Talk:Theological differences between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

An analysis of Cassian vis-a-vis Pelagianism/Semi-Pelagianism

I confess to not having read every source that has been presented in this discussion. However, the sources I have read so far have generally been along the lines of the Catholic Encyclopedia entry which identifies John Cassian as an originator of the condemned Semi-Pelagian heresy thus leading to the notion that the Catholic Church rejects writings of Cassian which the Orthodox Church accepts as fully orthodox.

I found this book via Google Search. The book's author is Roger Olson, an ordained Baptist minister and a Professor of Theology at George W. Truett Theological Seminary, a Baptist Theological Seminary at Baylor University.

I think the book's treatment of Cassian and Semi-Pelagianism on pages 281-285 is much more nuanced than the one you find in most of the sources that have been presented so far.

Olson asserts that Faustus of Riez was clearly Semi-Pelagian. On the other hand, he characterizes Cassian's writings as more ambiguous. In brief, he argues that Cassian knew his writings could be interpreted as Pelagian and so "emphasized the pre-eminence of grace throughout". However, the "damage was done" and Cassian would be "forever remembered as the father of Semi-Pelagianism".

I think that Esoglou will find Olson's characterization of Cassian acceptable. Olson argues that many Catholic bishops theologians did not fully grasp the monergism of Augustine's writings because it had been filtered out by Prosper's selections. Not having read all of Augustine, they didn't grasp the monergism in his writings. Thus, one must be careful to characterize the Catholic Church as Augustinian because it is not clear that the Church accepts all of Augustine. Similarly, Olson argues that the Catholic Church, although having officially rejected Semi-Pelagianism, practiced a kind of Semi-Pelagianis in the medieval period. He also describes the Catholic Church as emphasizing a "system of meritorious works that are necessary as proofs of grace" that "favor a kind of synergism in which free will must cooperate with grace in order to attain its full completion".

Of course, one must be a little careful in accepting a Baptist theologian's description of the Catholic Church. However, this is the best exposition I have seen so far on the topic. I like it because most of the Catholic sources that I have seen so far have accepted the precept that "Cassian is the originator of Semi-Pelagianism" without recognizing the fact that the Catholic Church is really somewhere between Augustine and Semi-Pelagianism and that Cassian's views are not necessarily equivalent to the clearly Semi-Pelagian views of Faustus of Riez.

Thus, a charitable characterization of the Catholic Church's position is that they have tended to reject Cassian without understanding Cassian. However, the Catholic Church has never officially rejected Cassian. Instead it has rejected specific precepts which are clearly expounded by Faustus of Riez and not so clearly associated with Cassian.

--Richard S (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me Richard but Esoglou and you too can not treat the exception as the rule. If a vast majority of sources state a general view. It is the wiki's place to try an state that general view. The goal of the project is not to reconcile to rather post an informed article of the noteworthy and commonly held view. I believe you Richard used this argument to justify the renaming of the Roman Catholic article and the Eastern Orthodox article. i could find an opinion that states that Cassian was from Venus. Where as the general gents of today are primarily from Mars and therefore have much misunderstanding of Cassian. There are your argument Richard. Most important for the wikipedia project is not to make it look like policy is to be used to justify the ambigious whim of an editor let alone an administrator here. To be honest Wikipedia has failed in this task miserably and if it where honest with itself it would see that. I think if you want to include this opinion it is kinda getting off of subject, maybe his opinion with a group of others would be OK, but I don't see his position being one that the Orthodox would argue is a Roman Catholic position and therefore it would be odd to have in the article. IF you want to include it clarifying it is the except and not the rule or some wording to that effect that would be OK but I still question its appearance in this article.LoveMonkey (talk) 18:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

LoveMonkey, what exactly are you objecting to? We have a source from the Orthodox that asserts that the Catholics reject Cassian, we have multiple sources from the Catholics that assert that Cassian is the originator of Semi-Pelagianism and that Semi-Pelagianism is a heresy. We also have sources from a minority of Catholic theologians that argue that Cassian is not Semi-Pelagian. We also have a Baptist theologian (presumably one who is more impartial) who argues that Cassian was less obviously Semi-Pelagian than Faustus of Riez and that, during the medieval period, the Catholic Church adopted practices which were Semi-Pelagian even while officially rejecting Semi-Pelagianism.

Wikipedia should discuss the range of knowledge in the world. What the Catholics "know" about their own teaching is that Cassian is the originator of the Semi-Pelagian heresy. The Orthodox disagree that Cassian's precepts are heretical and accept them as fully orthodox. A minority of Catholic theologians are making similar arguments. Olson argues that Catholics misunderstood both Augustine and Cassian. Unlike other Protestant sources who wish to tar the Catholic Church with the brush of Semi-Pelagianism, Olson's analysis seems fairly dispassionate. That is, his tone is one of objective description rather than polemic.

What part of this are you unwilling to accept? I will concede that not all of this necessarily belongs here in this article. Some of it could be put in the article on John Cassian and some of it in the article on Semi-Pelagianism. What I like about Olson's writing is that it is the best explanation that unifies all of what we know about this topic.

--Richard S (talk) 20:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I am objecting to the article explicitly saying that the Roman Catholic church and the Orthodox church hold the same views on Cassian and free will. I thought I have posted it so much that by now it would be a mantra. Part of the Orthodox church's stance on free will appears to have been condemned as a heresy and given a name that in the East is inappropriate. How'd you miss that? Also how much space are you willing to give in the article to Olson's opinion? And is Olson from Oxford or Harvard (this question is rhetorical)? I think it is completely fair to give weight to each part of content and I think and remember this to be a Richard argument as well, so why all of the sudden questioning. I thought I made it clear that I pretty much agree and was hoping to proceed with caution. So is that a bad thing Richard?LoveMonkey (talk) 12:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

LoveMonkey wrote: "I am objecting to the article explicitly saying that the Roman Catholic church and the Orthodox church hold the same views on Cassian and free will."

Richard answers: I am inclined to credit Esoglou's arguments that the two positions are not that far apart. However, as I have indicated previously, these arguments are OR until he can put them in the mouth of a reliable source. AFAICT, this view is a minority view among Catholic theologians and not widespread among Catholic writers and educators. Frankly, I doubt many Catholic educators have a sophisticated view of this issue and are more likely to take the stance presented in the Catholic Encyclopedia. (Of course, my knowledge of this is thin so I'm just speculating).

I think it would also be worthwhile to understand the extent to which this issue divides the two churches. The Filioque is the famed point of contention. Do we have sources that refer to this issue as being another point of contention? Lossky says it. How about Romanides? Or any other Orthodox theologian? Does any Catholic theologian refer to this as a point of contention? It may be a point of difference but so far we only know of Lossky as saying it is important. (Unless I've missed other sources that have been provided)

LoveMonkey asked: "Also how much space are you willing to give in the article to Olson's opinion?"

Richard answers: I think there are two questions here.

First: "How much am I willing to believe what Olson wrote?" Answer: "I believe Olson provides a pretty objective source and I am willing to believe that he describes what happened accurately subject to challenge by the writings of other church historians". There are different kinds of writing: dogma, theology, apologetics, catechetical education, polemic and objective history/sociology/etc.

• The canons of the Council of Orange are dogmatic for the Catholic Church.
• Works by Lossky are theological in nature and polemical. They may also be Orthodox dogma. I am not competent to judge whether or not they are.
• The Catholic Encyclopedia falls more under catechetical education. It is not dogma and its encyclopedic nature inherently suggests a superficial treatment vis-a-vis theology.
• Lauren Pristas falls in the category of contemporary theology. That is only one view and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, must be considered a minority view.
• I classify Olson as an objective historian based upon the nature of the work "History of Christianity" and the tone of the writing.

Thus, in the absence of challenge by another objective historian, I am inclined to give more credit to Olson's account of what happened as all the other sources are inherently biased as they do not attempt to view the world through an objective lens but rather through a theological lens.

The second question is: "How much of what Olson wrote should be included in this article?" Answer: "I'm not sure but it shouldn't be very much."

Olson's account legitimately belongs in articles such as History of Christianity, History of Christian theology, Semi-Pelagianism and John Cassian.

However, this is not an article primarily about history. It is an article primarily about theology, and specifically about Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences. Olson says nothing explicitly about that. This is probably because he has a Protestant view and therefore his perspective sees differences between Protestants and Catholics and is not much concerned with what the Orthodox think. (Too bad, I would really like to know what Olson thinks about our discussion).

Thus, Olson's text provides historical context for us to understand how the Catholic view of Cassian developed (erroneously if we credit Olson and theologians like Lauren Pristas). However, it is not our job here to assert that the mainstream Catholiic view is right or wrong. It is sufficient to say "The mainstream of Catholic teaching identifies Cassian as the originator of the Semi-Pelagian heresy which was condemned by the Council of Orange. The Orthodox criticize the Catholics for rejecting Cassian whom they accept as fully orthodox. Some historians believe that Catholic view developed because Catholic bishops and theologians had an incomplete understanding of the monergistic views of Augustine and an incomplete understanding of Cassian's emphasis on the preeminence of divine grace. Recently, some Catholic theologians have argued that Cassian's writings should not be considered Semi-Pelagian".

This could perhaps be expanded to provide more detail but I think this provides an NPOV and accurate presentation of the facts without the OR attempt to reconcile Catholic views on Cassian with the Orthodox view. Me personally, I am inclined to agree with Esoglou that the two positions are not that far apart. However, we must present the mainstream perception of Cassian as a Semi-Pelagian as the mainstream position.

--Richard S (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Text proposed by Richard S above...

"The mainstream of Catholic teaching identifies Cassian as the originator of the Semi-Pelagian heresy which was condemned by the Council of Orange. The Orthodox criticize the Catholics for rejecting Cassian whom they accept as fully orthodox. Some historians believe that Catholic view developed because Catholic bishops and theologians had an incomplete understanding of the monergistic views of Augustine and an incomplete understanding of Cassian's emphasis on the preeminence of divine grace. Recently, some Catholic theologians have argued that Cassian's writings should not be considered Semi-Pelagian".

As long as this is sourced I think this is completely acceptable and the type of thing that belongs in the article. You have my consensus on this. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Richard's proposed revision of original text

"The mainstream of Catholic teaching identifies Cassian as the originator of the Semi-Pelagian heresy which was condemned by the Council of Orange. While the Orthodox do not apply the term Semi-Pelagian to their theology, they criticize the Catholics for rejecting Cassian whom they accept as fully orthodox. Some historians believe that Catholic view developed because Catholic bishops and theologians had an incomplete understanding of the monergistic views of Augustine and an incomplete understanding of Cassian's emphasis on the preeminence of divine grace. Recently, some Catholic theologians have argued that Cassian's writings should not be considered Semi-Pelagian".

I've added a little verbiage to emphasize that the Orthodox do not claim to be "Semi-Pelagian". Whether they are Semi-Pelagian in the meaning that the Catholics use the phrase is a question for the theologians to debate. The Protestants consider both Catholics and the Orthodox to be Semi-Pelagian so the term is not terribly useful as a way to differentiate the Catholics from the Orthodox. We may have some problems around the phrase "the mainstream of Catholic teaching" but let's address that if and when anybody chooses to challenge it. The rest can be sourced using the sources already provided above. Esoglou and Cody, what are your thoughts on the proposed text?

--Richard S (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, the proposed text is largely fine. Cody7777777 (talk) 18:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Here, here. I am with Cody. Lets post what Richard has so excellently proposed (as usual) and we can iron out the subtleties after that..LoveMonkey (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

OK. I wonder is there away that we could clear up the whole thing about is Cassian an RCC saint or not. Some say Cassian is a Roman Catholic saint while others (i.e. Olson, Colomba Stewart etc. etc.) say that Cassian is not considered a saint? And have that in the passage. Please forgive the addendums. In the East Augustianism and Pelagiansim are considered monergism in that Pelagius taught one energy: man was to soteriology. and Augustine as one energy: God as the way to salvation. As for Esoglou's position, it is not what the sources say in an overwhelming voice at all even close. Cassian is condemned as is his teachings by the Western established Roman Catholic church. If I start to speak of what is in Cassian's Confessions I will be told I am teachings something that is condemned by the Roman Catholic church and I have posted the sources saying that. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I do not have enough time to attend properly to this discussion. My contribution here is rather hurried, but I know Richard will understand and that he will take account not only of what I say but also of what he will understand I want to say.

I don't really understand the context of his draft text. What is the "original text" that it is meant to be a replacement for? For all of the section on "free will and metaphysical libertarianism" or only part of it? (Should we not rather begin by eliminating the opening section about differences between EOC and Calvinists, Lutherans etc. and their coincidence with RCC and OOC?) It reads like an independent section on John Cassian alone.

I also doubt that it would be that easy to source some of the affirmations.

Sentence 1. You were right to expect problems with the opening phrase about "the mainstream of Catholic teaching". "Catholic teaching" woul be understood as "the Catholic Church's teaching", which doesn't have a mainstream and other streams, while as you yourself have well pointed out, there can be variety of opinion among theologians on matters on which the Church itself has made no definitive pronouncement. I suppose that by "the mainstream of Catholic teaching" you mean the general opinion of Catholic theologians and historians.

Sentence 4, about the minority opinion about Cassian's writings among Catholic (and other) scholars, belongs immediately after sentence 1. It is unrelated to sentence 3.

If the first part of sentence 2 means that the theology of the Orthodox ("their theology", which they do not call "semi-Pelagian") is the same as Cassian's, shouldn't that claim be made expressly, and shouldn't the teaching that is claimed to be identical be specified? The claim would also need to be conclusively sourced.

Sentence 3 is very problematic. What does it have to do with supposed theological divergences between the two churches? Who are the "some historians"? Who are the "Catholic bishops and theologians"? Do they represent the church? What are the divergences between the two churches that the alleged faulty understanding of the unspecified Catholic bishops and theologians has given rise to? What is the relevance of calling them deficient in understanding?

Have you considered the possibility that you have only followed LoveMonkey up a path that leads away from consideration of whether his action in reversing all my edits was justified, so that he is thereby granted a right to exclude from the article, without giving reasons for his action, anything that does not have his prior personal approval? Would it not be more logical to undo his still unjustified reversal and then consider modifying the text? Oh, well! Patience. Esoglou (talk) 20:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Esoglou, forgive my laziness but could you please post diffs indicating the edits which LoveMonkey reverted? There has been so much written that it's just TLDR for me. --Richard S (talk) 05:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Those listed above under Edits to which one editor refuses his consent. One of the reverted edits has already been reinstated by a bot.

I am not surprised at the difficulty in recalling the question I raised: others raised later have distracted from it. Esoglou (talk) 05:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Richard, Lima/Esoglou is playing on your lack of knowledge of this entire fiasco. I would feel more included to sympathize with him if he hadn't engaged in revert edit warring himself as I have reported him already.[1] I am more than frustrated by the wiki response to my report. However Esoglou got a clue to cool it then. Esoglou is no stranger to revert warring and is now crying victim when he was the one asking for consensus. I did ONE revert, just ONE. I feel I have provided overwhelming evidence of the very thing I stated as was wrong with Esoglou's edit.LoveMonkey (talk) 16:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

You may feel that, but you haven't in fact responded to the request that you provide valid reasons (not just "it hasn't got my consensus") for reverting the edits referred to above. Esoglou (talk) 08:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The same disruptive behavior and editing by Esoglou over and over again. We have 3 editors on the talkpage on with consensus. You are the only one who appears to object to what Richard wrote and here you are doing what? Complaining. This is not working toward writing for wikipedia what can be sourced and validated. Lima/Esoglou again is wanting his opinion in the article and not what overwhelming sources can and do validate. The Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic DO NOT hold the same view on what they mean by free will (RC=do what you want to), (EO=could have done otherwise). Post some sources here that are at least equal to Columba Stewart [2] and Richard M. Hogan [3]. These seem like good sources and not someone's dissertation.LoveMonkey (talk) 13:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Now that we have consensus when can we add the agreed upon passage?

Now that we have consensus when can the passage be added to the article and the contensius content removed?LoveMonkey (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Consensus for what? For restoring the edits reverted by an editor on the grounds that he refused his consent, only one of which has yet been restored, and that by a bot without that editor's prior consent? Esoglou (talk) 19:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Your edits were original research and are your opinion and do not belong in this article. The consensus reached by Me, Richard and Cody to add the passage that Richard wrote into the article under the Cassian section and remove that the Orthodox and Roman Catholic church hold the same opinion on free will. I hope that Richard does not get soft on this simply because you can't quite understand anyone's position but your own.LoveMonkey (talk) 20:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

An edit that cites seven sources is scarcely "original research", surely. Esoglou (talk) 20:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Your just being argumentative.LoveMonkey (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits by Esoglou

It appears that Esoglou put in two different blogs and an itinerary, syllabus[4] and book review [5] as valid sources.LoveMonkey (talk) 18:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Neither is a blog. Each is a valid source for the statement that it is cited for. Esoglou (talk) 20:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I noted four sources. Point out which ones you think I am talking about.LoveMonkey (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Soloviev

I decided to Google "Catholic Orthodox Cassian" to see what might come up. This came up on the first page of search results.

Soloviev's Amen

I don't want to argue here about whether Soloviev was right or wrong or whether the Orthodox Church of the 21st century is subject to the same criticisms that Soloviev made in the 19th century. I just thought it was intriguing how Cassian was invoked by Soloviev as a metaphor for the 19th century Russian Orthodox Church.

In the spirit of keeping this Talk Page about the improvement of the article, please direct further dialogue on this to my Talk Page.

--Richard S (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Ahhh Soloviev.. So you want to include him? In what context? Be more specific. What is your favorite Soloviev? :>) Mine is the "Meaning of Love" and his work "against the Positivists". I would love to include him.LoveMonkey (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't propose to include him unless you can offer something that is more specific to the topic of this article. I was just pointing out in passing that I found an interesting tidbit by accident while using the search terms "Orthodox Catholic Cassian". It was unexpected and unrelated to our current discussion but I found it interesting enough to post a link here for all to enjoy. --Richard S (talk) 20:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You know Soloviev is completely misrepresented. It is almost a hallmark of his at this point. If you can't put Soloviev in the exact correct context you simply can not understand him. He was fighting the occult revival in Russia. And Soloviev believed that if he found away to compromise in words only what Orthodoxy was. He could get each of the different social factions of not only Russia but the world to sit at the table together. I personally do not take his visions of Sophia to be the revelations that he implies. I definitely do not see them as the exstasis that Soloviev make them to be. I see them as nothing more then a very much rational and philosophical man articulating the deterministic pagan mysticism that he encountered in Russian society into a Orthodox categorization (ontology). In order to get to the table the various sects, that used the ideas that he was syncretizing to Orthodoxy, as leverage to turn people away from the Czar and the Russian Orthodox Church. Soloviev had to secularize sobornost to do that. Also there was no need.

The ugly was not so much inevitable, as it was clarifying meaning to very determined people, it is one thing to ticker with a mechanized set of ideas but that is destructive when applied to something organic (i.e. Orthodox). Same mistake that leads people away from God always. You know what road gets paved, with the best of intentions.LoveMonkey (talk) 12:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

How wikipedia does it. Here's an example look up the article Basil the Physician, here on wikipedia. In European countries without proper evidence such an article would be considered slander this is the kinda thing that is and has been done for years. This is how people get people killed (they do it in "secret" and call this type of slander "secret knowledge"). Read the article. Wikipedia completely allows this kind of stuff. This is the kind of thing Soloviev was trying to confront. You see if you look up the source given [6]. You won't be able to find anything in the book about Basil the Physician. The best you'll find is a passage stating that a Basil as a heretic was burned at the stake. [7] Notice in the article the rhetoric, notice how if someone read the article they would be likely to be enraged. This is what those type of people did to take over in Russia and this is the type of public humiliation tactics and disinformation that Soloviev was not only addressing but ultimately became a victim of. The sad thing about it is as Soloviev kept trying to tell people (indirectly) was Christians also do this kind of stuff all the time too. I think that Soloviev messed this up. In that if you oppose the differences without the "secret knowledge" and actually directly show, what they are, you can be Alexios I Komnenos. And address the secrets and make the differences clear. Thats a proper way to understand one another (the integral(s) of sobornost[8]). And yes Alexios I Komnenos burned Basil at the stake. In the East this happened because Basil was the one who insisted that though there were differences (which Alexios I Komnenos exposed as misinformation) that Bogomils should still take revenge, for the Paulicians and do everything to destroy Byzantium (which between the Roman Catholics and the Muslims did indeed occur). Of course from those who are misinformed and refuse to be open minded, no matter what is said, they will deny that and they will not reconcile. Nothing proper (orthodox) will change them. I think you can see the parallels Richard. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

More unproductive edits by Esoglou

Esoglou went and added back into the Cassian section of the article the same two pieces and text from the same to sources again to the end of another section on Cassian. When as far as I know neither the Greek Orthodox Church nor the Roman Catholic church have ever stated that Augustine Casiday nor Lauren Pristas are considered anywhere near scholarly enough to added a mention in the article more then once let alone the 4 times that Casiday is mentioned in the article right now.
I am also going to again report Esoglou for edit warring on this edit [9] How is the information not validated by the sources I provided and how is this conduct by Esoglou not to be considered misusing citation requests in order to edit war on the article?LoveMonkey (talk) 15:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that, if in the article the view is repeated (how many times?) that Cassian taught semi-Pelagianism, the sourced opposing view should be repeated the same number of times. Am I wrong?

I also think that an editor who constantly reverts to the same one-sided view is in no position to accuse another of edit-warring. Esoglou (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:Undue Weight. If the overwhelming opinion of valid sources (and there are multiple, multiple sources here) states one thing- two or even three (dissenting opinions) opposing voices of scholars (I say that subjectively) of no greater stature do not warrant edit warring to this article in order to post them in the article here. Over and Over and Over again. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I have been reluctant to continue this thread, but after reflection I have decided to add the following comment. In a context that clearly states what is the general view, excision of all mention of a contrary view, for which two recent scholars are cited, gives that (hitherto) general view undue weight. Esoglou (talk) 06:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Go look at the section and then read through the discussions here there is no way that your two sources can be justified to be included more than once. Lossky for that section and that topic about that issue should be mentioned only once. And there is no way that you can say your sources speak more for the Orthodox position then Lossky nor can you say that sources speak for the Roman Catholic position as neither are Roman Catholic. You are just arguing because you have not valid sources for your opinion and it is your opinion that you want in this article. That rather then what can be validated with multiple valid sources. You are engaging in blatant undue weight and edit warring. Where is Richard S? Me, Cody and Ricahrd where building consensus on edits for the article and now Richard is no where to be found. I certainly hope this bicker and your disagreeing with him certainly has not ran him off (and for that matter my bickering either).LoveMonkey (talk) 12:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Do, please, reduce the number of times you insert in the article the affirmation that Cassian taught what is called semi-Pelagianism, and the number of mentions of the doubt that in academic circles is today cast on that affirmation will be correspondingly reduced.

Bickering by me with Richard is something I cannot imagine happening: he is an editor who takes account of what others say.

Now that a few days of peace have been imposed on editing the article, I will let you have the last word here, and refrain from making any reply. Of course, if Richard or Cody want to initiate some discussion, that will be a different matter. Esoglou (talk) 16:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Synergist and monergist

I have not followed the entire chain of edits and reverts nor have I read every word of the discussion above. In general, it is TLDR so I didn't read it.

The whole "Synergist and monergist" section is atrociously written and needs to be rewritten from scratch. In particular, there is too much focus on Cassian and not enough on the providing an overview of what the core issue is.

Imagine that you had to write this section without referencing a single theologian. How would the article text read? I would imagine the text would start with something like "While Catholics consider the Orthodox and Catholic positions on free will and grace to be compatible and fully orthodox, the Orthodox argue that Catholics lean towards the heresy of Total Depravity through their rejection of the role of man's free will in accepting the grace of salvation through Jesus Christ. The central issue is often characterized as one of monergism vs. synergism. Monergism is defined as ... whereas synergism is...."

Start with such a text and only then add references to theologians. Most of the current text in this article that discusses Cassian belongs in the articles on John Cassian and Semipelagianism.

As for references to Casiday and Pristas, my general feeling is that we have to ask whether these are "big names" or "little names". In other words, we have to consider whether Casiday and Pristas are "big names" that are recognizable in their own right. Clearly, Augustine and Cassian are "giants". I have no personal knowledge of this field but I have been led to believe that Lossky and Romanides are "big names". Are the names of Casiday and Pristas as widely known and respected as Lossky and Romanides? If not, then their names should not be used in the same way.

Also, do Casiday and Pristas represent the mainstream or an evolving "leading edge of modern thought" that is, for the time being, a minority view? The article text should make clear to the reader what is being presented here. We should not be trying to convince the reader of anything. We should be describing what the different schools of thought are and which ones represent mainstream thinking, which ones represent "old" thinking and which ones represent "new" thinking. It is then up to the reader to pursue the sources and develop his/her own opinion.

--Richard S (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no qualms with anything you just stated. This article can not be allowed to be an opinion piece for Esoglou. And right now if I were to add to it yet another Eastern Orthodox theologian whom again states that Cassian is Orthodox and the West condemned Orthodox by proxy of Cassian Esoglou would then find some way to tell me and that position that we are mistaken and refuse to leave it stand as it is. This is obvious in all of the articles that Esoglou has touch like this. Esoglou is flat out edit warred and still does over the quotes I put in posting of the Orthodox position from Orthodox officials saying Esoglou implying they are mistaken and refusing their opinion be allowed to stand. He has no respect and wishes to silence and confuse. Esoglou warred for days over this and then flat out lied about Lossky. Denied what Lossky stated and then denied and ignored it when I posted it on the East-West schism talkpage. EDIT WARRING AND NOT COMPROMISING OR COLLABORATING. I am attempting to collaborate and compromise with you right now.

I have refused to edit war in the past on subjects and have stated my position and when it was rejected I did not edit war. You know this Richard from the whole renaming of the Eastern Orthodox Church article and the renaming of the Roman Catholic Church article. And thats just one example. Esoglou is allowed to edit war, revert war and not even gets a warning. RICHARD NEEDS TO EITHER MAKE ESOGLOU START COMPROMISING AND PROVIDING SOURCES AND AD HER TO THE RULES OR BRING ACTION AGAINST ESOGLOU. That is only fair. As Richard has no problem calling me to task and this I accept as simply part of being here. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Richard, I fully agree on the need for a thorough overhaul of the section. (Indeed of the whole article, but it is better to concentrate on a single section.)

In the opening words that you suggest there are problems with the statement that "the Orthodox argue that Catholics lean towards the heresy of Total Depravity through their rejection of the role of man's free will in accepting the grace of salvation through Jesus Christ". Catholics do not reject the role of man's free will in accepting the grace of salvation through Jesus Christ". On the contrary. See what this section of the article says (with official sources) of Catholic teaching on this matter.

Casiday and Pristas do not represent the common view on whether Cassian taught Semipelagianism. They are very recent scholars who have studied that precise question of whether Cassian did teach Semipelagianism and have concluded that he did not. It is usually taken for granted that Cassian, who was invoked by the historical Semipelagians and attacked by certain of their opponents, was himself a semi-Pelagian.

Lossky cannot be quoted as saying that Cassian was a Semipelagian (I mean in substance - I am not referring to the term "Semipelagian"). Lossky only says that Cassian's position was interpreted as a semi-pelagianism, and was condemned in the West". He says this immediately after saying that Cassian "was not able to make himself correctly understood". Interpreting what Lossky says as a declaration that Cassian taught Semipelagianism would be a synthesis such as is not admitted under Wikipedia rules. In any case - if you will permit on the Talk page a synthesis not allowed in editing the article - Lossky, who says Cassian was a witness to tradition, opposes Semipelagianism. He holds that the Orthodox Church insists on the need for simultaneity of the action of divine grace and of human free choice on the way for salvation. For him therefore the Orthodox position opposes the Semipelagian idea that human free will can first, on its own, work towards salvation, with divine grace supervening only later.

The Romanides is a big name is questionable, but I do not intend to spend any time discussing the question. Esoglou (talk) 19:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

BINGO Esoglou just said it-Interpreting what Lossky says as a declaration- its what Esoglou interprets or what esoglou says by esoglou's own authority. Which is not sourced. Lossky taught that Cassian was a witness to Eastern Tradition. It is just as correct (and dare I say even more correct) to interpret that the West in general did not and still do not understand the Eastern position. Remember Esoglou put in the article that Lossky stated that Cassian failed to get himself understood, implying Cassian was a failure at, whatever. Esoglou is using an Orthodox source that is proclaiming Cassian a witness to the Eastern tradition to source Esoglou's opinion that Cassian was failure (that is what it would say). This just one example and it goes on and on and on and on. It also goes on when people like esoglou get involved in trying to negotiate a reconciliation, where because one side is not allowed to speak freely they will simply walk away from the table stating that they are not allowed to be heard and are being silenced, censured and distorted.LoveMonkey (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

To Richard : when I say current negotiations I mean like this overview here that I am using as a touchstone.[10],[11] and reprinted here [12]LoveMonkey (talk) 04:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Maintenance requested

{{editprotected}} Please apply this change to the article. Due to upcoming changes to {{citation needed}}, several of the tags in this article will soon be displaying the currently hidden "reason" text that was misplaced in the first unnamed parameter (e.g. "the first of them being the Council of Orange in 529."). I don't know whether the template change will be made before the protection on this article expires, so I am asking for it to be fixed now rather than waiting. And since I am making an editprotected request anyway, I also included removing the <ref></ref> that is causing this page to be in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting. Note that nothing here changes the content of the article, it's just maintenance. Thanks. Anomie⚔ 15:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Edits to which one editor refuses his consent

Since no valid reason has been advanced to justify the reverting of the following edits, I will begin tomorrow to undo the reverting of the edits, one by one, starting with the edits for which not even an attempt has been made to defend the reverting. Esoglou (talk) 20:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

What did Richard say about the reverts?LoveMonkey (talk) 23:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Since 30 July, the last of these edits have been restored in substance. The problem is solved. Esoglou (talk) 09:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Cassian's position

The belief that Cassian taught semi-Pelagianist doctrine, although still common, is today denied by scholars of various denominations. Cassian is instead classified as a synergist, one who "teaches that the human will can cooperate with the Holy Spirit and the grace of God in salvation". And the Roman Catholic Church is so far from condemning John Cassian that it considers him a saint, listing him among those venerated on 23 July. Lossky remarks that Cassian "was not able to make himself correctly understood", and the Cistercian monk Luc Brésard says of Cassian: "Formed in the school of St Antony for whom human nature is good, he was opposed to the pessimism of Augustine. He tried to reconcile these two views, recognising both the fundamental goodness of human nature and the necessity of grace; but he did not have sufficient theological expertise to deal with such a difficult subject, and he was accused of 'semi-Pelagianism'; but his basic thought was true to the faith."

• This seems to be a well-sourced edit. Esoglou (talk) 05:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I have posted where Roman Catholic sources condemn the teachings of Cassian while still calling him as saint. Lossky speaks for the Orthodox church. It is not esoglou or wikipedia's place to attempt to marginalize what Lossky states. Lossky states that the Orthodox church considers the Roman Catholic church in error. Nor does this reflect properly what Cody has pointed out to you Vatican II or not.LoveMonkey (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

As the edit states, the idea that Cassian was a semi-Pelagian is common, but there are RC scholars and others who hold the opposite opinion; as long as the (sourced) mention of these remains excised as a result of the reverting, the article gives demonstrably false information. The edit did not marginalize Lossky: on the contrary, it reported even more of what he said, and quoted his exact words. Esoglou (talk) 19:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no source that you have posted that states the Roman Catholic church now does not say, any of Cassian was in error. There is no official statement from the Vatican to that effect. There are official sources that say some of Casians teachings which are labeled semipeligan are held as in error officially by the Roman Catholic church. One or dissenting opinions does not speak officially for the church nor undo or unmake dogma. Your arguing against wikipedia policy of official sources. And you know you are.LoveMonkey (talk) 19:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

No official RCC source says Cassian was in error. The Catholic Encyclopedia was a commercial venture by a publishing company, not an official publication of the Church such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Esoglou (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

They do as Cody has pointed out above. As for the Catholic Encyclopedia it re-posts Roman Catholic apologist, and theologians.

As for the Catechism, the Catechism does not cover it. It appears Esoglou is more important then Catholic theologian Adrian Fortescue. You are now saying the Catholic encyclopedia is not a valid source. [13] Siméon Vailhé, Joseph Pohle, Nicholas Weber.LoveMonkey (talk) 03:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I have not said that the Catholic Encyclopedia is not a valid source. Other valid sources show that, while many Catholic scholars say that John Cassian was a semi-Pelagian, others disagree. No official document of the RCC itself mentions John Cassian as condemned, as you yourself have remarked with regard to the official Catechism of the Catholic Church. Esoglou (talk) 04:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I can not be held responsible for lack of clarity on your side. As for what I said about the Catechism it does not cover Cassian or Semipelagianism at all, are we to believe by the logic you have imposed on me that since it is not in the Catechism these things did not happen and do not exist. I think it is best to think about that since it appears you are using a Straw man in your argument. In that you are using a source that does not cover the Roman Catholic position on these issues at all and stating because it is silence that there is no issue. This is also the argument from silence that is a logical fallacy. So you've got two fallacies, in using that argument for the Catechism to rebut the Catholic Encyclopedia. One the Catholic Encyclopedia does cover more and yet your saying use a source that covers less i.e. the Catechism. This one is the strawman. Then your saying that because your chosen source does not cover the issue that it's silence is more valid then the Catholic Encyclopedia, which is the argument from silence. IS the opinion from the Catholic Encyclopedia is be used or not Esoglou?LoveMonkey (talk) 13:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It was you, Love, not I, who said that the Catechism of the Catholic Church was silent on the matter. I ageed. What I said in the edit that you reverted was that there are scholars that hold that Cassian was not semi-Pelagian and that the RCC, far from condemning him, considers him a saint. These statements you have not proved unfounded. So on what grounds do you claim that your reverting was justified? Esoglou (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It was I whom stated that the Catholic Encyclopedia online stated that the Roman Catholic church (not some part of it not half of it but as a matter of doctrine all of the Roman Catholic church) condemns the position it attributes to Cassian called semi-pelagianism. Thats the Catholic Encyclopedia online's position. And you keep avoiding that. Thats what I've been saying and continue to state.LoveMonkey (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Who denies that that's the position of the Catholic Encyclopedia, or rather of the writer of the 1908 article? But is it not true and well-sourced that that position is today denied by scholars of various denominations, as stated in the edit that you reverted? So why did you revert it? Esoglou (talk) 16:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thats not what is even in this discussion. Whose denying that it is the position of the Roman Catholic church? That is the proper and pertinent question. Thats what is being addressed.LoveMonkey (talk) 18:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

This discussion under this heading is about why you reverted "The belief that Cassian taught semi-Pelagianist doctrine, although still common, is today denied by scholars of various denominations". Why did you? Esoglou (talk) 20:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

More detailed explanation of Cassian's position

"For Cassian, salvation is, from beginning to end, the effect of God's grace. It is fully divine. Salvation, however, is salvation of a rational creature who has sinned through free choice. Therefore, salvation necessarily includes both free human consent in grace and the gradual rehabilitation in grace of the faculty of free choice. Thus Cassian insists salvation is also fully human. His thought, however, is not Semi-Pelagian, nor do readers who submit to the whole corpus emerge Semi-Pelagians."

• An actual quotation from an academic dissertation. It should perhaps be introduced by an explicit mention of its source. Perhaps too it should not have been presented as a separate paragraph but should be made part of the preceding paragraph. Esoglou (talk) 05:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

This speculative. The official statements of the Roman Catholic church are the focus not the opinion of Lauren Pristas in her dissertation, esoglou. I have posted where Roman Catholic sources condemn the teachings of Cassian while still calling him as saint. Lossky speaks for the Orthodox church. Losskys work not Lauren Pristas is used in Orthodox seminary. Though I am sure Lauren a very nice person. It is not esoglou or wikipedia's place to attempt to marginalize what Lossky states.LoveMonkey (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

An academic dissertation published by an institute of higher learning is something greater than "speculative". The RCC itself has never said that it condemned the teaching of Cassian; some RC writers maintain that what it did condemn was taught by Cassian; others deny it. Your preference for those who say his teaching is what the RCC condemned is not enough for excluding the other view from Wikipedia. Esoglou (talk) 19:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You know that your hyping up someone's dissertation as a source will not make it a valid source against, above, or better to the Catholic encyclopedia or New Advent which is an official catholic source. You are arguing now just to argue.LoveMonkey (talk) 19:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The Catholic Encyclopedia was a commercial venture by a publishing company, not an official RCC publication such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Esoglou (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

So is the Catholic Encyclopedia to be used on wikpedia as a valid source or not? Well? If not there are other sources as even Cody points out.LoveMonkey (talk) 02:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The Catholic Encyclopedia is still, within the limitations of its century-old date, a valid source for citing in Wikipedia. Other valid sources for citing in Wikipedia include the works of Augustine Casiday in 2005 and 2009 and the others whose inclusion in Wikipedia you have reverted without valid justification. Esoglou (talk) 04:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thats an excuse. Either it is a valid source or it is not. I have not nor have the Orthodox made up their position on the matter. Nor is the Orthodox arbitrarily and without being informed saying what they are saying about the Roman Catholic church. Not having your house in order for this issue does not absolve your group from what your group has said. It one thing to have a variety of opinion it is completely another to state that the variety of opinion is the actual dogma of the church. Why are Roman Catholic PRIESTS and Roman Catholic THEOLOGIANS saying something different then Esoglou?LoveMonkey (talk) 14:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I said it is a valid source. I also said that it is not the only source. Some reliable sources disagree with what it says. I stated that the belief that Cassian taught semi-Pelagian doctrine is common, and then cited some reliable sources that disagree with that common belief. Why did you revert the mention of those reliable sources that take a position different from the one you prefer? Esoglou (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It is a mistake to argue whether or not source X is a "valid source" with the intent of asserting the syllogism that "if X is a valid source, then everything asserted in X is incontrovertibly true". The magazine Pravda was a valid, reliable source during the Soviet era. That doesn't mean that everything it published was true. It just meant that it was a superior source to the completely unreliable universe of self-published books, websites and blogs. Just because something is published doesn't mean it's true. What WP:RS looks for is some level of peer review to assure us that the source has some chance of not being total hogwash. The Catholic Encyclopedia is not an official publication of the Catholic Church and cannot be construed as stating official positions of the Catholic Church. That said, since the 1907 CE has nihil obstat and imprimatur, anything asserted in the CE can be considered as "not so far outside Church teaching as to be heretical". (I have no information regarding the "New Catholic Encyclopedia" but I assume that it also has nihil obstat and imprimatur.) --Richard S (talk) 15:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Richard either the source is valid or not. As with Pravda there was scholarly rejection of the source and also media rejection of Pravda as Soviet propaganda. Please post here where there is a source online for the Roman Catholic church that states that the Catholic Encyclopedia is not be used.LoveMonkey (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

What the Council of Orange condemned

Where as the Catholic Church defends the concept of faith and free will these are questioned in the East by the conclusions of the Second Council of Orange, which, in the view not only of the Roman Catholic Church but also of some Orthodox, did not condemn synergism, but instead upheld it. This council is not accepted by the Eastern churches ...

• This addition (in italics) was necessary to overcome the impression otherwise given that the Council of Orange condemned synergism and Cassian. Esoglou (talk) 05:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The Roman Catholic church teaches predestination based on Augustine and as the blog you used to source your passage above points out from an Orthodox laymen the Roman Catholic embraced Augustine over against any positions opposed to Augustine which in the case of the Council of Orange was the position of Cassian.LoveMonkey (talk) 17:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The edit states that in the view of the RCC and even of an Eastern Orthodox (whom, by the way, you quoted as an authority earlier on this Talk page) the Council of Orange did not condemn synergism. This you haven't and can't deny. (As for your off-topic remark on Augustine, the RCC teaching on predestination is not Augustine's.)

It is the official position of the Roman Catholic church that the council of orange condemned semipeligianism.[14] It is the official position of the Roman Catholic church that Cassian is called semipelagianism.[15]. That is my position that is my statement that is my point. Not how Esoglou twists and distorts my position.LoveMonkey (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The Catholic Encyclopedia was a commercial venture by a publishing company, not an official RCC publication such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church. (Even if were, your argument is an example of synthesis, not accepted for Wikipedia articles.) As the edit said, the Council of Orange did not condemn synergism. Esoglou (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey wikipedia Esoglou states that the Catholic encyclopedia is wrong Esoglou is right. The articleS state that the Roman Catholic church condemned semipeligainism at the Council of Orange, the Semipelagian article on the Roman Catholic encyclopedia states that the Roman Catholic church labels Cassian a semipegalian.LoveMonkey (talk) 02:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The Catholic Encyclopedia articles say the Council of Orange condemned semi-Pelagianism, not synergism. Other sources, based indeed on more recent scholarship, say that John Cassian was not a semi-Pelagian. Esoglou (talk) 04:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The Catholic Encyclopedia articles about semi-Pelagian says Cassian was semipelagian [16] Here's just one example from it.

"The most important representative of Semipelagianism after Cassian was undoubtedly the celebrated Bishop Faustus of Riez."

The Catholic Encyclopedia article about Cassian say Cassian was semi-Pelagian.[17] Here's just one example from it.

"Yet Cassian did not himself escape the suspicion of erroneous teaching; he is in fact regarded as the originator of what, since the Middle Ages, has been known as Semipelagianism."

LoveMonkey (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Why is it that two different Orthodox editors on the talkpage here point different sources that state that the Roman Catholic church 1) condemns semi-peligianism and 2) calls John Cassian a person whom taught semi-peligianism and Esoglou can't seem to get that? I am not making empty claims or claims of of my own accord, I am quoting Roman Catholic sources. Esoglou has yet to quote the Catechism or whatever Roman Catholic source saying the church's official position is Cassian did not teach semi-pelagianism and that the sources I and Cody have posted even though they too appear authoritative are wrong. This also shows that Esoglou appears to be outside the normal views as those presented by the "scholars" whom wrote for the Catholic Encyclopedia.LoveMonkey (talk) 12:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

There are sources which indeed claim that "synergy" (or at least, the Ortodox view of "synergy", called sometimes as "semi-pelagian synergism") was condemned at the 2nd council of Orange, "Gallic monks were later branded "Semi-Pelagians," and their doctrine of synergy was condemned at the Synod of Orange in 529", this book shown earlier also claims that "synergy" was condemned at Orange, and according to the following, the RCC claims that there is "no initiative which would start with man. All saving activities of men are only a response, and even the very possibility and act of this response is once more based on God, who gives that we can and do accept his action....Hence the Catholic doctrine of justification does not profess a semi-Pelagian synergism according to which salvation would be divided up into God's gracious act and the independent free act of man. On the contrary, man's free response to God is itself again the gift of God's grace" (so in other words, "original sin" never alllows humans the desire to return to God, they need the intervention of God's grace), but according to the following, which describes the position of the EOC, "according to the holy Fathers, salvation is a matter of synergy, of cooperation—that of man with God, if man wills (actively chooses) the good, the right path, the virtuous life—then will God grant grace". The following article (which describes the views of Pelagius, Augustine, and the "third option of the Orthodox East", the so-called "semi-pelagian") claims that "the so-called semi-Pelagians actually represented apostolic tradition, which had existed for centuries before Pelagius or Augustine", it describes the "semi-pelagian" position as claiming that "human will, though weakened by the fall, is still able to choose right", it claims that the 2nd council of Orange claimed that "man under original sin had lost all power to turn to God accept by God's grace. All the good in man is the work of God", it also claims that the ""Eastern tradition has always asserted simultaneity in the synergy of divine grace and human freedom" (Lossky 199). Vladimir Lossky writes, "The Eastern tradition never separates these two elements: grace and human freedom are manifested simultaneously and cannot be conceived apart from each other"". Cody7777777 (talk) 13:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Cody, there are sources that claim that the Council of Orange did condemn synergism. I have quoted some of them myself. But in this edit, which LoveMonkey reverted, I pointed out that this is not the opinion of the RCC (which considers the Council orthodox and normative and at the same time upholds synergism) nor is it the opinion of the Eastern Orthodox writer whom I cited.

Thank you for quoting Lossky also, especially what he says about the simultaneity of the synergy of divine grace and human freedom: when I quoted this at 15:13 on 2 July 2010, I was accused of "mudding up the process". Lossky's insistence on the simultaneity of the synergy surely shows that he excludes the idea that man can first, on his own, takes steps to salvation (human monergism), which is what the Council of Orange excluded. Human free will and divine grace must work simultaneously, not separately, for salvation. Protestants call synergy semi-Pelagianism, and claim that the Council of Orange condemned it. But what the Council condemned was the non-simultaneous activity to which Lossky rightly denied the name of synergy. What the Council did not condemn was synergy (in the proper, simultaneous, sense), the doctrine of "the so-called semi-Pelagians", whom those I wished to include, and indeed Lossky too, considered to be synergists.

Again I feel that I should have expressed these ideas more clearly, and I trust you will look kindly on my effort. If necessary, I will make another effort. Esoglou (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Again more distortion. Does the Roman Catholic church condemn Semi-Peligianism? Cody posted sources other than the Catholic Encyclopedia (that you reject, oh how convenient) stating that the Roman Catholic church does indeed condemn semi-peligianism. Does the Roman Catholic church consider the teachings of Cassian Semi-pelagianism? Cody posted sources that the Roman Catholic church does. How can you not see this?LoveMonkey (talk) 16:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The Roman Catholic Church does condemn semi-Pelagianism. It does not condemn "so-called semi-Pelagianism", which is really synergism. Some sources say that the Roman Catholic Church considers the teachings of Cassian to be semi-Pelagian. Other sources say it does not. Why have you reverted the mention of those other sources inserted along with the opinion that you favour? Esoglou (talk) 16:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious what is your opinion about the statements made in this article (which claims to speak for the RCC): "There are no "works" by which a man could render God "gracious" to himself, no initiative which would start with man. All saving activities of men are only a response, and even the very possibility and act of this response is once more based on God, who gives that we can and do accept his action....Hence the Catholic doctrine of justification does not profess a semi-Pelagian synergism according to which salvation would be divided up into God's gracious act and the independent free act of man. On the contrary, man's free response to God is itself again the gift of God's grace". The author's view (who appears to be a knowledgeable scholar, "Karl Rahner, S.J., studied theology under Martin Heidegger, then taught dogmatics in Catholic unversities in Munich and Innsbruck, Germany, between 1937 and 1984. He wrote more than a half-dozen books and was an observer at Vatican Council II in 1962-1965.") of "semi-Pelagian synergism according to which salvation would be divided up into God's gracious act and the independent free act of man" is quite the same as the Orthodox view of synergy. Cody7777777 (talk) 19:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

(To esoglou)I can not find valid sources that make the distinction you have just made. There is no article for semi-Pelagianism and another for so-called semi-Pelagianism. Some sources address Cassian other are silent and silence is not the same thing as your stating and you know that. The reason for the revert has been stated from the beginning. Esoglou did not have consensus I have already told you that and anyone can read the edit summary of the revert and it states that clearly. How is it that you can not understand that? LoveMonkey (talk) 18:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

In reply to your latest edit, indicating that it was to me and not to Cody that you addressed your observation about the phrase "so-called semi-Pelagianism": In using that phrase, I was echoing what Cody wrote at 13:47, 7 July 2010. As for your pretext for reverting, the lack of your "consensus", yours alone, is not a valid reason: an objectively valid reason, not just a personal antipathy to an edit, is required to justify reverting.Esoglou (talk) 09:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

(To Cody:) Rahner seems to agree with Lossky on the need for simultaneity for true synergy, as opposed to a "semi-Pelagian synergy". Esoglou (talk) 20:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

So, you agree that Rahner describes adequately the RC position? (I personally think he does, but I see differences between his view and Lossky's view.) Cody7777777 (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Cody and I have amicably continued this discussion in another section of this page. Esoglou (talk) 16:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Citation request for claim that the RCC calls the EOC position semi-Pelagian

A "citation needed" tag, explained by the comment, "As shown above, some Catholic writers call Cassian semi-Pelagian,others deny it; the Church itself has made no declaration", was added to the claim about "the Catholic Church's use" in the statement, "This council is not accepted by the Eastern churches and the Catholic Church's use of describing their position and St Cassian as Semi-Pelagian is also rejected."

• This surely was a justified citation request about a claim that seems to contradict what went before. Esoglou (talk) 05:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
• LoveMonkey's grounds for removing the tag (still awaited)

I have today undone this undefended revert. Esoglou (talk) 06:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Clarification of statement by Lossky

Addition of the words "when this was interpreted as a semi-pelagianism" to the statement "Orthodox theologian Vladimir Lossky has stated that the Roman Catholic Church has rejected the teachings of John Cassian".

• This addition, based on the quoted words, "His (Cassian's) position of seeming to stand 'above' the conflict, was interpreted, on the rational plane, as a semi-pelagianism", was necessary in order to present correctly Lossky's statement about what exactly was condemned in the West. Suppression of this phrase falsifies the presentation of Lossky's statement. Esoglou (talk) 05:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
• LoveMonkey's grounds for reverting the edit (still awaited)

I have today undone this undefended revert. Esoglou (talk) 13:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Citation tag moved

A citation tag attached to the statement that the Eastern Orthodox Church holds a view not different from that of the Roman Catholic Church on free will was moved to cover the whole phrase, "Eastern Orthodox Church holds a view different from the 'western' Calvinist, Arminian, and Lutheran ones on free will, but not from the Roman Catholic and Oriental Orthodox ones."

• The next sentence explains: "The difference is in the interpretation of the (sic) Original sin …" an interpretation that it says is shared by EOC, RCC and OOC! In that context there is thus as much justification for asking for a citation for the alleged difference or lack of difference of the EOC view from that of each of the others as there is with regard to the RCC alone. Esoglou (talk) 05:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
• LoveMonkey's grounds for reverting the edit (still awaited)

I have today undone this undefended revert. Esoglou (talk) 09:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Removal of wikilink in section heading

As explained in the edit summary, the wikilink was removed from the section heading "Free will or metaphysical libertarianism" as contrary to Wikipedia norms, and in addition as pointing to a non-existent article.

• MOS:HEAD says: "To avoid accessibility problems, headings should not normally contain links, especially where only part of a heading is linked." Esoglou (talk) 05:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
• LoveMonkey's grounds for reverting the edit (still awaited)

The reversal of this edit was so obvious a violation of Wikipedia norms that it was later undone by a bot without the need of intervention by an editor. Esoglou (talk) 05:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Revert warring by Esoglou

Wikipedia like to punish the messenger. But they appear to not be fair in their enforcement of policy. How can Esoglou possibly justify this recent revert [18] The first source listed in the EIGHT SOURCES given is the OSV Catholic encyclopedia. This along side the Catholic Encyclopedia online the New Advent explicitly stating.

"Yet Cassian did not himself escape the suspicion of erroneous teaching; he is in fact regarded as the originator of what, since the Middle Ages, has been known as Semipelagianism."[19]

How many sources does something take to be mainstream. Since it was User:Richardshusr who wrote the line and I and another editor here on the article talkpage gave the passage consent. How many times is Esoglou going to be pointed out as breaking the 4RR and edit warring before someone says something to Esoglou instead of criticizing me. When will someone do something to stop this disruptive behavior.LoveMonkey (talk) 19:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

What the article you quote gives is the view of its author. Can you find any teaching by the Church itself on the question whether Cassian taught semi-Pelagianism? As far as I know, there is none. If there is none, Catholic theologians are free to take up different positions on the matter. Until you or Richard or someone else cites a teaching by the Church (the Church that includes Cassian in its official list of saints), you have no right to remove a tag asking for such a citation in support of the claim about the Church's teaching. Esoglou (talk) 19:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You have not provided sources for your opinions on this talkpage. I have now provided NINE SOURCES to the statement. The fact that you are even arguing over this obvious fact and over the passage that was written by a Roman Catholic editor here (again not me) shows your intent.LoveMonkey (talk) 19:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Nine statements of opinion about whether Cassian taught semi-Pelagianism. Not one citation of any teaching of the Church itself on the question. Esoglou (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The sources are acceptable sources. This is not up to Esoglou.LoveMonkey (talk) 20:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Esoglou here. I think we need to be careful to differentiate between "official Church doctrine" and "what is commonly taught to Catholics". Perhaps Esoglou can suggest some wording to help us capture the difference. --Richard S (talk) 21:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Why not do as I think I may have already suggested: write "Catholic theologians generally say that Cassian was ..."? Esoglou (talk) 11:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes Richard I copied and posted, pasted your words. Which Esoglou then denied the 9 sources I provided.LoveMonkey (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Richard has once again demonstrated that he is an editor open to reason. Esoglou (talk) 08:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Whom wrote the passage that you Esoglou/Lima is attacking.LoveMonkey (talk) 18:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

More Esoglou Editor warring by misusing citation tags

This passage in the article:

Orthodox Christians have usually understood Roman Catholicism as professing St. Augustine's teaching that everyone bears not only the consequence, but also the guilt, of Adam's sin. This teaching, which is contrary to that of the Roman Catholic Church,[124] appearsTemplate:Citation need to have been confirmed by multiple councils,[clarification needed] the first of them being the Council of Orange in 529.[citation needed]

Esoglou riddled with citation requests before even attempting to clarify its source. Why is the behavior acceptable? BTW the source [20] is the Orthodox Wiki.LoveMonkey (talk) 20:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The need for these citation requests is indicated in my response below to Richard's question about the more-or-less identical passage in OrthodoxWiki. Esoglou (talk) 11:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Esoglou keeps peppering articles with the citation requests. Overdoing the citation tags appears to show the article is not credible. Esoglou then likes to deny that sources are then valid once there added. LoveMonkey (talk) 22:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The trouble is the peppering of articles with unverified statements that must be questioned, if not removed immediately. Esoglou (talk) 08:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

If we are talking about Esoglou yes but we are talking about something that has an origin as a website that is monitored by Orthodox clergy and is not just anonymous. But since it does not fit Esoglou's agenda it is now something for him to edit war over. And for Esoglou to citation tag words in sentences which does nothing but frustrate.LoveMonkey (talk) 18:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

So OrthodoxWiki is an unquestionable reliable source for every statement in it? Esoglou (talk) 19:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The passage is sourced. The passage is also reviewed by the clergy there that run the site. Esoglou has already been told this and instead dodges these points and spends time splitting hairs to try and justify Esoglou/Lima being generally disruptive and break the the WP:3RR rule.LoveMonkey (talk) 12:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Esoglou edit warring over correction of a run on sentence

Why did Esoglou revert this edit?[21] If Esoglou had a problem with my captilizing the the letter i then why did Esoglou not rewrite the sentence to not be a run on sentence?LoveMonkey (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

In spite of the fact that this article is riddled with "sentences" that begin with a conjunction such as "As", followed by no main verb, that is not good English. "In spite of the fact that the Catholic Church teaches, on the contrary, that for salvation there is a kind of interplay, or synergy, between human freedom and divine grace" is not a good sentence in English. "Other sources state that the position of synergy was actually condemned by the Western Church at the Council of Orange, in spite of the fact that the Catholic Church teaches, on the contrary, that for salvation there is a kind of interplay, or synergy, between human freedom and divine grace" is a good grammatical sentence in English. Esoglou (talk) 20:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Stop claiming your wrongs are justified because other problems with the article. Stop adding MORE bad editing to the article and trying to justify it because of mistakes already there.LoveMonkey (talk) 22:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Using good English is not a mistake. And the presence of bad English elsewhere in the article is no reason for adding yet more bad English to it. Esoglou (talk) 08:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

My point exactly so now please revert back the sentence break that it will be 2 sentences instead of one big run on sentence. I have already said this.LoveMonkey (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

So, according to you, "In spite of the fact that the sun is risen." is a good English sentence? And "He claims that it is midnight, in spite of the fact that the sun is risen." is bad English? I thought a sentence was supposed to have a main verb. Esoglou (talk) 19:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

So according to you I split a sentence in two because it was a giant run on sentence that YOU wrote and you wish to waste space here arguing over it rather then rewrite it so it is not a awful mess of a run on sentence. I think the sun will never set on a hubris so big.LoveMonkey (talk) 12:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Reliable source?

Is another wiki (OrthodoxWiki) a reliable source to cite in Wikipedia? Esoglou (talk) 20:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Generally, wikis aren't considered reliable, since anyone can edit them.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikis are not considered reliable sources but we might look to see whether the text is cited to a reliable source. I actually suspect that the Orthodox Wiki article on original sin is not too far off in its description of the Catholic position. The full paragraph in that article is:

"Orthodox Christians have usually understood Roman Catholicism as professing St. Augustine's teaching that everyone bears not only the consequence, but also the guilt, of Adam's sin. This teaching appears to have been confirmed by multiple councils, the first of them being the Council of Orange in 529. This difference between the two Churches in their understanding of the original sin was one of the doctrinal reasons underlying the Catholic Church's declaration of its dogma of the Immaculate Conception in the 19th century, a dogma that is rejected by the Orthodox Church. However, contemporary Roman Catholic teaching is best explicated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which includes this sentence: ""original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted" (§405). "

I would be interested to hear what Esoglou thinks of this passage from the Orthodox Wiki.

--Richard S (talk) 21:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The passage is composed of four sentences, of which only the last is sourced. The first, which states that Orthodox Christians have a mistaken idea of Roman Catholic teaching, may perhaps be true, but it is, as I said, unsourced. It may be that the following sentences should be prefixed with "Orthodox - or some Orthodox - believe this"; but I will comment on the sentences as they stand, making statements about supposed facts. The second sentence raises several questions, each arising from unsourced wording: the vague or weasel-type "appears to" and "multiple councils", and the false (am I wrong?) claim that the 529 Council of Orange taught that everyone bears the guilt of Adam's sin, as if each person were at fault for it, rather than just bearing its consequences and a lack of the holiness that they would otherwise have (sin in an analogous sense). The third makes a quite undocumented claim that a "doctrinal reason" why the Catholic Church decided to declare that from the first moment of her existence Mary was saved from original sin was the idea that everyone is guilty of Adam's sin. The fourth, the only sentence that is sourced, attaches the adjective "contemporary" to "Roman Catholic teaching" for no obvious reason - unless it be for the sake of suggesting that, although Roman Catholic teaching now verifiably rejects the idea that all human beings bear the guilt of Adam's sin, it formerly propounded the view that it now rejects.

That another wiki accepts this passage - whoever put it in - is not to its credit. Wikipedia cannot accept it. Esoglou (talk) 11:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I have added several articles here to wikipedia FROM OrthodoxWiki. Why is that now a problem? And in the case of editing on Orthodox wiki there is no anonymous editing there.LoveMonkey (talk) 22:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I hope that the other articles or passages that you copied from OrthodoxWiki to Wikipedia were better founded. If there were no copyright issues, you were of course free to copy them. OrthodoxWiki can be copied to Wikipedia but not cited as a reliable source in the sense in which Wikipedia uses the term "reliable source". Any text copied from it may be questioned here, and may be removed if not verified from a reliable source. Esoglou (talk) 08:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Well I can say that they as articles on Orthodox wiki were looked over by the clergy that runs the site. Whom then also at first objected to them being added here on wikipedia. Also since when is Esoglou stating what Wikipedia considers reliable? Since esoglou has already been shown to post original research and blogs and contest everything.LoveMonkey (talk) 18:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

So OrthodoxWiki is an unquestionable reliable source for every statement in it? Esoglou (talk) 19:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it; the usability of such a source depends on its editorial control, and the degree to which it's official, and that contributions are attributed. DGG ( talk ) 01:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, DGG. You will note that the sample above gives no source for nearly all its statements. Richard copied it from this OrthodoxWiki article. It is the third paragraph of the article. If you look at the history of the article, you will find that the passage has been removed and restored more than once. Esoglou (talk) 06:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The Clergy who oversee Orthodox Wiki also contribute here to wiki as well. This is circular logic. The passage was sourced. I see no conflict with the passage. And it is just one more example of the lack of co-operation and warring with Esoglou.LoveMonkey (talk) 12:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Reorganization

1. Looking again at the article, the basic organization of this article must be changed. It is not our practice when different POVs exist on a range of issue to present first one and then the other, but discuss them issue by issue. If necessary I'll do it, but it'll be easier for me to fix up what someone else does.
2.Neither the RC nor the EO churches have totally homogeneous dogmas, either chronologically or in agreement between different theologians. (I recognize that the EO church does not recognize the evolution of dogma in the same sense the RC does--this is one of the differences) What needs to be stated is the current official position, and then some idea of the development and variation (the details of that go in the articles on the various dogmas--this is a summary article--treating it as such removes a great deal of the editing difficulties.
2A. No individual theologian is an absolute authority for what his church believes on issues where there is variant interpretation. I know the RC tradition better, and I know its possible to find very positive statements supporting quite a range of things, especially if one ignore chronology. I doubt the EO is different.
2B. As far as I am aware , the official current RC summary statement is its catechism. Is there a single OE equivalent?
3. I do not consider ecclesiology to be part of theology. The organization of the earthly Church and the relationship between its parts is a separate issue. If we do want to include it here, the title of the article needs to be changed a little ... Religious differences? DGG ( talk ) 02:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

1. Since the editor who has made the great majority of the edits to this article and I seem to be opponents, neither of us can undertake a reorganization. You must do the work yourself. Please do.

2. I think it is inexact to say that the two churches lack "totally homogeneous dogmas". A dogma may be interpreted differently, and often is, but if it is a dogma, it has been stated in a definitive form. The RCC does not accept a concept of the development of doctrine that allows for contradictions between official teaching at different times. It does accept that, when as yet no dogma on a matter had been defined, certain Catholic theologians, including bishops, held views opposed to the doctrine that the Church later declared to be its official teaching. An obvious example is the dogma that Mary was conceived free from original sin, disbelieved by Thomas Aquinas, who is generally considered the greatest Catholic theologian (and it seems by his follower Pope Pius V, who had the liturgical feast called the Conception, not the Immaculate Conception, of Mary) but upheld by theologians such as Duns Scotus, whose view prevailed in the course of time. In other words, the views of theologians, even the views of the majority of theologians, are not necessarily dogma, are not necessarily the church's official teaching, and should not be presented as such.

2A. I agree absolutely with the observation that no individual theologian - or publication other than by the church itself - is an absolute authority for what his church believes.

2B. The Eastern Orthodox Church has nothing quite corresponding to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The Catechism of Philaret corresponds to some extent, but it was an official document of the Russian Orthodox Church alone, not a pan-Orthodox declaration, and the main editor of this article has, if I remember right, refused to accept some of its statements, as he has also refused to accept the teaching of a pan-Orthodox synod, on the to my mind quite invalid ground that it is a primary source.

3. I prefer to make no comment on your understanding of "ecclesiology", fearing an unnecessary and unproductive dispute with the main editor. Esoglou (talk) 11:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah Esoglou at it again. Come on. The EO has catechism for catechumens it's a GREEK WORD.[22] NOTE this link I just posted again.[23] It is but an overview of what has been attempted in this article. Look at it. This is what is done over and over again in Orthodoxy. That the gist of it is in Orthodox theology.[24] Which is actually taught by and in the liturgy.[25] Why is it that Esoglou feels the need to speak for the Orthodox and can not just speak for the RCC? This behavior causes us as EO so much trouble as the RCC just loves to runs us into the ground and fill peoples heads with misconceptions. Like you have to be Greek or Russian to be Greek or Russian Orthodox. Esoglou does not speak for the Orthodox and is consistently WRONG. We used to and still do use something of the approach of the didache. I also agree with DGG and I think that DGG has got a very good understanding of it. I also think that the Actus Purus should be the heart of this article as well as the statements that Roman Catholic sources as a matter of record say about the theology of Orthodox Christianity not esoglou find some obscure (and ans still as of yet many-ed and valid) Roman Catholic sources saying that the RCC has stopped calling use Orthodox Christians, backward, elitist, followers of Eastern Mysticism to the point of Gnostic corruption, heretics. Esoglou needs to back away and allow those Roman Catholic sources to be posted and stop edit warring over it. I can not help that the Roman Catholic allows sources that called themselves Roman Catholic to make statements that the Eastern Orthodox would notice and call into question. And the Orthodox positions on these subjects are not me I am reflected what is common and taught widely in the East. NO MATTER HOW MUCH ESOGLOU/LIMA DOESN'T LIKE IT. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This requires no comment by me. Comment by others would be helpful. I notice that DGG is an Administrator. Esoglou (talk) 13:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Roman Catholic editor Esoglou again distorting Orthodox theologian V Lossky

Esoglou posted this edit.

[26] The Eastern Orthodox position is that this synergy is not that of two successive moments, with divine grace supervening later, following on an act of human will, for "Eastern tradition has always asserted simultaneity in the synergy of divine grace and human freedom". Vladimir Lossky writes: "The Eastern tradition never separates these two elements: grace and human freedom are manifested simultaneously and cannot be conceived apart from each other." (Lossky, p. 197).

It is becoming clear that Esoglou one does not wish to discuss his misinterpretations before adding them into the article. Lossky NEVER say that "The Eastern Orthodox position is that this synergy is not that of two successive moments, with divine grace supervening later, following on an act of human will," ANYWHERE. What Lossky is really saying is that the Orthodox position does not deny grace nor human freedom. Lossky is not saying that one proceeds the other in any sequence in his statements NOR THAT IT DOES NOT. Losskys statement has nothing to do with sequence. As Lossky states that both are "valid at the same time" not that both "happen at the same time". LoveMonkey (talk) 16:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

"Simultaneous" means "at the same time", does it not? Two distinct moments, successive ones, are by definition not simultaneous. One who says that two things are "simultaneous" is indeed excluding the idea that they appear in sequence. "What Lossky is really saying" is what he actually says: "Eastern tradition has always asserted simultaneity in the synergy of divine grace and human freedom" and "The Eastern tradition never separates these two elements: grace and human freedom are manifested simultaneously and cannot be conceived apart from each other." "What Lossky is really saying", at least in the these quotations, is not "that the Orthodox position does not deny grace nor human freedom". They take effect at the same time for the very reason that they are simultaneous, as Lossky says of them.

I would propose a slight retouch:

The Eastern Orthodox position is that the synergy between grace and human freedom is simultaneous, not that of two successive moments, with divine grace supervening later, following on an independent act of human will: "Eastern tradition has always asserted simultaneity in the synergy of divine grace and human freedom". Vladimir Lossky writes: "The Eastern tradition never separates these two elements: grace and human freedom are manifested simultaneously and cannot be conceived apart from each other." (Lossky, p. 197).

Any reasoned objection? Esoglou (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

More edit warring. Esoglou is wrong. Esoglou should stop attacking Lossky in this article and the East-West schism article and the filioque. Esoglou is now again attacking Lossky this time instead of saying that Lossky can be sourced to say that Cassian was a failure at getting the West to understand the Eastern doctrine (which was around before Cassian and is still around after Cassian). Esoglou is now suggesting that Lossky states that exact opposite of free choice with Lossky explicitly stands against. [27] You are representing the Roman Catholic church and your actions in distorting and attacking Eastern Orthodox theologians is unacceptable.LoveMonkey (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

How about addressing the question, instead of quoting a passage of Lossky that does not speak of divine grace and free will as cooperating in synergy either simultaneously or successively? Lossky does say, more than once, that they are simultaneous. We should accept that he does say it. "Simultaneous" does not mean "successive". Do you agree or disagree?. Esoglou (talk) 19:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I have already clarified that Lossky never said :"The Eastern Orthodox position is that this synergy is not that of two successive moments, with divine grace supervening later, following on an act of human will, for". Esoglou's interruption does not belong on Wikipedia.LoveMonkey (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Post here where Lossky made the statement:"The Eastern Orthodox position is that this synergy is not that of two successive moments, with divine grace supervening later, following on an act of human will, for".LoveMonkey (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the following is a better phrasing. What do you think?

While Semipelagianism holds that the human will can at times take the first step toward salvation independently, with divine grace supervening only later, the Eastern Orthodox position is that the synergy between divine grace and human freedom is necessarily simultaneous: "Eastern tradition has always asserted simultaneity in the synergy of divine grace and human freedom". Vladimir Lossky writes: "The Eastern tradition never separates these two elements: grace and human freedom are manifested simultaneously and cannot be conceived apart from each other." (Lossky, p. 197). Esoglou (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that your wrong and that you are trying to not now look like you are edit warring again. I think that with Lossky you should not even go there as Lossky, V Lossky was a metaphysical libertarian. I think that he is on record as opposing all forms of restriction to the concept of free will.[28] And I think you as a Roman Catholic need to leave V Lossky alone as he appears to be a repeat target of yours. I think that Lossky's passage has nothing to do with the way you are using it. As it is about the Eastern defense of free will and how the East never got involved in the nonsense you are now trying to interject into it. The East Orthodox church never involved itself in taking either the side of Grace or human freedom as something that can be rationalized. And that has nothing to do with which one does or does not come first in sequence.LoveMonkey (talk) 20:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It is what Lossky says, isn't it? Esoglou (talk) 20:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Would Richard please comment on LoveMonkey's action in excising this passage for no better reason - as I see it - than his refusal to believe that Lossky could have said what he verifiably did say. May I restore it to the article? Esoglou (talk) 11:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes Richard please tell me where Lossky says:

"The Eastern Orthodox position is that this synergy is not that of two successive moments, with divine grace supervening later, following on an act of human will,"

LoveMonkey (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Or rather say what, if anything, is wrong with the text, modified as a result of discussion here (discussion is meant to be directed towards reaching a text acceptable to both sides, not to droning on and on about a text no longer upheld by either side):

While Semipelagianism holds that the human will can at times take the first step toward salvation independently, with divine grace supervening only later, the Eastern Orthodox position is, according to Vladimir Lossky, that the synergy between divine grace and human freedom is necessarily simultaneous: "Eastern tradition has always asserted simultaneity in the synergy of divine grace and human freedom". He states: "The Eastern tradition never separates these two elements: grace and human freedom are manifested simultaneously and cannot be conceived apart from each other." Esoglou (talk) 08:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Esoglou's opinion it is not what Lossky actually says. Since you are not Orthodox and seek to depict Lossky as having the same theology as Roman Catholicism (which Lossky says he does not have) it should be obvious to anyone reading this that you will argue even when you have been shown to be be wrong. As you are doing now. Its that simple. Show where Lossky says such a thing not interrupt him to fit your agenda.LoveMonkey (talk) 18:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you actually deny that Lossky wrote: "Eastern tradition has always asserted simultaneity in the synergy of divine grace and human freedom" and "The Eastern tradition never separates these two elements: grace and human freedom are manifested simultaneously and cannot be conceived apart from each other"? Although I expect you will once again remove a soundly verified statement just because you dislike it, I am now reinserting Lossky's words introduced by the text as modified above, which differs from the text that previously accompanied his words. Esoglou (talk) 19:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for not reverting. Esoglou (talk) 16:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)