Talk:Theological differences between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LoveMonkey (talk | contribs) at 18:57, 19 June 2017 (→‎Subsection "Philosophy and scholasticism versus Theoria": Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hell - the concept of eternal punishment

What has happened to this section? All that's left is a set of {{seealso}} links to Hell in Christian beliefs, Hell in Eastern Orthodox theology, and Hell in Catholic theology. This is not appropriate. There should be at least a summary of what these articles say. In particular, this section should compare and contrast the similarities and differences between Orthodox and Catholic beliefs about hell. --Richard S (talk) 00:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of it is contained in the theoria article. LoveMonkey (talk) 02:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Palamism

I found this quote from Christopher Livanos quite interesting:

Though the Catholic church agrees, and has since the Middle Ages, that a certain difference will always exist between man and God, it has never said precisely what the diffrence is. The Orthodox Church, however, stated its position on the matter definitively in 1351 when it sanctioned the doctrine of the “Palamite Distinction" between God's energies and his essence and the participation of humanity in the former but not the latter.

Livanos, Christoper. Greek tradition and Latin influence in the work of George Scholarios: alone against all of Europe.

--Richard S (talk) 05:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Differences of perspective and emphasis

StormRider was asking over at Talk:Divinization (Christian) if there were any scholars who discussed the Catholic view of divinization. In the process of looking for sources to answer his query, I ran across this entry in "The encyclopedia of world religions" which I thought provided a really concise and cogent summary of the difference between Catholic and Orthodox theologies. I have paraphrased in the section titled "Differences of perspective and emphasis". --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 07:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Dragani on Adrian Fortescue

While looking for something else, I stumbled across this really good summary of Fortescue's view of Eastern Orthodox theology. In brief, Dragani asserts that Fortescue views Eastern Orthodox theology as being "in harmony with Catholic theology". This is particularly interesting given the sense in Fortescue's Catholic Encyclopedia articles that he considers Palamism to be heretical. This presents an interesting conundrum. I don't have time to work this source into the article but I think we should do so especially since it seems to me one of the best sources (outside of papal pronouncements) for asserting the Catholic view that Eastern Orthodox theology is fully compatible with Catholic theology. (NB: If you read all the way to page 75, it will become clear that Fortescue is harshly critical of the Eastern Orthodox Church and of its theology. He espouses many opinions that the Orthodox would find offensive and objectionable. That notwithstanding, the point is that as early as Fortescue, some Catholics considered Orthodox theology to be "fully compatible with Catholic theology". --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I'm going to engage in a bit of speculative OR and synthesis here but this is what I see based on little glimpses here and there. In the article on Palamism, we write that Fortescue, also writing in the Catholic Encyclopedia, claimed that "the real distinction between God's essence and operation remains one more principle, though it is rarely insisted on now, in which the Orthodox differ from Catholics". If we combine this with Fortescue's assertion that EO theology is "in harmony with Catholic theology", we might conclude that Fortescue did not see Palamism as incompatible with Catholic theology (different maybe but not incompatible). Moreover, I think it is worthwhile to consider what Fortescue meant by "rarely insisted on now". Who did Fortescue think was not "insisting" on the essence-energies distinction? I suspect that it was the Orthodox theologians of Fortescue's time that were not insisting upon the difference. This could be attributable to what Michael Angold terms the "dry scholasticism" of Greek Orthodox theologians trained in Italy during the centuries-long Ottoman occupation of Greece. Lossky's call for a Neo-patristic synthesis is characterized as a call for the Orthodox to eschew the Scholasticism of the West and to return to the (Greek) Fathers of the Church, including Palamas. This is thus the "rediscovery of Palamas by emigre Russian theologians" that Daniel Payne refers to. Thus, the 20th century is characterized by a Catholic Church that chooses to minimize the differences between the theologies of the two churches whereas there is a movement among (some?) Orthodox theologians to focus on the differences. One question I have is that we keep saying "some Orthodox theologians". Do we, in fact, have any examples of Orthodox theologians standing in opposition to Lossky and Romanides and supporting the view of Fortescue that the two theologies are in harmony with each other? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editing restrictions

LoveMonkey, if you edit Eastern Orthodox commentary on Roman Catholic teaching, you know you must, in the body of the article, clearly attribute the commentary to the specific individual or document making it (not just say "the Eastern Orthodox hold"), and you must clearly identify it as opinion, rather than as factual information about the nature of RC teaching (not say, e.g., "Roman Catholic theologians hold that ...").

I don't want you to be subjected unnecessarily to sanctions for violating the agreed Wikipedia:Editing restrictions; so I am reverting your edits, to save you from being blocked. Esoglou (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My edits where grammar and other such edits. You reverted because you are here to edit war. How is it that Esoglou is yet again modifying statements from Eastern Orthodox sources? Each edit Esoglou made was to statements from Eastern Orthodox sources.[1] Then Esoglou goes and posts on administrator Ed Hubbards personal page complaining [2] even though it was Esoglou who violated the terms of the restrictions. Look at Esoglou's comments here on the article talkpage. After Esoglou violates the restrictions he tries to blame ME for his violations. LoveMonkey (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Esoglou you are going to get into a world of hurt by blatantly breaching your editing restrictions in this way, especially so soon after the restrictions were enforced. Do not edit this material, even if you think it's wrong and even if you think LM has failed to uphold the restriction. Bringing perceived breaches of the agreement to Ed's attention is the right thing to do; "correcting" them yourself is not. For the record I see no breach by LM here.--Taiwan boi (talk) 03:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I was already fully aware that I was not to make any changes of my own to LoveMonkey's accounts of "Eastern Orthodox pictures of Roman Catholic theology" and took care not to make any such changes, I have now learned that LoveMonkey himself may at will add phrases or remove them from his accounts, without thereby violating his agreed obligation to ensure that what information he adds about "Eastern Orthodox commentary (positive or negative) on Roman Catholic teaching/practice must be clearly attributed, in the body of the article, to the specific individual or document making it and must be clearly identified as opinion, rather than as factual information about the nature of RC teaching/practice or its compatibility/incompatibility with EO teaching/practice". Esoglou (talk) 10:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Taiwan boi. Esoglou, it strikes me as incomprehensible that you would edit that section so soon after the restrictions were put in place.
I actually agree with Esoglou that LM's addition of the word "anthropomorphic" was problematic, even if it's supported by one of the existing sources. In my opinion, when Esoglou or LM starts adding material (even individual words) about RC/EO commentary on EO/RC teachings, the editing restrictions should kick in, and they should be required to attribute the sentences that they are editing to a specific document or person in the body of the article. However, I have no interest in sparking another fight, so I'll just drop it for now. LM, for your own sake, I hope that you consider attributing sentences in the section "Eastern Orthodox pictures of Roman Catholic theology" to specific documents or individuals whenever you edit them, even if you are only editing already-existing sentences. This will make it less likely that you'll run afoul of the editing restrictions.
At any rate, Esoglou, you technically should not even be discussing this material on the talk page (if I'm reading the editing restrictions correctly), let alone editing it. If you think LM is doing something wrong, just alert Ed; don't intervene yourself. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have thus learned from Phatius a second thing of which I was regrettably unaware: that returning the text to its previous state after what I (sincerely but, I have since been told, mistakenly) thought was a violation of the agreement on the part of LoveMonkey, while making no change of mine to that previous state, was a violation by me of the same agreement. I accept his judgement. This is in addition to what I already learned from Ed (although Phatius seems to have cast doubt on it now): that LoveMonkey is free to add words like "anthropomorphic" (and later to complete the phrase by adding also "in contrast to theanthropic") to his accounts of Western theology. I already accepted Ed's judgement. I apologize for my failure to understand the situation properly, and I will make no further comment on the matter on this page. Esoglou (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • I'm confused********************************************************************************************************

Why is the Roman Catholic church called Western Catholic, when its roots are romani (pagan). This has swept from the East up from India through Greece and through Eastern Europe and more metaphysical?

Why is the Latin, Eastern Orthodox more Western (academic and geographically)? Is Rome orginally Latin or Romani? Where did the split take place?

Please can someone explain.

[3], in specific [4]. LoveMonkey (talk) 03:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 30 June 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move the article has been established within the RM time period and thus defaulting to not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Music1201 talk 03:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


– Threefold rationale:

  1. To be more WP:CONCISE by removing the unnecessary "Roman".
  • In this context there is no confusion that "Catholic" refers to the Church in communion with the See of Rome.
  • "Orthodox", however, could refer to either Eastern or Oriental, so it has to stay.
  1. To alphabetize the names of the involved Churches.
  2. In the second case, to be more WP:PRECISE.
  • Calling it "ecclesiastical differences" (which taken literally just means "churchy differences"), invites inclusion of every possible difference between Catholicism and Orthodoxy.
  • Calling it "ecclesiological differences", on the other hand, restricts the article to its intended scope:
"...differences between the organizational structure and governance of the Eastern Orthodox Church and that of the Roman Catholic Church... [as] distinguished from theological differences which are differences in dogma and doctrine."

Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 22:46, 30 June 2016 (UTC) Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 22:46, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very Strong Oppose: The argument for removing "Roman" on the basis of WP:CONCISE is a red herring. In this article it is appropriate, logical and necessary that "Roman Catholic" is used as both the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church claim to be the original Catholic Church. Therefore we should not favour one claim over another. Afterwriting (talk) 23:11, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ever heard of WP:COMMONNAME? Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 23:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How is the WP:CONCISE/WP:COMMONNAME argument "something that distracts attention from the real issue"? Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 23:37, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The only time it ever comes close to being necessary is when differentiating between Catholic, Old Catholic, sedevacantist Catholic, and independent Catholic. Otherwise WP:COMMONNAME dictates that the Catholic–E. Orthodox distinction is plenty. I recommend Meta:Natural point of view. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 23:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Excessive quotations removed

I have removed excessive quotations from the sources, almost all of which are copyright. These quotations constituted 40 per cent of the content, and violate or non-free content policy. The material is still available in the page history if anyone needs to refer back to these quotations in the future. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Eastern Orthodox – Roman Catholic theological differences. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 April 2017

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed, consensus is clear. bd2412 T 03:31, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Orthodox – Roman Catholic theological differences → Theological differences between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church – More clear, more distinct, more neutral, more readable, more simple title, and more neutrally ordered by size. Chicbyaccident (talk) 10:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. -- Dane talk 03:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongly oppose move. Name as is now is reflective of both subjects involved and also historic sources used to source the article. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; this proposed descriptive title is much more intuitive and clear, and it removes the unnecessary "Roman" phrasing, which is increasingly deprecated, both at the main article Catholic Church and sub-articles.--Cúchullain t/c 16:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Cuchullain. Good descriptive title. The current one sounds headlinese. No such user (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "Roman" disambiguator doesn't help with clarity in this case. The longer title also just sounds more natural. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merge with final article "Differences between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church"

Proposing merge: Ecclesiastical differences between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church + Theological differences between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church = Differences between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. What could be considered encyclopedically relevant, we should be able to confine in one single article. Better overview, easier maintainance, and naturally are the two now divided subjects much related, why a merge is simply logical and natural. Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Oppose. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Theological differences between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Romanides and the B-class status of this article

Why is this article rated B-class? It presents mainly the views of one contemporary theologian, John Romanides, appended with information which fits into this story. Which does not make for a good article, that is, readable, informative, and presenting an overview of all the relevant pov's. The main contents can be summarized with these few lines from John Romanides:

His theological works emphasize the empirical (experiential)[note 2] basis of theology called theoria or vision of God, (as opposed to a rational or reasoned understanding of theory) as the essence of Orthodox theology, setting it "apart from all other religions and traditions," especially the Frankish-dominated western Church which distorted this true spiritual path.[6] He identified hesychasm as the core of Christian practice[citation needed] and studied extensively the works of 14th-century Byzantine theologian St. Gregory Palamas.

In comparison, the section "Extant disputes as seen by Catholic theologians" is a fraction of the section Orthodox views, and starts with the statement "The Catholic Church considers that the differences between Eastern and Western theology are complementary rather than contradictory." So, does this article really represent the actual theological differences between East and West, or does it give WP:UNDUE weight to one specific view? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:50, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For a further comparison: this article is 109,588K, while Eastern Orthodox Christian theology is only 67,507K. Are the differences more important than the actual theology? It gives the impression that fighting the enemy and carfting an identity is more important than embodying the Christian message of "love thy neigbor"... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:03, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Romanides was the Greek Orthodox representative to the World Council of Churches. His position is not one like in Western Christianity that one person reads the bible and then that interpretation is "their interpretation". Romanides was selected by the Greek Church and was then confirmed as a scholasticist credentialed (from Harvard) theologian. Also there are quite a few theologians mentioned and sourced in this article. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a list of some but not all of the Orthodox theologians used in this article. Hierotheos Vlachos, Vladimir Lossky, Simeon The New Thelogian, Gregory Of Nyssa, Gregory Palamas, John Meyendorff, Georges Florovsky, Sergei Bulgakov, Dumitru Stăniloae, George Metallinos, Michael Pomazansky LoveMonkey (talk) 15:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And finally that Orthodox article you mention is quite obviously just about Orthodoxy this article is Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism so why would it not be a longer article? LoveMonkey (talk) 15:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like allot of these points can be sourced from the Greek Philosopher and Professor Christos Yannaras but he did not get appointed to represent the Orthodox Church when in council with other Christian sects. Were as Romanides did. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since in Orthodoxy, theology is validated by ascetic practice not academic credentialing. In the Orthodox community Yannaras is treated as an academic. Romandies was an academic (again his degree from Harvard) and monastic practicing member of clergy. So the endorsement of him by clergy like Hierotheos Vlachos has that meaning. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that Romanides is a major voice in contemporary (Greek?) Orthodox thought; yet, to have an article on theological differences that mainly highlights Romanides views is quite one-sided, to say the least. Also, the section on Orthodox views is not really an easy read; a lot of repetition, and obscurations. I think that the main points can be presented in a more concise way. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Romanides is not a voice he is a representative whose job it was to convey these things and why are you ignoring that I have listed a whole group of theologians? LoveMonkey (talk) 17:52, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So, are they representing different pov's? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Jonathan wrote: It presents mainly the views of one contemporary theologian, John Romanides, appended with information which fits into this story. Which does not make for a good article, that is, readable, informative, and presenting an overview of all the relevant pov's. The main contents can be summarized with these few lines from..

I was addressing that question. Orthodox theology is dogmatic so they agree. So why are you attributing the theology as "mainly the views of one contemporary theologian" and then asking if they are different? They all are trained in and teach the same theology. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Subsection "Philosophy and scholasticism versus Theoria"

I've changed

Eastern theologians assert that Christianity is the truth; that Christianity is in essence the one true way to know the true God who is the origin and originator of all things (seen and unseen, knowable and unknowable). Christianity is the apodictic truth, in contrast to the dialectic, dianoia or rationalised knowledge which is the arrived at truth by way of philosophical speculation.[15][15]

All other attempts by humanity, though containing some degree of truth will ultimately fail in their reconciliation between humanity and its source of existence and or being (called the studies of ontology, metaphysics). One's religion must provide for the whole person (the soul), their spiritual needs most importantly. In the approach to God the East considers philosophy but one form or tool that can do much to bring one closer to God but falls short at completeness in this task.[16]

into

In the approach to God the East considers philosophy but one form or tool that can do much to bring one closer to God, but falls short at completeness in this task.[15] Eastern theologians assert that Christianity in essence is apodictic truth, in contrast to the dialectic, dianoia or rationalised knowledge which is the arrived at truth by way of philosophical speculation.[16][16] All other attempts by humanity, though containing some degree of truth will ultimately fail in their reconciliation between humanity and its source of existence and or being (called the studies of ontology, metaphysics). One's religion must provide for the whole person (the soul), their spiritual needs most importantly.[15]

The reasons:

  • "Christianity is the truth; that Christianity is in essence the one true way to know the true God who is the origin and originator of all things (seen and unseen, knowable and unknowable)" - I've removed this sentence; it may make sense to an Orthodox Christian,but for an outsider it's hardly understandable.
  • "considers philosophy but one form or tool that can do much to bring one closer to God, but falls short at completeness in this task." - I've moved this sentence upward, and emrged with the remainder of the first sentence.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is at least two different things as there was a set of Councils in the East (not in the West nor acknowledged by the West), in Byzantium called the Hesychast councils on if Christianity has Orthodox gnosiology in it at all or if it is a logical system of thought (true philosophy). Palamas says people are supposed to have mystical knowledge and see God (i.e. have theoria) in order to believe in a God and Barlaam said people can not experience God or the supernatural in this life and must instead redeem themselves and have their knowledge of God be validated by reason. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Subsection "Hesychasm controversy and the acquisition of Theoria"

I've changed

A great division of opinion between theologians of East and West

into

A great division of opinion in the later Byzantine Empire

because the second source says

The Hesychastic Controversy, as I observed in several previous lectures, was without doubt the most significant theological dispute in the later Byzantine Empire.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Theological_differences_between_the_Catholic_Church_and_the_Eastern_Orthodox_Church&oldid=786480429"