talk) 15:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

As for Taiwan boi's claim that Cyril of Alexandria, whom the Roman Catholic Church looks on as a Doctor of the Church (one of only 33), is to be considered a preserve of the Eastern Orthodox Church's teaching and practice, I can't see this strange claim gaining any more credit than did his previous equally curious claim that the New Testament is a preserve of the Eastern Orthodox Church's teaching and practice. Esoglou (talk) 15:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Although I suspect Esoglou is right in principle, I think arguing the point is a waste of time.

At my suggestion and with the agreement of all involved, the edit restriction was changed some time ago to allow Esoglou and LoveMonkey to discuss their proposed edits. The purpose in prohibiting them from editing text regarding the other religion's beliefs is to keep them from edit warring which has been a serious problem in the past. However, it was felt that constructive discussion would help the project rather than detract from it.

Regardless of whether or not Esoglou's proposed edit would violate the edit restriction, I would encourage him to just present the proposed edit here on the Talk Page so we can all review it and discuss any issues.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Richard. I was not and am not planning to argue the point. I would just like to see if any even vaguely reasonable case could be made against, instead of the silence that follows an Administrator's request for evidence. So I am awaiting the response of the editor who every now and again runs to an Administrator to make the usual complaint, often followed by the other, who presents himself as a neutral observer. The one who goes first is my counterpart in this matter and I am happy to think that I never had the slightest urge to complain when he edits information about pre-schism Church writers, as he has been doing even on this article, sometimes in conflict with what Montalban says. When I get around to writing a revision of the subsection on Theodoret and Cyril, I will then present it either in the article itself or, just perhaps, on the Talk page - although why on earth the views of Th. and C. should be considered to concern Eastern Orthodox teaching rather than Roman Catholic teaching is, I suppose, incomprehensible except to people who have a similar view even of the New Testament :-) Esoglou (talk) 20:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Catholic viewpoint

The section on the ECFs is, according to one editor not a 'Catholic' seciton. This despite the fact it lead with this statement

Anthony Edward Siecienski identifies Hilary of Poitiers, the “Athanasius of the West”, and Augustine of Hippo as "the chief patristic source(s) for the Latin teaching on the filioque."

The LATIN TEACHING ON THE FILIOQUE. NOT JUST a support for the phrase "Father and Son".

It's so obvious I wonder why one editor would deny it's there.

This Catholic article by stealth is not in accordance with Wiki policy. Montalban (talk) 04:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. All the sentence says is that the Latin teaching on the filioque is based primarily on Hilary and Augustine. Now, we know that the Orthodox feel that Augustine and Thomas Aquinas are "where the Catholic Church went wrong" so it's not surprising to find Augustine at the source of one of the major controversies between the Catholic and Orthodox churches. If you feel that this section is a "Catholic" section, then perhaps it is because the section is composed primarily of quotes which are used to support the filioque. If this section were expanded to include Orthodox interpretations of why these quotes do not necessarily support the filioque, then the section would become more NPOV. It will take some effort but the sentence doesn't need to be changed or removed. It's just that much more needs to be written (and eventually most of the quotes will need to be removed or pushed into the references). --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 06:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Yet, I agree with your sentence in that the Latin teaching is based on Hilary and Augustine, but that opening sentence does not convey that meaning in that it doesn't convey that these same evidences also support another viewpoint.

For a novice reading this they would only see that the filioque as taught by the Latins is based on these evidences NOT that these evidence can be interpreted in a totally different way.

You get it when you say If you feel that this section is a "Catholic" section, then perhaps it is because the section is composed primarily of quotes which are used to support the filioque. That is correct, the article is written so as to show that these evidences support the filioque. Not that they can be used to support any other position.

I will try this yet another way.

The article has evidences that can be used to point to both positions. However the article only says that these evidences point to one position... the Catholic (Latin) one. That is misleading. It says so expressly that the Latin position is backed by these evidences - yes, it is based on these evidences, but these evidences also can be used to back another position. Not saying that they point to another position shows that they only point to one position - the Catholic.

A reader of this article would not otherwise know that these evidences can and are used by another point of view. All they read is that the filioque is backed by these sources. Full stop. That is, they only read a Catholic POV.

Furthermore

I don't need to address the Orthodox viewpoint in the article. Only that the evidences can be used by either case - and I've done this. It is not my intent to establish a comprehensive understanding of the Orthodox view. Only that the same evidences can be used to point to another position. Montalban (talk) 09:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Montalban wrote: "The article has evidences that can be used to point to both positions. However the article only says that these evidences point to one position.“

Alright, already. Enough blah-de-blah. So fix it and be done with it. Why waste so much time arguing this point. No one is objecting to you fixing it.

As for the rest of your comment, you may not feel the need to "address the Orthodox viewpoint in the article" but WP:NPOV requires that the article do so. There is no such thing as a "Catholic" article. In fact, I am not convinced that it is always useful to have a "Catholic" section and an "Orthodox" section rather than having a single integrated discussion presenting both sides. There is a relevant essay at WP:CRITICISM.

If no one else feels like doing presenting the Orthodox view, then I will get around to it eventually. However, I am not well qualified to do so and thus you are leaving the task in the hands of someone less qualified to do so.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Heh... my apologies... I thought Montalban removed the assertion from Siecienski when, in fact, what happened was that Esoglou moved it to the end of the section. I apologize to Montalban for thinking ill of him although the fact remains that his text is unsourced and I urge him to find a secondary source to support the assertions made in his two sentence intro to the section. As for Esoglou's moving the Siecienski text to the end, I do not think this is an improvement and would seek to move it back to the beginning of the section

Both Montalban and Esoglou have been engaging in quotefarming and this does not lead to readable text. We should seek to summarize what the quotes say and then provide the quotes in the references if they are truly needed. Even then, we should only put quotes in the references when absolutely necessary. Excessive use of quotation in the references leads to unreadable references. We should only put quotes in the references when the reader is likely to say, "Really? I don't believe that. Prove it to me with a direct quote from the source" or if the source says something truly remarkable. Otherwise, it's just beating down the reader with quote after quote, most of which are not that important. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, once again. I just noticed that the quotes in the "Church Fathers" section have been pushed into the references and thus my soapboxing about "quotefarming" is no longer applicable. I assume that it was Esoglou who did this. Thank you. The article text is much improved now. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 00:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Richard, what makes you think that, in spite of LoveMonkey's prolonged work on this article, the Eastern Orthodox Church is not represented in it? It gives views of Photius, Mark of Ephesus, Romanides, Zizioulas, and the 2003 joint statement, which are more authoritative indications of the Orthodox view than any construction that you or, probably, any other Wikipedia editor could put together. Esoglou (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Esoglou, what I wrote was sloppy because it confused the existence or non-existence of the "Orthodox point-of-view" in the section titled "Church Fathers" with the existence of the "Orthodox point-of-view" in the article as a whole. Montalban was complaining that the section titled "Church Fathers" suggested that the writings of the ECFs clearly supported the Catholic view of the filioque and, by failing to mention the Orthodox view, implied that anyone reading the ECFs would readily conclude that the ECFs supported the filioque. I invited him to remedy the problem and he did so but with unsourced text which cannot stand in its current state. The task at hand is to go find sourced text that asserts that the ECFs are interpreted by both Catholics and Orthodox in a way that is consistent with their position on the filioque. This should not be hard. I imagine we should be able to find a suitable quote if we look at Schaff, Siecienski among others. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

From a Catholic web-site

"Several Church fathers argued that the meaning of the filioque clause was no different from the meaning of the succinct teaching, "Father through the Son."

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/FILIOQUE.HTM

I don't want to go into a quote -v- quote format. Although I could offer such... Tertullian I believe that the Spirit proceeds not otherwise than from the Father through the Son" (Against Praxeas 4:1 [A.D. 216]).

Basil The Great "Through the Son, who is one, he [the Holy Spirit] is joined to the Father, one who is one, and by himself completes the Blessed Trinity" (The Holy Spirit 18:45 [A.D. 375])

And so under the first head is shown what unholy views they hold about the Divine Trinity: they affirm that the person of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost is one and the same, as if the same God were named now Father, now Son, and now Holy Ghost: and as if He who begot were not one, He who was begotten, another, and He who proceeded from both, yet another; but an undivided unity must be understood, spoken of under three names, indeed, but not consisting of three persons. This species of blasphemy they borrowed from Sabellius, whose followers were rightly called Patripassians also: because if the Son is identical with the Father, the Son’s cross is the Father’s passion (patris-passio): and the Father took on Himself all that the Son took in the form of a slave, and in obedience to the Father. Which without doubt is contrary to the catholic faith, which acknowledges the Trinity of the Godhead to be of one essence (ὁμοούσιον) in such a way that it believes the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost indivisible without confusion, eternal without time, equal without difference: because it is not the same person but the same essence which fills the Unity in Trinity.

Leo the Great Letter XV. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.ii.iv.xv.html Montalban (talk) 03:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Since "some Eastern Orthodox insist that to equate 'through the Son' with 'from the Son' is a departure from the true faith" (Filioque), I think you should take care, Montalban, about quoting with approval the view that "several Church fathers argued that the meaning of the filioque clause was no different from the meaning of the succinct teaching, 'Father through the Son'". See also Catechism of the Catholic Church, 248. Esoglou (talk) 08:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

For the life of me I still don't know what your objection is. You keep writing this about the Orthodox as if it's a revelation, but then you keep repeating it again - like I've made some astounding admission when it's Orthodox teaching that I've written

Montalban (talk) 11:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

It is another Wikipedia editor, less active now than before, who, I fear, might object. I have no objection to Montalban's opinion that in this context there is really no contradiction between "and the Son" and "through the Son". Indeed, all the better, the more widely his view is shared. Esoglou (talk) 14:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

That's not what I said. I said that the term "and the Son" as used by the ECFs can be used for those who believe in the Latin idea, and also the Orthodox idea.

On another day I might suspect that my words are being deliberately misinterpreted.

Montalban (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Ontology is about being. The Nicene Creed is ontological. Again the example that Jesus Christ was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary, and was made man. Means that the Holy Spirit as the spirit of the Father is given voice through the Son, Jesus Christ. Neither the Spirit nor the Son have the primacy (source of origin of all existence) of the Father.

To defend the filioque means that the original theology has not been understood by way of experiencing it. And people are thinking and not speaking from having experience. True theology gives one experience it is not something that "seems to make sense" it is something that cause people to see the light. TWO VERY DIFFERENT THINGS and one is no truth at all but a lie that men tell one another that leads to perdition for all whom by it persecute from their belief in that lie.

This means the Jesus and the Holy Spirit are the hands of God (the Father) and neither comes before the other nor does God as his spirit does he stop animating or vivifying existence. God the Father has two hands himself as angel or man (the Christ) and himself as spirit. God is father the uncreated essence of the Father is manifest through his two hands -his Son and his Spirit. There is no linear sequence to the uncreated hypostases that manifest created existence (if there was we would then be speaking of modalism and or it's pagan origin which is called middle platonism and then neoplatonism).

Montalban is right and has been right as what quotes are given as a justification for something that is not in the bible (i.e. the filioque) these examples are about the ontological definitions of God as is being stated in the Creed. This shows that the West was not that in touch with what was actually being done in the churchs in the East that their beliefs came from. As there is a difference between economy(inter-relation) ontology (origin) and activity (energeia). These things can not and can not be defined on paper or from a class or school book. As one can not learn how to swim from reading about it in a book. Or as it is said in the East, one can not learn gnosis from gnosis. This issue is about the West claiming supramacy when they have absolutely ZERO justification for such a thing and are exploited saints whom came before the attempted enforcement of the filique and acceptance of the filioque as all the early heresy was "no big deal" to the heretics. BUT WHAT THEIR HERESIES DID WAS CUT OFF COMMUNICATION BETWEEN GOD AND MAN AND REPLACE THAT WITH PUFFED UP HUMAN KNOWLEDGE. LoveMonkey (talk) 01:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the quotes is that they are out of context of the thoughts of the ECF - that's why they can be used to prove a number of positions.

I showed in discussion herein that some ECF say specifically from the Father and THROUGH the Son… which can be termed from the Father and the Son in other quotes but does not mean the double procession as used in the West.

However I accept that the RCC have a position, even if flawed.

What's unacceptable is that their position was stated here, and then each Orthodox point gets another Catholic statement again to 'contextualise' (read; Add Catholic POV).

Montalban (talk) 04:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Mostly I have to say what appears to be getting implied, which is, what Montalban is calling 'contextualise' is really Esoglou WP:OR. I have been pointing out this very thing for years. LoveMonkey (talk) 05:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Catholic teaching

One editor partially quoted the RCC's catechism. He missed this part...

248 ...but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P17.HTM

It is this qualifier that makes the Catholic 'acceptance' of 'through the Son' misleading because the Catechism here notes that both the Father and the Son together are the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds, and this is the doctrine of the double procession which is foreign to Orthodox teaching.

Montalban (talk) 11:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Montalban, the sentence that you refer to says that "the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as 'the principle without principle', is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that, as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds" - the single principle of the one procession. Yes, that's the teaching. And the same CCC 248 says there is no incompatibility between saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son and saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son - except, of course, for someone who adds to the expressions an incompatibility-seeking rigidity. Esoglou (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

That's not what it's saying. It's saying that the Son, as the Father is a principle cause for the Holy Spirit! Check the lead in with the son. Montalban (talk) 21:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Let us each be content with our own interpretation and let the other be content with his. Esoglou (talk) 07:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The statement in the article...

The position that having the creed say "the Holy Spirit which proceeds from the Father and the Son", does not mean that the Holy Spirit now has two origins, is not the position the West took at the Council of Florence. Where the Roman Catholic side explicitly stated that the Holy Spirit has its cause of existence from the Father and the Son

(apart from being another Catholic apologetic inserted into an Orthodox section)

is a contradiction. It states that the HS does not have two origins, but then the cause of the HS is from both the Father and the Son.

Montalban (talk) 23:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Tag it and if the author doesn't reply in a reasonable time, remove it. (The syntax clearly indicates who the author was.) Esoglou (talk) 07:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Citation request

I had added the statement The writings of the Church fathers, announcing that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son do not necessarily lend their support to either the Catholic position or the Orthodox one. The statement that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son can be used to support either position; that the Spirit comes from the Father and through the Son, or from Father and Son as principle cause.

An editor asked for a citation.

I removed a citation request because Catholic editors have already provided the references such as Hilary of Poitiers where it has Siecienski notes ...

Further I noted elsewhere herein the Talk section of a few quotes of ECF that could support another position. Montalban (talk) 23:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Should you not copy the references given elsewhere to the place where they are needed? I think Richard's request for a reliable-source citation in support of the claim you make here on - as far as a reader can judge - on your own authority alone, something that you know is not allowed in Wikipedia. And while supplying the required citation, please also correct the evident spelling error. Esoglou (talk) 07:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying your reference of Siecienski is not reliable?

I suggest, yet again that you re-read what it is you're responding to! :-) Montalban (talk) 08:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

For others: The sentence appears in the article...

Anthony E. Siecienski asserts that it is important to recognize that "the New Testament does not explicitly address the procession of the Holy Spirit as later theology would understand the doctrine."

It is implicitly accepted by Catholic editors though they haven't given a citation (I've now added a citation). It says in effect what I said later on in my lead in to the Holy Fathers section, that the evidence can be used for more than one interpretation.

HOWEVER, given it's me that wrote this, it gets objections from the usual editors who seek citations, clarifications etc., of everything I write. SO although they accept this from Siecienski, they want a citation.

Strange indeed. Stranger still because in the text it has Tertulian doing exactly that. It's not questioned there either. Maybe because I didn't add it?

Montalban (talk) 08:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no access to Siecienski's book and so cannot help you. So it's up to you yourself to add whatever statement in the book it is that you think supports your claim that "The writings of the Church fathers, announcing that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son do not necessarily lend their support to either the Catholic position or the Orthodox one. The statement that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son can be used to support either position; that the Spirit comes from the Father and through the Son, or from Father and Son as principle sic cause." The quotation from Siecienski that you give here is about the New Testament, not about the writings of the Church Fathers. So Richard still has every right to request a citation for this two-sentence claim about the writings of the Church Fathers. Indeed, every Wikipedia editor has the duty to ensure that the contents of this encyclopedia correspond to what is found in published reliable sources, and so we all have not only a right but a duty to ensure that you indicate a published reliable source in support of your two-sentence claim about the writings of the Church Fathers. That means that it is my duty, as much as anybody else's to request you publicly to indicate such an inline source - it is no good saying on Talk, not in the article itself, that the two-sentence claim is stated on some unspecified page of Siecienski's book. Quote Siecienski's words about the writings of the Church Fathers or at least indicate the page, and I am confident that Richard then be good enough to enter the citation in the article on your behalf. Esoglou (talk) 19:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Esoglou wrote: "I am confident that Richard then be good enough to enter the citation in the article on your (Montalban's) behalf." Even more than that, it was I that expanded the Church Fathers section to include Siecienski's analysis of various church fathers to show which ones were considered more solidly interpretable as support for the filioque and which ones were less clearly so. My contributions in this regard were limited by the fact that not all of Siecienski's chapter on "The Latin Fathers" was included in the Google Books preview and his entire chapter on "The Greek Fathers" was excluded. I am on the verge of purchasing this book because I find it very readable and exactly on the topic of this important topic. I'm also considering purchasing Schaff's "Historical excursus". I'm tired of having to plead "lack of access to sources".

Anyway, back to the discussion before us, the problem as I see it is that one might read Siecienski and come to the conclusion that Montalban came to or one might come to a different conclusion (depending, in part, on whether one has a Catholic POV or an Orthodox one). In the beginning of his chapter on "The Latin Fathers", Siecienski never says exactly what Montalban wrote. If he even came close, I would have added that citation to Montalban's text already. But, as I said, I don't have all of the "Latin Fathers" chapter or any of the "Greek Fathers" chapter available to me so I don't know for sure that Siecienski doesn't say something along those lines.

Until I or someone else can read all of Siecienski's book, we have to seek another source for Montalban's assertion. Ideally, it would be someone like Siecienski, Schaff, or Bokenkotter. But, it would be OK to have an Orthodox author such as Meyendorff, Romanides, Lossky or Bishop Kallistos (Ware). It is NOT OK to leave the assertion uncited even if one can wave one's hand in the general direction of Siecienski and say, "Well, you know he more or less implies that across several pages of the chapter on the Latin fathers.

Just to give you an idea of Wikipedia's standards for referencing, I will share with you my experience from working on an article on Jud Süß (1940 film). This article has over 80 separate citations with multiple references to several of those citations resulting in about 100 references. It has been classified as a good article. However, in the next step towards featured article status, a peer reviewer commented that there were still "a number of uncited statements in the prose". In reviewing the handful of examples provided by the reviewer, I found that a couple were easily referenced, another was based on text copied from the German Wikipedia and it turned out the specific people mentioned in that text could not be supported by anything I could find via Google search and yet another one turned out to be a bit of dodgy original research based on my own impression of what I had read but that could not be supported by an actual quote from any of the sources after I reread the sources. Here is a link to the actual (preliminary but incomplete) peer review: [5]. Note that a peer review is a preparatory step prior to an article becoming a featured article candidate. During an actual featured article candidacy, an article would be subject to even closer scrutiny. Brian Boulton's comments constitute just a quick "here's what I found after taking a quick look at your article."

This article on the filioque is rated "B-class". One of the criteria in getting it to "good article" status is making sure the assertions are well-referenced. I know that Montalban thinks that the assertion he wrote is true and I myself suspect it probably is. However, being true is not sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia. Support from a reliable source is also required.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations, Richard, on the results of your hard work on the Jud Süß film, a model for me and for others. Esoglou (talk) 20:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I really would encourage you guys to respond to what I write. Most of what I write otherwise becomes me having to re-state what I said in another way for either the purposes of helping with comprehension, or because you've missed my point. I don't know which case has arisen here, but here is another one. Pseudo-Richard said One of the criteria in getting it to "good article" status is making sure the assertions are well-referenced. I know that Montalban thinks that the assertion he wrote is true and I myself suspect it probably is. However, being true is not sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia. Support from a reliable source is also required.

I already noted that my assertion here is simply a repeat of (although re-worded) the same assertion given elsewhere in the document and supported by Siecienski who notes that the quote he gives doesn't support the modern western interpretation

When I removed the citation request I even drew your attention to where he says it. I wrote…

I removed a citation request because Catholic editors have already provided the references such as Hilary of Poitiers where it has Siecienski notes ...

You're both asking for citations of something that is not contentious because it's already stated. The only reason I added the statement in is because it's relevant to that particular section, on Church Fathers.

I pointed out to Esoglou that he accepts this author (as he's offered no criticism of that author) Montalban (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

If you have "this author" who says what you have put in the article, just type into the article a citation to where "this author" says it. Citations are supposed to be in the article, not on the Talk page. Esoglou (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

It's in the article Esoglou. Read what I wrote.

If someone writes "ECFs support a number of things" [1] (has a reference) and then later says "The writings of the ECFs can support a number of things" you ask for it to be sourced again, simply because you want everything I say sourced. Montalban (talk) 23:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Catholic Apologetics

The whole article is rife with Catholic POV - once again another Wiki article has been edited into a Catholic apologetics site.

Not only is the Catholic cause cited earlier, but when Orthodox objections are entered, there is Catholic counter-argument to this... such as here...

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.[79][80] This being the very thing that Maximus the Confessor was stating in his work from the 7th century that would be wrong and that the West was not doing.[81][82][83] Montalban (talk) 23:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

An example of achieving balance by citing opposing interpretations: "When reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance". Use it on any other statements that you find contradicted by reputable sources. Esoglou (talk) 07:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I understand Esoglou that you want to balance every non-Catholic point with a Catholic one.

I understand that for you only an article featuring Catholic argument, or counter-argument in turn countered by further Catholic argument is balanced

Montalban (talk) 08:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia, I presume you know, is not for arguing. It is not a forum. It is for information available in reliable sources. So, as already said, if you think the information that one source contains is contradicted by that given in another, then add what that other source says, citing it. Esoglou (talk) 18:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually Esoglou, it's for more than that. Reliable sources is not itself sufficient, not the way you structure an article to read as Catholic POV. If one only offered one perspective on this article, it wouldn't matter how reliable your sources are, it would still be un-balanced. I suggest you have a look at this for the spirit of Wiki requires we work to have balanced articles. Not Catholic Q & A Montalban (talk) 21:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Citation doesn't support the position

Footnote 81 is placed there by an editor (whoever it was) who I think misses the point that the citation is making

The contention is that St Maximos' acceptance of the filioque was provisional and in no way like the RCC now maintains (which is what the citation states), it misses the point that the Franks introduced a different notion and that this is the one that the West accepted.

Rominades is in fact saying that – he's defending St Maximos NOT the filioque as the Latin church uses. Montalban (talk) 23:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Put a {{Failed verification|date = ...}} tag on it and, if the editor who inserted it does not defend it within a reasonable time, remove it. Esoglou (talk) 07:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Propose moving first three sections into "Historical Overview"

It seems to me that the "Historical Overview" should start with the "New Testament" section, followed by the "Earliest use" followed by "Church fathers". I would also propose that the entire "Historical Overview" be moved ahead of "Current positions" since the "current positions" are the endpoint of the historical development. However, since this is a radical restructuring, I figured I'd propose the change here first before making it. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support Esoglou (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

One needs to know that the evidence of some Church Fathers as presented can support either position. Montalban (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Added reference due to flippant requests

I've added a reference due to flippant requests for one from two editors. Anthony E. Siecienski is already in the article giving several statements to this effect.

At footnote 9 he makes a general appraisal of the differences between ECF evidences and what people use that for. At footnote 31 he gives a specific example. However when I said it in the lead in to the section two editors demanded that it be referenced yet again. They demanded a reliable source. I mentioned that they already accept this source.

Every time I am happy to oblige. Montalban (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I added one from Yves Congar too, about the interpretation of the evidences... I did this because apparently reading it in the article, attributed to Siecienski is not enough ?????

Montalban (talk) 23:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Congar is certainly a superior source to Siecienski. I have my doubts about the Congar quote since it doesn't quite provide the specific context in which he is making his remark but since the book title clearly indicates that he is talking about the Holy Spirit in general, I'm willing to assume good faith for now.

As for the Siecienski quote, the problem is that it is taken from the chapter on the "New Testament", not the chapter on the "Latin Fathers". If it had been as easy as that, I would have done it myself a long time ago. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the portion of the "Latin Fathers" chapter that is available via Google Books Preview that states what you wrote. Now, if I thought what you wrote was false, I would be hammering you harder on this point but since we can see that what you wrote is what Siecienski meant even though he didn't write it explicitly (at least not as far as we can tell without reading the rest of the book), it's OK to leave the text in there for now. I would be inclined to remove the reference though since it fails verification.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 05:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Misrepresenting the Catholic position

The Catholic position misrpresented (they believe in the double procession - as first cause)

Montalban (talk) 03:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Many failed verifications

I found about a half dozen in just one small section. I don't think this is well researched Montalban (talk) 11:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Montalban's evaluation of these statements that have been in the article in essentially the same form since 9 June 2010. Esoglou (talk) 12:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Inapproprite icon/image/graphic

The image by Rublev, titled "The Holy Trinity", in the context of this page, gives the sense of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The icon is "a" holy trinity of angels, not The Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost. The image is, apparently, also known as "Angels at Mamre" and shows the three Angels being hosted by Abraham at Mamre. See:http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Andrej_Rubl%C3%ABv_001.jpg and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Angelsatmamre-trinity-rublev-1410.jpg 67.166.53.234 (talk) 02:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC) Court

Why is that inappropriate? The Trinity was often depicted/represented as three angels.

Montalban (talk) 02:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Interpolation into the Nicene Creed

I reverted LoveMonkey's restoration of text that Esoglou had apparently deleted earlier (based on LM's edit summary). My rationale for this reversion is twofold. First, the text is a POV rant and, if it were to be restored anywhere in Wikipedia, it needs to be rewritten in a more encyclopedic tone. Secondly, even if it were in an encyclopedic tone, it doesn't belong in that particular spot in the article. The section in question, "Interpolation into the Nicene Creed", is a subsection of the section titled "Recent attempts at reconciliation". The Interpolation happened a long time ago and any treatment of that interpolation should have been presented earlier in the article, not in any section with the word "recent' in the section title. In reading what remains of the subsection " Interpolation into the Nicene Creed", I have to say that I am lost as to what the point of the section is relative to the overall section topic of "Recent attempts at reconciliation". I think some significant work is needed to get the " Interpolation into the Nicene Creed" section back onto the topic of the section. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 05:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The rant removed was also a violation of LoveMonkey's undertaking to refrain from making edits about Roman Catholic teaching or practice. Esoglou (talk) 11:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

So much for good faith. More blanket deleting and labeling things that these two edit warring Roman Catholic POV pushing editors don't like a rant. Its sourced. Rather than reword or address Richard and Esoglou delete and attack. Esoglou has already repeatedly violated his edit restrictions,[6], [7], [8],[9], [10], [11] etc etc etc where as what I posted is not a violation. There's nothing in the restrictions [12] that say I can't post the Eastern Orthodox perspective on why the Orthodox see the Roman Catholics as again again again and again moving the goal posts whenever the Orthodox make a point. (However this current edit is no such thing). Remember the restrictions under Esoglou's name.

• Esoglou will not make article edits or talk page comments regarding Eastern Orthodox teaching or practice.[13]

Esoglou's edit [14] violates that. As Esoglou is not supposed to be calling Eastern Orthodox sourced position ANYTHING LET ALONE RANTS. Note my sourcing is not Orthodox (Anthony Edward Siecienski) nor about Roman Catholic teaching or Roman Catholic practice it states actual events (not theological positions or practice) that occurred in history that reflect that the Roman Catholic church forced repeatedly the Eastern Orthodox to recite the filioque, also the source is one that Richard has endorsed while wiki hounding me.[15] This is not about policy or NPOV or rants this is about Roman Catholic editors not liking what the source says about their church forcing another group to do. As that undermines their POV pushing edit warring and put their whitewash POV that proceeds it, in context to ACTUAL HISTORICAL EVENTS not statements about theology or Roman Catholic practice. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

After 3 reverts of blanket deletion but no rewrites, or moving of the content to other parts of the article and over response to my comments on the talkpage here. I compromised and removed what was not sourced from the section and restored the sourced material alone. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

LoveMonkey, how can you say that this edit concerning a text that begins: "However this might be considered a modern abnegation [sic] of the position as held by the Roman Catholic church in the past", the edit that you refer to above and that I cited earlier, is a violation of the restriction "Esoglou will not make article edits or talk page comments regarding Eastern Orthodox teaching or practice"? And how can you not see that in inserting that same text you were violating the restriction "LoveMonkey will not make article edits or talk page comments regarding Roman Catholic teaching or practice"? If I too were vindictive, I would have reported this violation to an administrator, along with the other edit "concerning Roman Catholic teaching or practice" that you made on the same day. Do you want me to report it? If you insist, I will. Esoglou (talk) 22:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Call for collegiality and collaboration

The section "Recent attempts at reconciliation" covers both Orthodox and Catholic views, and even those views are not necessarily held by all Orthodox or all Catholics. I think it would be better if LoveMonkey and Esoglou would just behave more collegially and make it unnecessary to have this edit restriction at all. Esoglou, I urge you to treat LoveMonkey's block as if it were a page protection. Please do not edit the article text until his block expires. There is, after all, no deadline and the text in question isn't wrong per se, it's just soapboxing and soapboxing in the wrong place, to boot. Let us restrict ourselves to discussing on the Talk Page what the issues are with LM's text for now and then be prepared to edit the article to address those issues after his block expires in about eighteen hours. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 23:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you have not noticed that I have not even once touched LoveMonkey's present text. What you have written below perhaps suggests that you have indeed not noticed it. If I had wanted to edit LoveMonkey's present text, I would have done so last night. So there is no danger that I will edit it before the end of his block, of which I would have known nothing, if you hadn't told me. When it ends, perhaps he will explain his ridiculous charge that when, after warning him, I removed his previous text, which was an argument claiming that Roman Catholic teaching had been reversed (an alleged "abnegation" of Roman Catholic teaching), I was violating a restriction regarding Eastern Orthodox teaching or practice, and also explain how he can possibly imagine that, when he inserted that argument of his own making (not an explicit reporting of what some Eastern Orthodox theologian said), he was not violating the restriction placed on himself against making edits about Roman Catholic teaching or practice. Esoglou (talk) 07:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I had assumed that you knew of LoveMonkey's block. My apologies if that caused me to judge your comment more harshly as a result. I had read it with a sense that you were kicking a man when he was down. In particular, the words "Do you want me to report it? If you insist, I will." sounded confrontational as did the text that preceded it.

LoveMonkey was blocked for reporting me as engaging in edit-warring. The investigation revealed that he had violated WP:3RR and I technically had not crossed that line yet. (Serendipitously, I was in a rush to get out the door to go to church and so I did not have time to engage in any further edit-warring yesterday morning. Were it not for that, it is possible that I would have gone one extra step and wound up drawing a block myself and wound up sitting in the penalty box right next to LoveMonkey. God works in mysterious ways...)

In truth, I find LoveMonkey's aggressiveness and strident comments very aggravating and it makes my blood boil at times. What goes through my mind at times is much nastier than what flows out my fingertips onto the keyboard. However, I generally choose to ignore his invective as going toe-to-toe with him is just a huge waste of time and energy. Life is too short.

As for LoveMonkey's text which is currently in the article, I intend to review it and work it into shape. In particular, the bit about the Eastern Orthodox delegation having the Filioque rammed down their throats at the Council of Florence has to go. There's no point in bringing up ancient history in a section titled "Recent theological perspectives". I plan to ax this text shortly. If LoveMonkey wishes to resume the edit-war, it will be RFC time next. Wish me luck.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 01:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring

I confess to edit-warring with LoveMonkey although, obviously, it takes two to edit war and, as it happens, LoveMonkey has drawn a block because,as he has obviously forgotten, it's always bad for one person to edit-war against two other editors because the solo editor will run afoul of the WP:3RR rule first. That wasn't really my intent although I was aware of the possibility. I was just feeling ornery and abandoned my usual commitment to observe WP:1RR. In recognition of the "both sides equally guilty" principle, I will refrain from editing this article until LoveMonkey's block has been lifted, thus leaving LM's last set of edits in place rather than reverting them once again. That way, I hope to avoid the impression of taking advantage of his absence during his block. Besides which, I suspect a further edit by me within 24 hours might be construed as violating the 3RR rule so I will stay clear of the "bright line" just in case.

That said, I have tried to communicate both here and via edit summaries that my primary issue is not with what LoveMonkey's text says but with where he wants to put it. It does not help to go all the way back to what happened at the Council of Florence when discussing recent developments (presumably within the last half a century to last century).

Moreover, LoveMonkey's text was a poorly-written rambling rant about injuries inflicted over 600 years ago. I am not at all opposed to providing an NPOV presentation of Orthodox objections to the Filioque and to any attempts to reconcile the two churches. However, such presentation must avoid the appearance of being WP:OR and WP:SYNTH which is what LoveMonkey's text smacked of.

When LoveMonkey returns, I hope he will join in a more collegial and collaborative style that will address these issues.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Recent theological perspectives

I created the section "Recent theological perspectives" from "Recent attempts at reconciliation" because, at the time, I thought they were different things. Perhaps the only difference between the two sections is that "Recent theological perspectives" discusses independent statements by individual theologians whereas "Recent attempts at reconciliation" discusses a more formal, coordinated statement by delegates from both churches. The "Recent theological perspectives" section was a mish-mash of points with no clear logical flow of points. I've tried to remedy that by re-organizing the text. I'm still a bit at a loss as to where to put the text about Maximus the Confessor. It seems to me that discussion of his writings should probably go earlier in the "Recent theological perspectives" section.

I'd like to hear what other editors think before I proceed with further reorganization of this section.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 03:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't the information on non-recent Maximus be put with the earlier (main?) mention of him (under "First Eastern opposition")? Esoglou (talk) 12:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I did consider that but, since the section was titled "Importance of Saint Maximus in Ecumenical Relations", I thought I had better take a more conservative approach and leave it in the "Recent theological perspectives" section pending further discussion here. I agree that Maximus is not recent; however, the text of this section focuses on what theologians have written recently about what Maximus said. I am not familiar enough with this topic to determine if Maximus is indeed a focal point of recent theological debate on the Filioque. Even if we keep this section, I am not comfortable with the current section title because the text doesn't actually make the assertion (i.e. that Maximus is important in the theological debate, let alone "ecumenical relations"). At the moment, all we know is that a number of important theologians have quoted Maximus but we don't know if he is just one of many Church fathers who have been cited or if he is the single most important father to be cited. (I suspect that he is, in fact, very important to the current debate but I am taking the Wikipedia "show me with sources that say it explicitly" approach here) To make this assertion in a section heading or in the article text, we need a source (e.g. Siecienski) who actually makes the assertion that recent theological debate has focused on Maximus as providing the basis on which to find a mutually agreeable understanding of the Filioque. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Update: Siecienski wrote that "Among the hundreds of figures involved in the filioque debates throughout the centuries, Maximus the Confessor enjoys a privileged position." That still doesn't quite tie Maximus to the recent theological debate but it's pretty close. It at least explains why Maximus is cited by so many current theologians. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no doubt that Maximus as an Easterner who defended the Western Filioque belief and who is looked on as a saint by both sides enjoys a privileged position. I said "the Western Filioque belief", not "the insertion of Filioque in the Creed", which had not yet occurred in Rome; but the belief was universal in the West, as Maximus recognized. Esoglou (talk) 20:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

How is this relevant?

The article text in the "Inclusion in the Nicene Creed" section includes this text:

The elucidations that the Armenian Apostolic Church adds to the Nicene Creed are much more numerous than the two added by the Latin Church. Another change made to the text of the Nicene Creed by both the Latins and the Greeks is to use the singular "I believe" in place of the plural "we believe", while all the Churches of Oriental Orthodoxy, not only the Armenian, but also the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria,[225] the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church,[226] the Malankara Orthodox Church,[227] and the Syrian Orthodox Church,[228]have on the contrary preserved the "we believe" of the original text.

How is this relevant to the Filioque? It seems to discuss other "elucidations to the Nicene Creed" and changes such as "I believe" instead of "we believe". Sounds like OR to me. And irrelevant OR at that. I propose to delete this text unless someone can explain why it is important to keep in this article. It might be useful to have in the article on the Nicene Creed but I can't see why we need it in this article.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It shows that: a) the Western church is not the only church to make additions to the Creed; b) that even the Eastern Orthodox Church itself does not treat the text of the Creed as untouchable, but makes a couple of (slight) adjustments to it (from plural to singular), adjustments that not all ancient Christian churches accept.

That it may be original research I do not question. Esoglou (talk) 21:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It's all Greek to me

The article text includes this sentence: " For this reason, the Roman Catholic Church has refused the addition of καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ to the formula ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον of the Nicene Creed in the Churches, even of Latin rite, which use it in Greek with the Greek verb "έκπορεύεσθαι"."

Can someone please translate the Greek for me? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

καὶ (and) τοῦ (the) Υἱοῦ (Son), with τοῦ Υἱοῦ being the genitive case of ὁ Υἱός, = Filioque, with Filio being the ablative case of Filius. ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον is explained in the opening lines of the article, with ἐκπορευόμενον being the present participle of the verb whose present infinitive is έκπορεύεσθαι. Verbs in Latin and Greek are referred to by the form of the present infinitive (as in German, which you know) or sometimes by the first person singular of the present indicative, which in this case would be ἐκπορεύομαι Esoglou (talk) 20:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Eastern Orthodox teaching regarding the Filioque

I have significantly trimmed the "Eastern Orthodox" section of the "Current positions of various churches" section. My rationale for this is that the section was waaay too long and created an imbalance because that section was at least twice the length of the section on the Catholic Church. Moreover, it repeated material that was covered or should have been covered in the "History" section which is itself too long given the existence of History of the Filioque controversy. Over time, the "History" section in this article should be reduced to a summary of History of the Filioque controversy. However, being an inclusionist and also cognizant of the fact that there are Orthodox editors who feel it important to exhaustively present the entire history of Eastern Orthodox theological doctrine, I have created a separate article on Eastern Orthodox teaching regarding the Filioque which preserves the entire "Eastern Orthodox" section of the "Current positions of various churches" section before I trimmed it. Over time, this article should be edited so that it provides only a summary of Eastern Orthodox teaching regarding the Filioque . My initial effort at trimming takes a first step in this direction but I expect additional work can be done to make the "Eastern Orthodox" section even more concise than it is now.

I recognize that Esoglou's edit restriction bars him from editing Eastern Orthodox teaching regarding the Filioque. However, the restriction does not bar him from commenting on the Talk Page. I would urge him to watch that article and engage in discussions on the Talk Page in a collegial and collaborative manner.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

"Roman Catholic" subsection in "Current positions of various churches" section

I have completely reorganized this section, commenting out a couple of paragraphs that seemed to be more historical than directly relevant to the "current position" of the Catholic Church. Of course, all history is relevant to the current position but, in the same vein as my trimming of the Eastern Orthodox section, I think we have to draw the line somewhere lest we repeat the whole history of the filioque every time we discuss the current position. I also felt that the "Roman Catholic" subsection was a bit of a mish-mash and tried to re-order the points being made in a more logical flow.

I would appreciate if another editor would review this section to see if the end-result has accurately presented the current Roman Catholic position on the filioque.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

First Eastern opposition

The section titled "First Eastern opposition" seems to be indicating Monothelite Patriarch Paul II of Constantinople as the "first Eastern opposition" to the filioque. This source, however, suggests that the first true opposition to the filioque arose in the early ninth century. How should we resolve this? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 09:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Distinguishing meanings very often show that apparent contradictions are not really contradictions at all. The opposition expressed at the time of the Monothelite problem was against the doctrine of Filioque, traditional in the West (and to some extent in Alexandria), as Maximus pointed out, but was not against the insertion of the expression Filioque into the Creed. The first opposition that we know of to the insertion was by the Eastern monks in Jerusalem whose protest led to the Western request to the Pope to give the insertion papal sanction. This, I think, is the "first true opposition" that you speak of. The book you quote could even be interpreted differently: it goes on to say that "the real watershed" was later in the ninth century, at the time of Photius. Esoglou (talk) 16:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

These distinctions will have to be made clear in the text, especially in the section headings. I'm thinking that a better section heading might be "Defense against Monothelite criticism", thus deferring to the text any discussion of what the "first" opposition was. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

What's unclear, in that respect, about the "First Eastern opposition"? It says nothing about the Creed. And Bulgakov etc. do say it was the first case of an Eastern objection. Perhaps what you find confusing is the really off-topic talk about Monothelitism. I am revising it to concentrate on the subject matter of this article. If you consider this acceptable, I may find time later to add more sources. Esoglou (talk) 21:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Photian controversy

The text in the "Photian controversy" section includes this sentence: " At least three councils (867, 869, 879) where held in Constantinople over the deposition of Ignatius by Emperor Michael III and the his replacement by Photius." Something seems to be missing in the phrase "and the his replacement by Photius" but I can't figure out what was intended. Can anybody help? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 09:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Lossky and Halleux

Moving this here from my Talk Page

Do you have access to the Lacoste work? I agree that what was stated about Lossky seems quite unlikely, but the source given for that seems to be the same as that given for what is said about Halleux, which has been allowed to remain. The less stable Internet source for the extract from Lacoste is no longer available. Esoglou (talk) 10:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not have access to the Lacoste source. I removed Lossky's from the text because it seemed highly unlikely. I don't know anything about Halleux so I left his name there. I've now commented out the entire sentence. My impression is that the sentence is actually correct if the names of Lossky and Halleux are left out. I don't have time to research this further this morning but I'll try to come back and look into this more deeply in the next few days. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Church Fathers

The article currently contains this text:

These writings can be used to support either the Latin idea of the procession of the Holy Spirit, or the Orthodox idea. The writings of the Church fathers, announcing that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son do not necessarily lend their support to either the Catholic position or the Orthodox one. The statement that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son can be used to support either position; that the Spirit comes from the Father and through the Son, or from Father and Son as principle cause.

The original reference was to page 17 in Siecienski which was incorrect because that is the first page of his chapter on the New Testament. A better reference would be to page 34 which is the first page of the chapter on the Greek Fathers. However, the article text seems to say something slightly different from what Siecienski wrote on page 34:

As with biblical material, it would be inaccurate to claim that the Greek Patristic corpus explicitly addressed the procession of the Spirit from the Son (positively or negatively) as later theology would understand it. The pneumatological concerns of the Greek fathers (e.g. establishing the full divinity of the Holy Spirit) did not include a detailed exploration of how the Son was (or was not) involved in the hypostatic coming-into-being of the third person of the Trinity. For that reason, the claim, made both by Greeks and Latins throughout the centuries, that the Eastern fathers explicitly advocated or condemned the filioque, cannot be sustained by the evidence we possess. And yet, the writings of the Greek fathers do contain important Trinitarian principles, later used by both East and West in their respective theologies of the procession. Particularly important in this regard, were the anti-Eunomian writings of the Cappadocian fathers (which expressed a hesitancy about confusing economy with theology), the Council of Constantinople's creedal affirmation that the Spirit proceeded fromt the Father, and the anti-Sabellian polemic (which made the protection of each person's unique hypostatic properties, especially the Father's role as one cause within the godhead, a special concern for the East). Yet alongside these traditional themes there was also in the Greek Fathers, particularly in the works of Gregory of Nyssa and Cyril of Alexandria, an effort to establish the eternal relationship between the Son and the Spirit , recognizing that the persons of the Trinity, while distinct, cannot be separated. For this reason, there appears in the fathers an increasing awareness that both the mission of the Spirit and his eternal "flowing forth" from the Father take place "through the Son". While not equivalent to the belief that the Spirit eternally "proceeds" from the Son, this teaching remained an important part of Eastern trinitarian theology for centuries to come.

The current article text is a broad, sweeping assertion that sweeps the nuances discussed by reliable sources under the rug. It might be more accurate to say that the Greek Fathers, taken in the aggregate, do not clearly support one side or the other because the issue of procession hadn't really arisen yet. Thus, later theologians had to look back at the Greek Patristic writings and infer what the Greek Fathers would have supported. Thus, some of the writings of individual Greek Fathers can be interpreted for the filioque, others against the filioque, and some can be interpreted both for and against the filioque.

Siecienski's chapter on the Latin Fathers is not available via Google Books so it looks like I'll have to wait until I purchase the book to proceed on that topic.

Comments? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

What did the Fathers say? Some (perhaps all) that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father. Some (Latins and Alexandrians) that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father and the Son. Some (to a small extent in the West but more in the Cappadocian-tradition East and also the Alexandrian-tradition East) that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father through the Son. None of the ancient Fathers (none before Photius?) that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father alone, without involvement of the Son.

What they said can be objectively stated.

What they meant is disputed. Treatment of this question would properly require weighing views on what each Father intended by each phrase he used: a reference to intra-Trinitarian relationships, or to relationships with Christians or human beings in general, or to both intra-Trinitarian and extra-Trinitarian relationships together? Esoglou (talk) 18:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree and yet what you wrote is basically analyzing primary sources and thus risks being characterized as OR. It would be better to cite secondary sources such as Siecienski and McGuckin who do this analysis. IMO, the quote that I provided from Siecienski above is quite good but it's too long. I plan to work a summary of what Siecienski wrote into the article text. It doesn't contradict what's there now; it just amplifies it in a way that makes it clearer that the issue of the "procession of the Holy Spirit" was not yet an issue foremost in the writings of the Greek Fathers. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Siecienski devotes a page or more on each of the following Greek Fathers: Origen, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Didymus the Blind, Athanasius, Basil the Great and Gregory of Nazianzus. (he probably discusses at least a few more fathers as the preview ends at page 40 and the chapter on the Greek Fathers continues to page 50) AFAICT, he does do the weighing of what each father said that you suggest is required. Obviously, no one source has a lockhold on the truth but what's needed is a non-partisan survey of what has been written on the subject and Siecienski appears to have written the most comprehensive study of the field from (AFAICT) an unbiased perspective. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I am not suggesting that we weigh views of our own on what the individual Fathers meant by one phrase or another. Interpreting the statements of the Fathers, instead of just reporting what they said, would indeed be original research. I am only saying that, if we were to deal "properly" with what the statements meant, we'd have to weigh the view of Siecienski against other views. Of course we could give Siecienski's view alone, either just indicating that it is Siecinski's view or perhaps also saying that it is, if we can source the statement (for otherwise, even this would be original research), "the most comprehensive study of the field" (at least the general field, whatever about monographs on an individual Father) and that it is described by some authority as non-partisan and unbiased. If the Fathers, whether Latins or Greeks or Syriacs, had discerned that the matter was one about which there would be discussion, they wouldn't have been content with merely making what were little more than passing remarks in relation to it. Esoglou (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)