Talk:Filioque

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Filioque clause)
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Christianity / Theology / Catholicism / Eastern (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by theology work group (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy (marked as Top-importance).
 

This article has comments here.

This article has an assessment summary page.

Unexplained revert[edit]

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

Anybody not reading this talkpage might buy your disinformation Esoglou.
However Esoglou is propagating a lie- here's why. Esoglou can not post here the Eastern Orthodox position from Eastern Orthodox, how can I be so sure of this? Because the great opinion and consensus on the filioque from the Eastern Perspective is not only what Esoglou continually attacks (read the talkpage and it's archives here including Esoglou frustrating treatment of Montalban and Wlbw68). BUT Esoglou also is going into Eastern Orthodox sections here in the article and adding and writing them with Roman Catholic POV and sources. Esolglou gets this pointed out here on the talkpage and for MONTHS ignores it and does not reply.[1] However after waiting and getting no reply, I acted upon that comment,[2] and Esoglou REVERTED it.[3] Esoglou is WP:OWN all over these subjects and at the same time distorts and misrepresents the Eastern Orthodox side of them. Because the actual Eastern Orthodox opinion does not conform to his pro-Roman Catholic POV. LoveMonkey 17:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Your claim that Esoglou cannot post here is based on no Wikipedia rule. On the contrary, a Wikipedia rule says explicitly that "Esoglou may add information about Roman Catholic commentary (positive or negative) on Eastern Orthodox teaching/practice".
Perhaps you are not now claiming the right to delete the commentary by William J. La Due and Hans Urs von Balthasar at present in the article about division among Eastern Orthodox scholars on the Filioque question. If so, thank you.
Perhaps also you are not now claiming that there is original research in the subsection about the opinions of reputable Western scholars on the prevailing view among modern Eastern Orthodox theologians. If so, thank you. Esoglou (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Esoglou is dodging and distracting. Esoglou can post here the Eastern Orthodox perspective with Eastern Orthodox sources but he won't because he can't because he doesn't know. Esoglou can post about rules and restrictions but nothing of the sort will cover up Esoglou edit warring and attacking Eastern Orthodox editors contributions because Esoglou does not like what the contributions says no matter how well sourced they are or not. Esoglou can't post because he is ignorant (not due to rules) and Esoglou is here protecting his Roman Catholic POV and edit warring to do that. Thats what happening here. LoveMonkey 22:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

AGAIN WHY THE FILIOQUE IS WRONG[edit]

Summa Theologica -[4]
To teach that uncreated hypostases come from anything other than strictly uncreatedness is to teach the Father is not the Father. No one but Christ or God's Holy Spirit can see or experience God the Father EVER. The filoque implies that created beings will or can experience God the Father..What the Creed did was to clarify the incomprehensibility of God as Father and or the incomprehensibility of God the Father. This is the fundamental difference, as in Eastern Orthodox theology created beings will never see and or experience (to know) directly God the Father in this life or the next i.e. NEVER. To teach beings can do such a thing is called gnostic (due to the nature of magic (as knowledge to control and manipulate God, uncreatedness) of the Mystery Religion systems that reduce the infinite to a loop or circle (ouroborus) and therefore comprehensible). Where as Western Christianity and Islam teaches created beings will see the uncreated essence of God (what the East calls Father) in the next life. This means that teaching that God's incomprehensibility will be made comprehensible IS HERESY. This is what is skirted, ignored and danced around in this article. This difference is completely ignored by the West time and time again. I repeat according to Eastern Orthodox theology created beings will never see God the Father. One can only experience God through his Son (as King and ruler in heaven forever and ever) or his Holy Spirit (the lord, life, existence, the impulse to do good) or his Holy energies (activities of God and his church and or saints). To say that the Holy Spirit is God's grandson and not directly from God the Father opens this implication. LoveMonkey 00:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

LoveMonkey please read, WP:NOT#FORUM and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Wikipedia is not a place for your opinion, arguments or original research, even the talk pages. CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)]
Please CombatWombat assume good faith. LoveMonkey 19:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
What about my request dosn't assume good faith? I believe you are trying to do what you believe is good, you are just not following wikipedia policy. "AGAIN WHY THE FILIOQUE IS WRONG" in all caps implies shouting, which is just rude. It is impossible to prove the validity of the filioque, nor would wikipedia be the place for that. Wikipedia is a place to point out the existence of filioque, and provide cited, verifiable information as to controversies about it. CombatWombat42 (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
And you are? Because if you are not an administrator who are you to post that you assume that I am soapboxing I am engaging in Original Research I am using the talkpage as a forum? Tell me where it says that I can not post to the talkpage the content I would seek to include in the article? If you can't then why are you assuming anything about me and or my intentions? Most certaintly you are not assuming that I am trying to contribute and that I am posting here FIRST to reach a consensus and gather sources and see what potential conflicts might be caused by whatever content I suggest. (Which would be to assume Good Faith). Your comments are combative and argumentative. Are you here to pick a fight? If you are here to improve the article. Post here your suggestions. I appreciate any help I can get for this article. That includes Russian Theologians whom work on the Russian Wiki and whose English may not be so good. But if you are going to keep being combative and making unfounded assumptions and then trying to justify disruptive behavior then this can be an ANI and you can open it yourself. LoveMonkey 20:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Like I said, "AGAIN WHY THE FILIOQUE IS WRONG" is shouting. It is using wikipdia as a soap box, as nothing you said is cited and is opinion. It is original research as you make unsupported conclusions. You are welcome to ignore me. You are also welcome to ignore wikipedia policy, but I believe you are going to run afoul of other editors. You are getting very aggressive, so this is the last time I will respond to you, I simply suggested you take a look at wikipedia policy and you assumed it was an attack. CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

How or why I posted that[edit]

God the Father[5]
"Because to do so is to attribute to Jesus Christ what belongs to God the Father alone." What Jesus Christ (Orthodox Christology) is and why the monophysite heresy is wrong. Arianism taught that human beings will be just like Christ (in how life plays out for all persons). And that human beings should be like Christ and follow Christ (Christ's example) BUT so did the monophysite. What Arianism and the monophysite did not understand about theosis was that when a person begins to experience God or Holiness in this life they begin to see that God the Father is truly incomprehensible (God is truly incomprehensible God is truly apophatic beyond being and non-being in essence, in Father). And that people should not speak of God the Father as anything but this. To do so is call speculations and strange divers as to even try and speak to this is to deny the mystery of God as truly infinite. Both the monophysite and the Arians are saying if one takes their conclusions to their end or logical conclusions, is actually the same thing. That created person's experience God the Father either through being subsumed into the Father as createdness was in the Christ. As according to the monophysite, the createdness in Christ, was absorbed or subsumed into God the Father like a drop of water in the ocean and what happened to Christ happens to all created beings or persons. The Arians treated Christ as a potential that each of us could reach by following his example and that the goal was to submit to God the Father and worship God the Father alone as truly God and this is the God we will met and see in the next life (both teach this). To say that Orthodox Christology teaches that Jesus Christ is the Father and can originate the Holy Spirit is to deny the incomprehensibility of God the Father. To word the Creed to say this and then make caveats OUTSIDE the Creed to clarify it is nonsense. We as created beings can experience Christ we can experience God's Holy Spirit we can not experience God the Father (incomprehensibility). LoveMonkey 00:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The grammar of this article is unreadable.[edit]

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

Responsibility for the most recent incomprehensible grammar and incomplete sentences rests on a Russian editor who is making contributions in machine-made (Google Translate) English. Earlier incomplete sentences, such as those that began and ended with an "As" clause, but which now have perhaps all been cleaned up by other editors, were the work of someone whose first language must, like Russian, have no definite article, but whose English has over the years improved from living in the eastern United States. They are both very active, although one proclaims himself retired. Even if you were to start all over again, they would continue to edit. Would you be so good as to do some work on the text? Help is certainly needed. Esoglou (talk) 18:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I will attempt to help, but I cannot decipher the meaning of much of the content to which I refer, so my only option would be to delete it. That is why I referred to WP:TNT as I believe that most editors cannot read this article and therefore cannot improve it. I made this request to hopefully avoid WP:TNT. Can I ask, why someone is contributing to english wikipedia with "machine-made (Google Translate) English"? It seems that they should be contributing to the wikipedia for the language which they speak. The Google Translated sections are, in my opinion, causing more harm than they are doing good. CombatWombat42 (talk) 19:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I did recommend to the Russian editor to contribute instead to the Russian Wikipedia, also because of his inability to comprehend and provide reliable secondary sources in English. Deleting the incomprehensible does seem to be an option, but I don't dare do it myself. Perhaps give him until tomorrow to respond to the requests for clarification and then, if there still is no other solution, begin to delete, a bit at a time, whatever cannot be understood. Esoglou (talk) 20:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Post here a bit at a time the content that is contentious so that we can re-word it. The Russian editor here is the one that works on the Russian Wiki and did this article there. They have a very good understanding of Christian history and Orthodox theology. Instead of slinging mud lets post the content and start rewriting it. I would ask the Russian editor to post to the talkpage but his issue is that Esoglou is edit warring against him and that when one editor is engaging in WP:OWN then it is almost impossible to get consensus first. 20:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoveMonkey (talkcontribs)
Unsourced material, as you know, may be deleted and remains deleted until support for its statements is presented as found in published reliable sources accessible to English speakers. Much of the article can legitimately be deleted for lack both of such reliable sources and of article text intelligible to speakers of English. As each bit is deleted, one or more editors can try to restore it in intelligible English and with sources that correspond to WP:NONENG. So if CombatWombat42 wishes, he may go ahead at any time. He may prefer to deal first with the off-topic parts of the recently added discussion of the 381 and 382 Councils of Constantinople. Esoglou (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
No opposition has yet been expressed to the extremely limited pruning that CombatWombat42 has done. He has not yet dealt with, for instance the off-topic material concerning 381 and 382. Work even on that may also turn out to be unopposed. Esoglou (talk) 09:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Very interesting and readable article. I think the grammar problem is exaggerated. whizky (talk) 18:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Councils of Constantinople in 381 and 382[edit]

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

Do you want to delete the information about the message of the Council 382 years for another reason. In the Catholic literature, wrote that in Rome learned of the Creed only 451. But it is not. In a message to the Council, the 382 just says that faith and documents were published by the Council of Constantinople, in Rome can read them in Rome sent three people to do this. In the 4th century in Rome at the Creed without the Filioque, and used it before the 11th century. But there are works of Augustine, who lived in Africa in the 4-5 century. In his works, the Spirit proceeds from the Father: "printsipaliter" and from the Son: "media". Goths and Franks when added Filioque at 7 and 8 th century did not make any difference. They have exactly the same way the Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son. Therefore, the insertion was made Filioque into the Creed. Necessary to search for the cause of the Filioque. For this purpose, 382 year changed to 451 years. And they say that in the West have used only the books of Augustine. But this is not true. The Creed was already known in the West. Augustine wrote his books later. Terminology Augustine had a local character in the 5th century, it is only North Africa. At 6 - 7 century Christians of Africa have moved to Spain because of the Arab invasion. In Spain, in the 7th century would have added the Filioque, but no difference in the procession, which was in Augustine. After that, pressed by the Arabs, the Spaniards came to the kingdom of the Franks. Franks took over the Filioque from the Spaniards in the 8th century.In the 11th century, Pope at the coronation of the King of the Franks introduces Filioque.Wlbw68 (talk) 01:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
You seem to to have misinterpreted "accepted" as meaning "learned of". Rome, not being that far from Constantinople, learned of the 381 eastern council in 381: it didn't have to wait until it received a letter sent in 382 by a different council. There is no clear evidence that the 381 council decreed the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, the first mention of which appears 70 years later. The letter that the 382 council sent to Rome certainly did not mention it: it summarized the faith professed by the eastern bishops as: "According to this faith there is one Godhead, Power and Substance of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost; the dignity being equal, and the majesty being equal in three perfect essences and three perfect persons".
Thank you for stating with regard to Augustine: "In his works, the Spirit proceeds from the Father 'principaliter' and from the Son 'media'" (emphasis added). Esoglou (talk) 07:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

You are taking this all a bit too personal don't you think? Post here what theological studies you've read and that you would like to contribute to the article and or how what is already in the article does not confirm and or comes in conflict with yours sources. If not then your soapboxing and your here to pick a fight. LoveMonkey 20:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I am very upset.‎ Here are removed entire sections.(Esoglou) For example section Cappadocians. My text was deleted. It's just not fair. Prior to that were removed two of my quotes. This is a quote Gregory the Theologian and Blachernae Council (1285 year) decision. No sense to write in Wikipedia. Now the text distorts the situation. Wlbw68 (talk) 04:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
On the Cappadocians, the English Wikipedia requires intelligible statements based on sources that are intelligible for English speakers. The Blachernae Council's condemnation was of Bekkos ("the same"), who, like his supporters, was a Greek; presenting it as a condemnation by "the Greeks" of the West was WP:SYNTH. Esoglou (talk) 06:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

The same is the second quote.

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

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

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

The Holy Ghost proceeds only from the Father. Wlbw68 (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
It is your opinion that the Father's monarchy means that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. Siecienski and Moltmann say that upholders of Filioque also uphold the monarchy of the Father. Siecienski and Moltmann are reliable source for Wikipedia. You are not. Esoglou (talk) 08:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


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

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

This, as I have already had to tell you, is the English Wikipedia, not the Russian nor the Latin. Either present an English translation or take to the Latin Wikipedia your quotation of Theodoret, whose writings against Cyril of Alexandria, such as what you quote, were condemned by the Second Council of Constantinople in 553. Yet you omit from your quotations from Mansi 5, column 123, important parts of Cyril's response to Theodoret, in which he says: "Erat enim et est eius Spiritus, sicuti certe et Patris", which means: "For he (the Spirit) was and is his (the Son's) Spirit, as he certainly is also the Father's." And you took out of context the quotation that you do give (mistyping "enim" as "unim") of Cyril's response. Without a break, that quotation continues: "sed non est alienus a Filio: omnia enim habet cum patre, et hoc pie edocuit, dicens de Spiritu sancto: Omnia quaecumque habet Pater, mea sunt. Propterea dixi vobis, quia de meo accipiet, et annuntiabit vobis", which means: "But he (the Spirit) is not unassociated with the Son, for the Son has everything in common with the Father: he himself taught this, when he said of the Holy Spirit: 'All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you'." Cyril explicitly applied that phrase from John 16:15 to the Holy Spirit ("when he said of the Holy Spirit"). Discussing whether Cyril was nevertheless saying that the "everything" that the Son has in common with the Father and receives from the Father does not, however, include being that from which the Holy Spirit proceeds, as you believe, would be making this a forum. That is precisely what CombatWombat42 is rightly complaining of. Esoglou (talk) 08:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Council did not condemn the objection of Theodoret and Cyril answer to the ninth anathema. You do read the papers Council? - No, you have not read. Council documents not in English translation. They are in Greek, Latin, Russian. Theodoret and Cyril professed that the Spirit proceeds only the Father. The Spirit does not get the essence of the Son. He has being from the Father. You specifically delete all of the theme testifies for the fact that the Spirit proceeds from the Father only. For this purpose, you have removed from the topic quote Gregory the Theologian. LoveMonkey was right when he wrote that article is not objective and is incorrect. All the best to you.Wlbw68 (talk) 13:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I hope I am correctly interpreting your hard to understand English.
Cannot you read Latin or Greek? Your quotation from Mansi comes from Theodoret's responses to Cyril's twelve chapters or anathemas (and surely you realize that the ninth is part of the twelve) against Nestorius and Cyril's counter-responses, all given in Mansi, beginning at columns 85-86: Κυρίλλου Ἀρχιεπισκόπου Ἀλεξανδρείας πρὸς τοὺς τολμῶντας συνηγορεῖν τοῖς Νεστορίου δόγμασιν, ὧς ὀρθῶς ἔχουσι, κεφάλαια ιβ' /Cyrilli Archiepiscopi Alexandriae, adversus eos, qui audent Nestoris dogmatibus, ut rectis, patrocinari capita duodecim
What makes you think there is no English translation of the acts of the Second Council of Constantinople, and that it is available only in Greek, Latin and Russian? Take Schaff's English translation, which has been available for well over a century. It can be consulted also here and here. A more modern translation is also available. The council's Sentence and Anathemas are also given in a translation perhaps easier to understand here.
The Sentence of the Synod includes the phrase "those things which Theodoret impiously wrote against the right faith, and against the Twelve Chapters of the holy Cyril" (end of page 310 of Schaff). The thirteenth chapter or canon or anathema of the council says (in the Schaff translation): "IF anyone shall defend the impious writings of Theodoret, directed against the true faith and against the first holy Synod of Ephesus and against St. Cyril and his XII. Anathemas, and [defends] that which he has written in defence of the impious Theodore and Nestorius, and of others having the same opinions as the aforesaid Theodore and Nestorius, if anyone admits them or their impiety, or shall give the name of impious to the doctors of the Church who profess the hypostatic union of God the Word; and if anyone does not anathematize these impious writings and those who have held or who hold these sentiments, and all those who have written contrary to the true faith or against St. Cyril and his XII. Chapters, and who die in their impiety: let him be anathema." Esoglou (talk) 19:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


The second quotation says that Beccus and his followers were wrong in claiming that Filioque is proved by the Fathers' statement that "the Spirit exists through the Son and from the Son"; it does not say that "the Greeks refused decisions from the Second Council of Lyon". Just cite some source - any reliable source - that does say the Greeks rejected the declarations of Lyon II about Filioque. Esoglou (talk) 19:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
This is a very important quote, it set out the teaching of the Orthodox Church of the Holy Spirit. Why did you remove it?Wlbw68 (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Because you presented it as a reliable source for the statement that "the Greeks refused decisions from the Second Council of Lyon". That's not what the source says. Esoglou (talk) 08:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


Unreadable grammar[edit]

I can't really follow the threading of this discussion which is part of the problem. Another problem is this should be discussed in the section "The grammar of this article is unreadable." Finally Wlbw68, you seem to be taking edits to the article personally, I do not intend it that way. I have done my best to clean up grammar but some of it is so unparseable it looks like a jumble of words to me, a native speaker of english, therefore I believe it is well withing wikipedia policy to delete it and ask for it to be written in a way most people can understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CombatWombat42 (talkcontribs) 18:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Strongly agree with CombatWombat42, this article is muddled by incomprehensible grammar, clearly biased edits, aggressive arguing and poor threading in the talk page. ~ Joga Luce(t)(c) 08:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Someone (CombatWarrior? Joga inex Luce? another editor?) should simply act on CombatWarrior's suggestion: delete unreadable passages, a few at a time, and let anyone who supports what he or she thinks they mean restore them after rephrasing them in intelligible English. Having been involved in the discussion about the content, I don't want to do that myself. Esoglou (talk) 13:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)