Talk:East–West Schism/Archive 2

Disruptive edits

So now we have an new editor engaging in disruptive edits and hateful commentary. [1]. This editor also not only re-established that they have no obvious desire to actively contribute. They once again re-enforce my complaint that engaging in the Style over substance fallacy is a form of edit warring. Rather then come here on the talkpage and try and work out what they considered biased or wrong they instead engaged in some non-productive ad hominem attack on content that they don't like. This behaviour should be condemned and not tolerated. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort not a place to go hit and run and engage in ad hominem, under the guise of article improvement. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, friend, WP:AGF! You don't WP:OWN this article, and I was acting in accordence with WP:BOLD. The section is nearly incomprehensible, and doesn't seem to be on-topic. I've tagged it as such, but unless it can be fixed such that it's actually about the East-West Schism, rather than a summary of Eastern Orthodox Beliefs, I'm going to remove it from the article again. LOL^thulu 18:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, friend, WP:AGF! Would be to refrain from calling sourced content gibberish your comments not mine. I have not went to any of your contributions and deleted them commenting and critising them in derogatory, pejorative language. WP:BOLD does not state that you insist that people adher to some sort of ambigious aesethic. Post here on the talkpage what you specifically object to and we will work to reword it. If you want the article Copyedited post a request to do so on the Copyedit bulletinboard. Hey, friend, WP:AGF! Deleting and engaging in disruptive drive by editing does nothing to further the quality of the article and or strenghten the community based on collaboration. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with your tone, and I think you're taking a subjective opinion statement about the clarity of the writing in this article waaaaaay too personally. It's nigh-on-incomprehensible (IMO), and that's not derogatory or pejorative. We're not striving for some "ambigious [sic] aesthetic," we're shooting for encyclopaedic, full stop. LOL^thulu 19:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've spent the last 20 minutes trying to clean that section up, but I've again come to the conclusion that it's poorly written and completely off-topic. I'm going to boldly blank it again. LOL^thulu 19:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

LoveMonkey, Please stop reverting. You will be in vio of 3RR soon. If you feel strongly about the inclusion of this section, please re-work it to be on-topic. Currently, it's a summary of Eastern beliefs that doesn't even mention the Western Catholic Church, and that's OT in an article about the East-West Schism. LOL^thulu 19:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with LOLthulu. The section does not help the reader understand what the point is. It spends too much time describing nous and noesis and only vaguely hints as to why this is relevant to the East-West Schism. Part of the purpose for creating Catholic - Orthodox theological differences was to allow for this sort of theological discourse without distracting the reader from the flow of this article. Would you two like to work out a compromise or should I just protect the page to give you an incentive to do so? --Richard (talk) 19:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I too support LOL on this: it is hard to see how this so abstrusely described matter can be said to be keeping East and West at loggerheads. Does anyone support LoveMonkey? Lima (talk) 19:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know much about the Eastern Orthodox beliefs regardign nous and noesis. Does it relate to the Schism at all? I certainly couldn't find anything in the section as it used to exist to suggest a relation, except one uncited sentence clause. LOL^thulu 19:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Did anyone ask Lima? No. Funny how Lima posted the Pope mentioning it thought. As for the typical edit warring of this article. The passage is specific to part of the problems that Romanides addressed at the World Church Council as then was addressed specifically by the Pope. With Richard going article creation crazy it has left me little time to actually develoope this part of the Orthodox's stance on the theological differences. I have been trying to reflect what was actually addressed from the Orthodox side to all of Western Christianity not just Protestantism. Why is are two different editors, editwarring and not discussing here on the talkpage? LoveMonkey (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

As for Richard how is wholesale deleting an entire section collaborating. If you had objections why did you wait til now?

LoveMonkey (talk) 19:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Eh, wholesale deletion without prior discussion on the Talk Page is overly bold. I agree with LOLthulu's opinion of the problem but not with his specific remedial action. Prior discussion often helps avoid injured feelings and animosity.

Nonetheless, I have been watching you (LoveMonkey) add to this article and I've been a bit anxious about it as my hope was to shorten this article, not lengthen it. Yes, I've been a bit "crazy" (I'd have used the word "busy") creating Phyletism and List of Christian heresies. Both have occupied my time over the last week and I was trying to figure out how to come back here and diplomatically convince you that we needed to shorten the theological issues section and put the detailed theological discourse in Catholic - Orthodox theological differences. I just didn't expect it to blow up into an edit war before I got around to raising the issue in a less disruptive way. --Richard (talk) 20:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I wrote "wholesale deletion without prior discussion on the Talk Page is overly bold" Heh, heh... well, it probably is overly bold but I've been guilty of it in the past and, on further reflection, I will probably do some of it on this article in the not too distant future. My justification is that we have saved most of the sections that I indeed to target for trimming in History of the East-West Schism and Catholic - Orthodox theological issues. As I indicated earlier on this Talk Page, it really is my intent to shorten this article to about 60-70kb if possible. If you think my trimming is excessive, then let's follow the WP:BRD model. --Richard (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's fix up a section!

We can return this to the article when it's on-topic. Please stop accusing me of not discussing here on the talkpage, LoveMonkey.

The Heart as Noetic or Intuitive faculty

Further information: Nous and Spiritual Warfare

In Eastern Christianity the heart or spirit of the person is often referred to as the Nous. Nous can also be loosely translated as the whole experience of conscious reality both internal (dianoia and intuitive) and external (sensory perception). Consciousness or the human spirit (noetic) as energy of the soul, the nous is called the "eye of the heart or soul". When dealing with the satisfaction of the spirit one must live according to the spirit as the laws of God are written on the heart. It is stated that if the Orthodox Church appeared now in the world, and new it would appear as a hospital for the spirit, heart, soul or nous of mankind. Noesis as characteristics or the experiences of the spirit or heart, i.e. when one loves or grieves these are not things "learned" by external reality nor experienced as such. These internal experiences are intrinsic to the whole person the whole person in the East is called the soul. Where as philosophical discourse (dialect) is very mechanical and attenuates reality into analytical concepts. Thereby reducing man and nature to cold mechanical concepts. Eastern Christianity seeks to restore mankind to his pre-Knowledge of Good and Evil (fall of man) condition of full communion with the Creator and Trinity. The subject of mankind's soul as it learns to struggle against the world of passions and corruptions as called asceticism. Critical to Eastern Christian Ascetism is the experience of the soul and nous and the articulation of the various kinds of conflicts, experiences and thoughts that trouble the spirit or heart of mankind (called the arena). Some of the concepts critical to addressing the needs of man such as sober introspection called nepsis are specific to watchfulness of the human heart. and address the conflicts of the human nous, heart or mind are also at conflict between East and West. Also noetic understanding can not be circumvented nor satisfied by rationalizing or discursive thought (i.e. systemization). In Eastern Christianity the Dark Night of the Soul is not considered a normal or necessary phrase for the human heart to achieve a relationship with God, nor is it considered one that is good or healthy.

LOL^thulu 19:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Why are you just now doing this? As if you haven't already broken WP:3rr and now your playing games. So much for good faith.

LoveMonkey (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I never put it here because I don't think this section can be made on-topic. If you think it can, more power to you. Have at. I haven't violated 3RR, and I'm getting very close to putting your behavior here up for a RfC. LOL^thulu 19:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The above section The Heart as Noetic or Intuitive faculty was prompted by at least three different modern sources.

1. The comments by the Pope about the Eastern Orthodox church and what it's lung actually is. AS LIMA ADDED- The Roman Catholic Church's attitude was expressed by Pope John Paul II in the image of the Church "breathing with her two lungs". He meant that there should be a combination of the more rational, juridical, organisation-minded "Latin" temperament with the intuitive, mystical and contemplative spirit found in the east.[2]

2. Father and Professor John Romanides and intuitivistic characteristics of the Orthodox Church being the ULTIMATE criteria for reconcillation at the World Council of Churches.

Father John Romanides states.

"The criteria used for the reunion of divided Christians cannot be different from those used for the union of associations of scientists. Astronomers would be shocked at the idea that they would unite with astrologers. Members of a modern medial association would be shocked at the suggestion that they should become one with an association of quack doctors and tribal medicine men. In the same way, the Fathers would be shocked at the idea of a union between Orthodoxy and religious superstitions which has not the slightest idea about the production of authentic holy relics. Avoiding this issue by claiming that such a theology is for monks only, is like claiming that the cure of cancer is for doctors only." [3]

3. Metropolitan Vlachos of Nafpaktos Orthodox psychotherapy addressing the sickness of the Soul and Christianity as it's cure.[4].

Does anybody here contributing or edit warring have any data about the dialog between East and West. Anybody got any of the apologies made by the East (other then me) anybody? Why is almost everypart of this article before I came to it and now that I have contributed to it been nothing but an edit war? Blanket deleting out a section of things not even formally addressed into two paragraphs is very difficult. I have even consulted a Professor or two for help outside of Wikipedia. Now this is getting blanket deleted wholesale and I have two Pro-Roman Catholic editors (Lima and Richard) one an administrator. Justifing edit warring and shutting down discussion. BIAS. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

JPII considered the two lungs compatible. You have not shown they aren't.

I don't think there was edit-warring (something that requires at least two participants) here before you got involved. Lima (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Lima, it is not up to LoveMonkey to show that the "two lungs are incompatible". That would be OR. It is up to him to show that the Orthodox Church believes/teaches that the two lungs are incompatible. Not based on the opinion of one or even a few theologians but based on a reliable source that asserts that this is the fundamental position of the Orthodox Church. What would convince me would be to hear it from a patriarch or someone who can be considered to be speaking for a patriarch.

--Richard (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree fully. When I said that LoveMonkey had not shown that the two approaches are incompatible, I meant of course that he had not produced a reliable source that declares them incompatible. I was certainly not inviting him to insert original research. Lima (talk) 05:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Your editwarring with User:Gubernatoria is what attracted me to actively engage the article Lima. [5] LoveMonkey (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

While I am a Catholic (of sorts), I resent the accusation of bias. I think I have more than established my credibility for NPOV on a number of articles including History of the Eastern Orthodox Church and History of the Russian Orthodox Church. --Richard (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

LoveMonkey, the problem is not what you are contributing but where you are contributing it (i.e. which Wiki and which article within this Wiki). This is not OrthodoxWiki and it is not TheologyWiki. The audience for Wikipedia may be Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant or non-Christian. The target audience for Wikipedia is probably around high school or college level education. You should not need a Master's in Theology to understand a general-interest article like East-West Schism. I would guess that most people coming here have an interest in history (it might be that they are trying to complete a school assignment). Some will have an interest in religion but not necessarily in theology.

I do think it is valuable for people to understand that although the East-West Schism is usually presented as a ecclesiological schism rather than a conflict over doctrine, there are doctrinal issues underneath the schism. It is useful to know that the ecclesiological schism cannot be healed unless the major doctrinal issues are resolved. I would wager that which specific doctrinal issues MUST be resolved is a matter of opinion. There will always be extremists on both sides who will insist on winning every last issue and there will be moderates who will hope to achieve compromise on what are perceived to be the major stumbling blocks.

What does the reader of THIS article need to know? That there are theological issues underneath the ecclesiologial ones, what they are called and a very high-level summary description of each with links to more detailed articles about each issue if the reader is interested in finding out more. Remember that Wikipedia is not paper. We don't have to cram every last bit of detail into this article. Doing so makes it unreadable. Writing a good article involves presenting the right level of detail to the reader with links to help him/her delve deeper IF that is their desire.

--Richard (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Again as is stated clearly above in what Professor Romanides stated at the World Council of Churches, since I am going by what presedence that has already been set by sobornost (journal) and I am not just making stuff up or adding stuff haphazard. But is damn near impossible to contribute with you three on my @#$%.....While you, Richard run interferance for your BIAS and these edit warring editors. Look at how many other articles I have worked on today alone.

2. Father and Professor John Romanides and intuitivistic characteristics of the Orthodox Church being the ULTIMATE criteria for reconcillation at the World Council of Churches.

Father John Romanides states.

"The criteria used for the reunion of divided Christians cannot be different from those used for the union of associations of scientists. Astronomers would be shocked at the idea that they would unite with astrologers. Members of a modern medial association would be shocked at the suggestion that they should become one with an association of quack doctors and tribal medicine men. In the same way, the Fathers would be shocked at the idea of a union between Orthodoxy and religious superstitions which has not the slightest idea about the production of authentic holy relics. Avoiding this issue by claiming that such a theology is for monks only, is like claiming that the cure of cancer is for doctors only." The correct interplay between theology and society is not much different from a correct interplay between science and society. Thus, the question of organizational and administrative structure, as in the sciences, is resolved into the question of the success of theology in producing the results for which it exists. [6]

LoveMonkey (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

So... who is Romanides and does he speak for the Orthodox church? Or is he just a theologian? There are many Catholic theologians. Some are hotheads. Theologians don't run the Catholic Church. I suspect that they don't run the Orthodox Church either. Maybe Romanides thinks that the Catholic Church is sick or quacks or alchemists or whatever. Nonetheless, the effort towards reconciliation continues. Maybe Romanides is right and these issues will keep reconciliation from happening in our lifetimes. The key question, however, is... does he speak for the Orthodox Church or is this the opinion of a faction of Orthodox theologians? --Richard (talk) 21:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this section indeed shows some theological differences between the two (it also describes, how in Orthodoxy the Church is seen more like a hospital, while in western Christianity is seen more like a courthouse, as far, as I know), although maybe it should be reduced a bit, since the article Catholic–Orthodox theological differences can offer more informations on the subject. I think the section should be added again, so the users from Roman Catholic side can see it easier, and add the views of their side. Cody7777777 (talk) 02:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Romanides was the Greek representative for the Orthodox to the World Council of Churches he also worked with the Orthodox ecumenical movement within the Russian Orthodox community at the WCC- like George Florovsky, John Meyendorff, Zizioulas etc. Romanides articulated the Greek Orthodox position to the West.

As for his credentials read his bio. As a matter of understanding read all the bios of the sources I have been quoting. As for Romanides

he's a graduate of the Hellenic College, Brookline, Massachusetts, and of the Yale Divinity School, he received his Ph. D. from the University of Athens. Why a Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos)) or a Greek Professor from Yale and Athens should be treated as an unreliable source seems to be impossible. Nothing is stopping any edit warring person here from reading what these very accomplished authorities have and said. Now where is the Roman Catholic side? I mean most people don't even what Orthodoxy even is and yet it is impossible to even post what intuitive Orthodox understanding is.

Although the dissertation focused on original sin, Christos Yannaras writes, "Romanides succeeded in summarizing the whole of Orthodox dogma, emphasizing the deep gulf separating it from the intellectualist and juridical expressions of Western dogma"

[7] LoveMonkey (talk) 02:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculious and impossible criteria

On one hand clarification is being requested while on the other editors are not contributing their fair share and instead are edit warring.. Now after they get themselves on shaky ground they finally then start answering questions, like they should been as part of policy and the contribution process, but still not adding the Roman Catholic part or side of the article while insisting that the Eastern Orthodox do so is plain ridiculious. LoveMonkey (talk) 21:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You need to quit tossing around accusations of edit warring. I don't believe that this section is relevent to this article, and the general consensus here seems to agree with that sentiment. If you disagree, show that the section can be made relevent by improving it. The onus is on you. If you feel that Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion of material in an article are "Ridiculious and impossible," I don't know what to say except to suggest that you edit somewhere else. LOL^thulu 21:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

LOLthulu... at least with respect to me, you overstate the case. IMO, there MAY be some relevance of nous/noesis to the East-West schism if only because some Orthodox theologians think that the fact that we don't get this concept means that we are hopelessly irreconcilable to the Orthodox. My point is that we don't need paragraphs of wandering prose about nous/noesis to make this point. I made it in a single sentence. What we need to do is add another sentence that describes what the key issues are and then point the reader to an appropriate article that provides the detailed theological discourse.

As for "accusations of edit warring", yes, you are guilty and so is LoveMonkey. Consider WP:1RR or WP:0RR. The model I like best is WP:BRD.

--Richard (talk) 21:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was unclear. I mean that the consensus is that *this* section (the one copied above) isn't relevent. I don't know if the topic itself is; I'm not very knowledgeable in that subject. I just know that every section in the article on the East-West Schism should relate the views of the Eastern Church, the Western Church, synthesize how they're in agreement, and identify the points of contention that lead to the schism. This section is exclusively about the Eastern Church, and as such is off-topic. As far as edit-warring, that's your opinion. I disagree with it. LOL^thulu 21:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to get into a long discussion on this Talk Page about what is and is not edit warring. You are welcome to start such a discussion with me on my Talk Page. Your actions are not a clear-cut case of edit-warring. At least, you had the civility to stop after the second revert. However, you should consider that WP:3RR is not a right. Editors can be blocked for edit warring even if they don't actually violate 3RR. As an admin, I strongly prefer article protection to blocking as editors tend to take being blocked quite personally and the goal is to get them to calm down which is not achieved by antagonizing them. --Richard (talk) 00:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I support the removal of that section from the article, and its discussion here instead. It is egregiously ill-written, and links to other articles themselves standing in need of thorough revision, or deletion in some cases. That whole suite of articles (including Nous, Noesis, Noetic Consciousness – which should have a lower-case c, for a start!) is a train wreck. I found that LoveMonkey was extremely trigger-happy with his reversions, and reinstated errors that were plainly exposed (at Talk:Noetic Consciousness) for anyone to see. The errors are still there.

Frankly, I decided to have nothing to do with those articles for the time being. A lost cause! My advice to LoveMonkey: work towards an understanding of your limitations; stop threatening people with 3RR when they are only trying to patch up what you are clearly unable to fix yourself; if you cannot even attend to simple details (like "nepsis" for "noesis" in the text that has been removed here for discussion), at least respect those who can.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 03:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think removing it can lead to its improving, it would probably lead to its ignoring. As long as it is there, it might encourage others to improve it (since people may not always check talk pages). I don't think wiki articles are supposed to be made "over-night". Cody7777777 (talk) 03:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Cody, I object to your restoring the section against the opinions of three other editors. Were you aware that this same text (or an earlier version of it) exists in Catholic - Orthodox theological differences? Would you reconsider and self-revert? --Richard (talk) 04:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I request that it stay. So thats two editors for and three against hardly a consensus, since I can ask Gubenatia and get a three 4 three against tie. Could you Richard request a copyedit for the article please. To address the style over substance fallacy attack re-added to the article.

LoveMonkey (talk) 05:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not paper. Sometimes it overcomes limitations that paper has; sometimes it has limitations that paper doesn't. One limitation is that people have to read Wikipedia on monitors that only display one or two paragraphs at a time. Also, Internet browsing is inherently a "short attention span" activity which means people don't have the patience for long theological treatises. You want to give them one, find a suitable website and post a PDF file for them to download and print on paper.

I've already described who I think the target audience is for this article. (high school and college level education with a focus on history and religion over theology). I know something (not a lot) about Western theology. Believe me when I tell you: if I can't read it, most average readers won't try to.

This is not a "style" vs. "substance" issue. If you can't distill the key idea down to a single paragraph with simple high-school level sentences, then find someone to help you.

Copyediting won't solve the problem. It's not just about improving the spelling, grammar and diction. It's about developing a logical flow and getting to the point succinctly.

Start by throwing everything you've written out and trying to come up with 3 or 4 sentences that communicate the key points.

There is a famous saying by Mark Twain "I didn't have time to write you a short letter so I wrote you a long one instead." The idea is that it takes more effort to write something concisely than to write it verbosely. This is the problem we have. You write so much that no one can figure out what the point is (at least, not easily).

--Richard (talk) 07:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

"then find someone to help you." Wikipedia is a collaborative effort Richard. Nothing is stopping you. I have done my best and BELEIVE me if it could be reduce to stupid McKnowledge we as Orthodox would have done it a long time ago. I find it dishearting that you keep adamently insisting that Wikipedia as by its very essence must not be an archive of information but rather must also re-shape or re-depict the information so that it adher to the impossible standard that almost anyone can understand it. Some information just can not adher to such a standard and you know that, but by your stanndard because it can't it is now no longer worthy or justified in being archived or posted at wikipedia. I detect an fallacy Richard. To bad you don't see it. You really need to look at some of the vast amount of mathmatical articles and computer science article here on wikipedia. No one is asking that they be dumb-ed down.

LoveMonkey (talk) 13:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

LoveMonkey, YOU are stopping me. You think it's a question of "copyedit". I think it's a question of scope. We cannot reach agreement as long as there is this huge chasm between us. You think it's a little nip here and a tuck there. I want to do major surgery on the patient because there is a cancer that needs to be excised.

My intent in creating Catholic - Orthodox theological differences was so that there would be a place for more detailed theological discussion. I didn't want you to feel frustrated that all your effort was being deleted from Wikipedia completely when I started pulling stuff out of this article. If you duplicate the material in Catholic - Orthodox theological differences by putting it in this article, then it becomes a content fork. My goal is to make this more of a summary article with History of the East-West Schism and Catholic - Orthodox theological differences being the detailed articles.

That's why I was frustrated to see you adding to the Nous/Noesis secton of this article. Now, I understand that I may make mistakes as I try to trim this article back down to a more readable length but we need to reach a consensus that the goal is to have a shorter article not a longer one.

--Richard (talk) 13:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Are Wikipedia articles intended for a high school/college audience or for an expert audience? The answer is: BOTH! Some articles should provide an elementary introduction for people who are not very knowledgeable or otherwise lack training in the field. Other articles can get quite technical as is appropriate. The question for us to decide is which category this article falls into.

The problem, as I see it, is that many people will come here expecting a high school/college treatment of a topic covered in history textbooks. Finding a long article with a deep discussion of theology will frustrate them. That's why I proposed that we factor out the details of the theological differences into Catholic - Orthodox theological differences. That way there is a place for the summarized and simplified description of the differences and a place for the detailed description of the differences. --Richard (talk) 14:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Page protection requested

As an involved admin, I cannot protect this page without being open to accusations of conflict of interest. For this reason, I have made a request for protection over at WP:RFPP.

Here is the diff.

--Richard (talk) 04:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Page protected for one week. Tan | 39 05:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it would have been preferable to protect it without the recent flurry of low-quality edits that are now locked in. As far as I am concerned, this article is now intractable junk. Unless LoveMonkey meditates long and hard on the advice that I offer above, it is on my list of articles not to touch with a barge-pole. Life is too short for such vexations.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 08:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course, it is the Meta:WRONG version. Pages are always protected on the Meta:WRONG version. This gives editors an incentive to work towards consensus. I do agree with you that this dispute is a vexation and I too am tempted to just leave it alone to wallow in its horrible state. --Richard (talk) 13:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Scope of this article

This dispute has been running since at least November 2008 starting with the section titled "A few theological differences" and has occupied most of this Talk Page since. However, a fair understanding of the current dispute can be acquired by reading the recent sections of this Talk Page titled "Theological issues", "Let's fix up a section!" and "Ridiculious and impossible criteria".

The specific locus of the current dispute is the article section titled "The Heart as Noetic or Intuitive faculty".

However, on a grander scale, this long-running dispute is over the amount of detailed theological treatment that is appropriate for the topic. The proposal is that East-West Schism be limited primarily to a high level historical narrative aimed at a general audience (high school / college level education without theological training) and that the detailed theological treatment be reserved for the article on Catholic - Orthodox theological differences.

Should this be an article primarily about the schism as the topic is usually treated in history books and encyclopedias or should it contain a thorough treatment of the theological differences as well?

Who is the target audience for this article? Is it an average reader with a high school / college education or someone with training in theology? Are we aiming for a general audience or an expert one?

The article Catholic - Orthodox theological differences was created to provide a place for a more thorough treatment of the theological differences. However, expanding sections in this article with detailed theological discussion threatens to make that article a content fork.

Discussion by editors currently involved in the dispute

• The content should be readable by a non-expert. The content should focus on differences between the Eastern and Western Churches that lead to the Schism, according to sources that meet WP:V and WP:R. Other theological differences are inappropriate in this article. The "Theological issues" section needs to be drastically shortened and have the majority of it's content moved into the Catholic - Orthodox theological differences article. LOL^thulu 18:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • For the most part, I agree with LOLthulu. I would expand the position to say that if there are theological differences that prevent healing of the schism, then they should be mentioned. However, the discussion of each theological issue needs to be concise and succinct. --Richard (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Concise and succinct- amen! But not blanket deleted or removed whole cloth. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• I think Adam_sk's comment below is very good except I think he's completely nutso in suggesting that articles should be 10 printed pages in length. Maybe I'm just a slow reader but it would take me several minutes to read one printed page of densely written text on a complex topic unless I was already familiar with the topic. If the goal is to read the entire article in 10-15 minutes, I suggest that the article needs to be 3-5 pages long, not 10 pages long. Of course, it depends on the number of pictures, footnotes and font size. Also, he obviously didn't look very closely at the edit history or else he would know that it's not me that's been doing the reverting. --Richard (talk) 07:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Just a brief comment: I was just following the Wikipedia:Article size recommended "rule of thumb" for maximum article size. Of course, depending on the circumstances of any article, it might make sense for it to be smaller. But, on the other hand, if it's an article with a certain degree of complexity and nuance (as this seems to be), that seems to me a good candidate for making it closer to 10 printed pages. I'm sorry that I suggested that the goal was to be able to read the entire article in 10-15 minutes - maybe it does take longer than that to read 10 printed pages - I was just trying to apply the Wikipedia:Article size standard. Adam_sk (talk) 04:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• • • Well, this runs the risk of becoming a tangential discussion about article size in general but I will pop one more comment in. We could say "this is a complicated topic so the article should run 10 pages". The other approach would be "Articles should be short and easy to read, running 5 screenfuls which take no more than 5-10 minutes to read". If we adopted this latter principle, then we would reduce the scope of the article until it would fit the criteria. So which guideline is better? I'd say it depends on the topic. I think the latter guideline is more appropriate for this topic because it is a fairly widely known topic which comes up in world history textbooks at the high school and college level. As for Catholic - Orthodox theological differences, you might expect a somewhat longer and more sophisticated discussion (but still not too abstruse). The place to really get into a lot of sophisticated treatment would be in the article on Noesis. By the time a reader reaches that article, you know he/she really wants to understand the topic. --Richard (talk) 05:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• • • • I also agree that we shouldn't get into a tangential discussion about size in general. I don't myself entirely agree with Wikipedia:Article size's recommendation of 10 printed pages as a maximum size (I would prefer that it were longer), but it is the standard that the community as a whole has agreed on. So, I think that we should apply the standard of "pages shouldn't generally longer than 10 pages." If you want the standard to be "Articles should be short and easy to read, running 5 screenfuls which take no more than 5-10 minutes to read": that's obviously a respectable position to maintain, but I think that you should try to win that argument at Wikipedia:Article size, rather than arguing that this page should violate the general guideline. I recognize that there are reasons why you might disregard a general guideline with respect to a particular article, but I think that you're really arguing that the general guideline is wrong, not that it should be disregarded with respect to this page. With respect to this page, I think that we should abide by the general guideline (whatever that general guideline might be) unless there are compelling reasons to depart from it. Adam_sk (talk) 05:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree. But just because an article can be 10 pages long doesn't meen it must. It degrades the quality of the article to pad it with off-topic or only tangentially relevent material just because the article hasn't reached it's maximum size, especially when that content is more appropriate elsewhere. LOL^thulu 06:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict with LOLthulu) I agree with LOLthulu but here's what I was working on before I hit the edit conflict...

OK... let's use Wikipedia:Article size as a guideline then. Note that it is a guideline and that means common sense preempts the guideline as is indicated at the top of that page. But let's look at what the guideline says:

Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 30 to 50 KB, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words of readable prose. If an article is significantly longer than that, it may benefit the reader to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries (see Wikipedia:Summary style). One rule of thumb is to begin to split an article into smaller articles after the readable prose reaches 10 pages when printed. Articles that cover particularly technical subjects should, in general, be shorter than articles on less technical subjects.

This article is 96kb in size (47kb without footnotes), approximately 7500 words (without footnotes). The article takes 24 pages to print (14pages without footnoes). Depending on which metric you want to use, this page is either near the maximum length (47kb in a range of 30-50kb), in the middle of the range (7500 words in a range of 6000-10,000 words) or beyond the range (14 pages where the maximum suggested is 10 pages).

There's a joke that says "There are some preachers that can make an hour-long sermon seem like it only took 5 minutes. There are other preachers who can make a 5 minute chat seem like an hour-long sermon." A well-written article on history can run on for 10 printed pages and not tire the reader if the narrative is engaging. An article like this that jumps from history to theology and then covers a bunch of seemingly unrelated theological issues is more likely to tire the reader.

Besides, I think we can run off the rails if we let ourselves be bound by purely numeric measures. The problem is not just that this article is too long according to two out of the three metrics. The problem is that parts of it are abstruse and technical discussions of theology. The Wikipedia:Article size guideline says "Articles that cover particularly technical subjects should, in general, be shorter than articles on less technical subjects." Which is what I was trying to suggest.

--Richard (talk) 06:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments by those editors responding to the RFC

I wouldn't frame this in terms of "who the intended audience" for the article is. I would rather say that the more important concerns are those expressed at Wikipedia:Article size. That policy recommends that the average article not be longer than 10 pages when printed. There are two reasons for this:

(1) the technical requirement that some users will not be able to access an article if it's too big (for example, I recently added some awesome pictures to the Louis XIV article, but as a result, the article is now too big for me to access on my Blackberry; and, back in the day, I did have Dial-up internet access and let me tell you, if a page is too big, you're going to have to wait a LONG time to access it via dial-up.

(2) most people who consult a Wikipedia article expect that the article will be concise enough to read in 10-15 minutes.

So, I think that as a general rule, the best practice for organizing articles on any complex topic is going to be:

PRIMARY ARTICLE - of roughly 10 pages, providing a general overview and linking to maybe 4 or 5: SECONDARY ARTICLES - each roughly 10 pages, and, if necessary, providing only a general overview of a subtopic, and in turn linking to four or five TERTIARY ARTICLES - again, each roughly 10 pages, and CONTINUING, until such point as the topic is dealt with at a sufficient level of detail.

Basically, the goal is to organize the content as it relates to any particular field of knowledge into a pyramid of articles that address the topic from the very general through to the very specific in 10-page chunks.

That said, I do recognize that there's a problem (or at least an issue) with splitting an article like "East-West Schism" into a "History" and "Theological Controversies" article. That concern is that, as you proceed down the fork of "History", you're going to get deeper and deeper into the theological controversies; and as you proceed down the fork of "Theological Controversies", those controversies are going to delve more and more into the relevant historical circumstances. But maybe this is the best way to proceed on a topic like this.

Though let me offer one proviso: I'm very wary of dealing with "Theological Controversies" at a general level because I actually think that dealing with theological differences in an ahistorical manner can be misleading. To use an example from an article that I've worked on: in the dispute between the Church of England and the Puritans: when the controversy began in the 1560s, most Anglicans were Calvinists, as were most Puritans; in the 1620s and 1630s, however, Calvinism came to be exclusively associated with Puritanism. So, is it fair in the general "Puritan" article to say that Puritans were Calvinists and the Anglicans were Arminians? Well, no, if you're talking about 1560, but yes if you're talking about 1640. (See the History of the Puritans article, which is mainly my content, and which itself should probably be split into multiple articles, but I'm not going to do that - if you want to, be my guest.) I don't know enough about the East-West Schism to identify a similar issue with respect to the Schism, but I would be shocked if there wasn't a similar concern with respect to describing differences between Eastern and Western Christianity.

That said, I can't think of a better option than complementary pyramidal articles on the topics of History and Theological Controversies of the Schism.

With respect to the current dispute: it seems to me that User:Richardshusr is concerned that User:LoveMonkey is adding content to a page with the wrong level of generality. User:LoveMonkey, on the other hand, is concerned that important content is missing from the East-West Schism page.

I haven't delved into the history of this Edit War, but I would say: if Richardshusr has been reverting edits by LoveMonkey, I think that's probably inappropriate. On the other hand, if Richardshusr has been trying to move LoveMonkey's detailed content to a more specific page, I think that is appropriate, provided that the main East-West Schism page contains a suitable link of that page, and the main article adequately summarizes the point LoveMonkey was making.

Adam_sk (talk) 04:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Now that was a breath of fresh air! I completely agree. I am hoping that I can summarize it but I can not get useful and adequite input from the editwarring editors (other then "it's gibberish") in order to properly articulate the Eastern side. Which is not really it seems commonly known.

LoveMonkey (talk) 13:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as I see it, and as most sources I know treat it, the "East-West Schism" is an historical event or the situation resulting from historical events. The reasons for these events/this situation include theological differences as well as cultural and other historical matters (e.g. Sack of Constantinople). It seems sensible therefore that this article contains a section, called "Reasons for Schism" or similar, that gives a brief outline of these (plus links to specific articles), while all detailed outlining and discussion of theology happens at Catholic - Orthodox theological differences.–OrangeDog (talk • edits) 03:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Lima (talk) 05:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with OrangeDog. A short discussion of the theological issues here, with the use of the {{main}} template to refer readers to the longer discussion elsewhere. THF (talk) 13:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Request Revision

{{editprotected}}

I'm requesting that this article be reverted to [8]. Most of the changes following this revision were not discussed on the talk page, where consensus seemed to be against them. LOL^thulu 18:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

They where discussed it's just that you rejected the discussion. We could just try and reconcile what parts of what is posted need to be rewritten and what parts need to be removed from here and added to the Catholic-Orthodox theological differences article. Which is what I have been trying to do with you. You know collaborate. I wonder, I am Orthodox some of the other editors are Roman Catholic. What horse do you have in the race? Why do you care? It will provide me with perspective, at least. I'm not insisting you answer, but I am just asking for your perspective in order to create an understanding.

LoveMonkey (talk) 20:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm Jewish. If you really think that my religion matters in this, you probably need to step back from this article for a while. Think about it. LOL^thulu 21:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Alright Jewish it is. So what is the Jewish perspective on the East West Schism? Since the article is a religious topic, well I think all of this is rather obvious. In other words what contribution does LOLthulu seek to bring to this article? Lets work out your expectations. And then see how realistic they are.LoveMonkey (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not here to offer the Jewish view of the East-West Schism, and you're not here to offer the Orthodox view. I'm here to create a good article on an encyclopedia, and if you're not you shouldn't be here. LOL^thulu 05:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I did not really wish to get involved in this conflict, but I do not understand why this section should be entirely removed. Since it is longer than the others, maybe it should reduced somewhat instead (at least if that is possible), so the article Catholic - Orthodox theological differences can bring more details. This article is also about the theological differences in the schism between west-east, so it does have a place here and I don't think it seems that difficult to read (at least in my opinion). Maybe the users who proposed that it is unbalanced should propose a revised version of it, instead of removing it. Cody7777777 (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Because it's off-topic. Barely even mentions the Catholic/Western church, and that mention is unsubstantiated by any references. I think you're missing the point of the article; it's about the "East-West Schism," which is an event and a proper noun (see the capitalization?). It is not about "theological differences in the schism between west-east" as you assert. The proper place for content regarding that topic is Catholic - Orthodox theological differences or whatever. LOL^thulu 23:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as I see, this article as it is now, is about the religious split between east and west (actually between the Eastern and Western Churches), so this means it also includes theological differences (this schism exists mainly because of these reasons, however, since "East-West Schism" might imply other things, perhaps the article might need a renaming, but that would affect other articles at the moment, so I don't think it is really necessary). The section in dispute discussed more about the "spirituality" (although, I am not sure if this is a good term here) differences between the two (and there are considerable differences as far as I know). Someone knowledgeable about the "Western Church" should come and explain its opinion on the subject (if we remove it there are even fewer chances for this to happen). Also, the section, might need a different name (the current name may seem difficult to understand for some people). I still believe that the section needs only revision (probably reduction), not removal. Cody7777777 (talk) 00:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree Cody and I thank you for your courage in sharing your opinion. I think that we can reduce the section. But if after unlocking LOLthulu then goes ahead and starts blanket deleting again and edit warring well then all the work will have been in vein. I am hoping for a compromise. As I have asked Lima and LOLthulu to collaborate here in edit summaries and on this page that have ended for the most part with hostility. However Cody look earlier here on the talkpage for some of the edit warring like what Lima gets confronted about by another editor here (hint Lima Falsehood: not me). So this article seems to attract allot of conflict. I am trying to understand why, but so far to no avail. However the parts I added are from a group of Clergy who have been a more formal about their approach to the ecumenical process but did indeed cover each of these topics (World Church Council and Sobornost (journal)).

LoveMonkey (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

 Not done I do not see a consensus for the proposed change. Ruslik (talk) 10:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

I agree with Richard that, not only is there no need in this article to go into so much detail about abstruse philosophical and theological mind-sets, it is actually out of place here. The details should be in another article, to which a link is given here. I agree with LOL... that the particular section that is in question is extremely difficult to follow and needs to be rewritten and shortened, and that, if it is to be kept at all, its relevance to the Schism must be shown. But to my mind the basic problem is that the views of a few selected writers of books composed precisely to attack/criticize the Roman Catholic Church are presented as proofs of actual barriers to reconciliation. There is no mention of the more open attitude of persons of much higher rank in the Eastern Orthodox Church than these writers. In particular, the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople repeatedly calls the Roman Catholic Church a "sister Church" (Statement by His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew upon the falling asleep in the Lord of Pope John Paul II; Address of His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch BARTHOLOMEW to the XIIth Ordinary General Assembly of Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church(The Vatican, 18 October 2008); Greeting of His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew to the Delegation of the church of Rome on the feast day of the Throne of the Ecumenical Patriarchate (30/11/2005)), Conversations with Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I) and has adopted Pope John Paul II's image of the "two lungs" to speak of the relationship between the two Churches (Ecumenical Patriarch receives invitation from Pope to attend World Synod of Bishops, presides at 90th Pontifical Oriental Institute), as has his representative, Metropolitan John of Pergamon, saying that their unity is essential to the health of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church (Speeches of Pope John Paul II and Metropolitan John of Pergamon). Lima (talk) 09:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe the section in dispute does have a place here because it explains how the faith, the human nous, soul and intellect are seen in Orthodox theology and it is also supposed to show the differences about the "spiritual and mystical experiences" between the two. As an example many Orthodox theologians do not agree that Francis of Assisi (and not only) should be considered a saint and consider his experiences to be even of "demonic inspirations"[9] (I do not seek to start a dispute whether this is true or not, I'm only mentioning a difference between the two). So, it has a relevance in the "East-West Schism" because the "Eastern Church" cannot accept many of the saints in the "Western Church", because of the way it sees their experiences. However, the section should be revised (and reduced, since there is a more specialized article on the subject and it might also need a different name). (Although, it could be off-topic, I would also like to add that the "Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I" can show only the position of his patriarchate (which is quite small in population, although the "first among equals") or even just of his own diocese (Constantinople New Rome), not of the entire "Eastern Church", since he does not have the same role as the Pope in (Elder) Rome has in the "Western Church". Regarding, the expression "sister Church", as far as I know, Bartholomew I, was criticized for it, mainly by the monks from Mount Athos[10][11][12] (which is actually in the jurisdiction of the ecumenical patriarchate), I do not seek start a dispute here, I am only trying to show that not everyone in the "Eastern Church" sees favorably the actions of Patriarch Bartholomew I (some have even gone as far as to accuse him of being a member of "masonry"). Also, in his works, Romanides accuses mainly the franks for the schism, not the "Western Church".) Cody7777777 (talk) 11:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Cody you know intuitivism is a mess. The intuitive has been removed from Christianity in the West and has been replaced by a "logical", "policy" type of Christianity that argues away the spiritual and intuitive "needs" of people with Aristotle metaphysics. Where managers and policies dictate people interaction with the institute of their salvation. Orthodox is a structure and has some of this as well, but it still maintains the charsimatic and intuitive. This can be seen in how Russian Ascetism had an internal conflict between the ascetics who sought salvation (theosis) first and did not establish their role as ascetic and also volunteer to do civic work in society. In the end the mystic contemplative life won out (in East as is it should) but not before very opinioned people demonized them as everything from lazy to crazy. The point here is that there is a philosophical history to noesis (intuitivism) and I have tried to bring the related articles about it up to snuff and then got in an edit warr with an article squarter on one of those articles (while adding sources to the article from Oxford none the less). I then gave up on that and now I am being forced to reduce Eastern Christian Mystical intuitivism, its definition, its history, gestation and its uniqueness and then it's contrast to Western Christianity into say one or two paragraphs.

Well Cody it's hard. The perficial articles (noesis, noetic, nous) could have helped but the article sqwuater as you can see even came here to spill over and try and re-engage the confrontation on this article. Wikipedia is not functioning. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is V Lossky's definition of intuitivism (rememeber his father was the one and only N. O. Lossky and you can see the work I have done on both their articles in order to even begin to start on this one)

Faith (pistis) in Eastern Christianity is an activity of the nous or spirit. Faith being characteristic of the noesis or noetic experience of the nous or spirit. Faith here being defined as intuitive truth meaning as a gift from God, faith is one of God's uncreated energies (Grace too is another of God's uncreated energies and gifts). The God in Trinity is uncreated or incomprehensible in nature, being or essence. Therefore in Eastern Christianity, unlike in Western Christianity (see Actus et potentia), God's essence or incomprehisiblity is distinguished from his uncreated energies. This is clarified in the Essence-Energies distinction of Gregory Palamas. Faith here beyond simply a belief in something. Faith here as an activity or operation of God working in and through mankind. Faith being a critical aspect to the relationship between man and the God, this relationship or process is called Theosis. Faith as an operation in contemplating of an object for understanding. Mankind's analysis of an objects properties: enables us to form concepts. But this analysis can in no case exhaust the content of the object of perception. There will always remain an "irrational residue" which escapes analysis and which can not be expressed in concepts: it is this unknowable depth of things, that which constitutes their true, indefinable essence that also reflects the origin of things in God. As God in Trinity, as the anomalies of God's essence or being. In Eastern Christianity it is by faith or intuitive truth that this component of an objects existence is grasp. Though God through his energies draws us to him, his essence remains inaccessible. The operation of faith being the means of free will by which mankind faces the future or unknown, these noetic operations contained in the concept of insight or noesis. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

If Romanides is accusing mainly the Franks (who no longer exist) for the Schism, why is he quoted under "Extant disputes" rather than in the historical part?

In all that has been written above in response to my enquiry, there is no explanation of how the ideas of a few writers can justifiably be given as showing that Western and Eastern Christianity are incompatible, as long as it has not been shown that the heads of the autocephalous and autonomous Eastern Orthodox Churches endorse that notion, and when at least one of these heads, the highest in honour, seems to disagree. I would think the quotations prove that the ideas exist in the Eastern Orthodox Church, not that they are the view of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Lima (talk) 14:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The franks may not be around today (under this name at least), but the consequences of their actions (which have affected western Christian theology as well) are still affecting the world today (also, I did not say that Romanides blames only the Franks, he also blames Augustine of Hippo, for the schism). (Also, the fact the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, considers the "Western Church" as a "sister Church, does not necessarily mean that he has different opinions on most of the theological differences discussed here (in other words, we do not explicitly know if Bartholomew has indeed a different point of view than Romanides (who also calls if I remember correctly, the west Romans and east Romans as brothers) on most issues here.))Cody7777777 (talk) 14:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

More wrangling by Lima to try and find a loop hole rather then just clarify both sides. Some of these types of maneuvers can be seen as nonproductive and as doing nothing but cultivating frustration in fellow collaborators. Romanides died just a few years ago. Romanides criticised European culture from its roots up when it came to this issue. To deny that Franks are not and were not representive of Europe and that they all of the sudden ceased to exist and are not now the French and Germans is nothing other then to engage in more fallacy as justification for denying an opposing side it's opinions and arguments. This one in specific that Lima is using is called the Affirming the consequent fallacy. No Franks no more = no more schism. Fallacious. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This argument about the Franks is counter-productive. They're dead. So are Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. The point is about their philosophical legacy. The Orthodox theologians are arguing that the Western Church is the intellectual and philosophical heir to these dead guys. We certainly see Augustine and Aquinas as our intellectual forebears. The argument that we are also heirs to Arianism through our tainted Frankish forebears is probably new to most Western Christians. (Well, it was new to me.)

Well, apparently some respected Orthodox theologians do make this argument so let's present it. Not as fact but as their considered opinion.

Now, the most important problem is edit-warring. I think the consensus is that the Noesis section is too long and poorly written. So strategically we are in agreement. The tactical question is whether it is better to leave it in place and work on it or to take it out, work on it and put back the improved passage. I don't care that much but we must agree to one of these and not war over its inclusion or exclusion.

Secondly, the problem is only partly NPOV. Per Lima, we do need to separate the words and actions of the Patriarch(s) from that of Orthodox theologians, no matter how renowned. To the Patriarchs, we are a "sister church" but there are some remaining obstacles to reunion (which are what? theological issues ... and these are surmountable or not?). And then we need to find a way to make the case of the Orthodox theologians, presenting which are the major stumbling blocks.

If the biggest stumbling block is that the Orthodox consider the Western Church heretics, then let's say that. We should also comment that the West does not officially consider the Orthodox to be heretics although there are a few beliefs that are considered heretical. That sounds weird but I think the idea is that the West is more willing to overlook the heresies on the part of the Orthodox than the Orthodox are willing to overlook what they consider to be the West's heresies. It should also be pointed out that the Orthodox do not seem to officially consider the West to be heretical. I read somewhere that, over the centuries, the Orthodox have steadfastly refused to name a patriarch of Rome which they would have done if they had considered the West to be in heresy. Which is to say the Orthodox have treated the West as if it was in schism, not as if it was heretical.

Then we need to outline the nature of the theological stumbling blocks but we need not go into them in detail. Despite LoveMonkey's protestations about "dumbing down", I have to believe that these issues can be summarized in two or three sentences with a link to a more detailed discussion. Someone who understands this stuff needs to go after his prose and distill it down to its essence (or its energies or whatever).

--Richard (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The Losskys "All is immanent in all".

It was the Losskys who have sought so hard to explain what Russian Philosophy is and also what Byzantine Philosophy or post philosophy called gnosiology is. N. O. Lossky even went so far as to learn English and German and learn Analytical Philosophy and German Idealism in order to articulate the difference in those respective systems own tenets and dialectics.-All is immanent in all.[13] LoveMonkey (talk) 14:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Article Focus

There are "schisms" and then there's the "Schism." Note the case; Schism is a proper noun. As such, it refers to a particular event, not a set of disagreements that has expanded over the years. I agree with Richard that there's a place for "ongoing theological disputes" within this article, discussing them to the extent that they prevent a reconciliation between the Churches. However, it shouldn't be the main focus of the article, and it probably only merits a paragraph or two.

In my view, in order for the Noetic section, the Concept of Hell section, and the rest of the Theological Differences sections to remain in the article, they need to be sourced to a WP:R and WP:V source that asserts that these theological differences are either causal disagreements that lead to this Schism, or ongoing disputes that prevent the end of this Schism. Other theological disputes don't belong in this article. This article certainly shouldn't just be summarizing Orthodox beliefs, as the Noetic section currently does. LOL^thulu 18:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand entirely what you're trying to say, but this Schism is not just an event of the past, it is also a fact today, It is a Schism between the the Western and Eastern Churches today. This article does not refer just to the event(s) which happened in 1054 (although there are some other "candidate" dates as 1014, 1204, but they're less popular), it refers mainly to the schism/separation (as a fact now, not just the historic event) and it tries to explain why this Schism (as a fact) is still present today. Maybe its name it's not well chosen, but this is what the current article shows, do you think it needs renamed to "East-West schism"? Also, since I am not an english native speaker, it may be possible that I don't notice the name problem. There is also an article History of the East-West Schism offering more detailed information on the historical events which led to the schism (as an event) and to its continuation (as a fact). Since it is a religious schism, it makes sense for theological matters to have the most importance here(, the history section of the schism deals mainly with the question on how these theological differences appeared in history). This schism (as a fact) exists today because of the theological differences (for example, (at least in my opinion,) the schism (as a fact) would end nearly instantly (despite all other sad historical events), if the Pope in (Elder) Rome would become an Orthodox theologian, I'm sorry if this example upsets other users, I was only trying to emphasize the importance of the Theological differences). Regarding, the section in dispute, in my opinion the section should be shown on the main page, so it will encourage other users to add the view of the "Western Church", although some changes should be made faster to it (discussion pages are ignored more easily, and to be honest, in my opinion it's "temporary" removal seems rather a step towards its "permanent" removal, and I think it was explained above why this section is important on the subject). As far as I know wiki articles are not made overnight, they are made/improved continuously (at least, as long Wikipedia will be). Cody7777777 (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) What's displayed on the article page should be (substantially) complete. Presenting the viewpoint of the Orthodox church with the expectation that someone will add the views of the Catholic church and thereby make the section relate to the article is inappropriate, as it presents an incomplete product. LOL^thulu 21:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, but in my opinion, something incomplete, should be completed (even if this takes more time than we would like or hope), not removed (I could be wrong, but to me it makes sense, also I believe the section can indeed present (after improving) the different ways in which the nous, soul, faith are understood, and also some of the "spiritual and mystical" differences, (the section could also have change of name, if other users think that the current seems difficult to understand, although I don't have an alternative at the moment)). Cody7777777 (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I will be stubifying the section down to a sentence when the article becomes unprotected. If you feel strongly about the inclusion of all of this material, I suggest you work at improving the section in anticipation of this article's unprotection. LOL^thulu 22:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Alright. If this happens and we don't manage to improve the current until then, I won't revert your edit (although I still disagree with the "one sentence" part). I still wish to thank you for reconsidering about its removal. Cody7777777 (talk) 08:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh, heh. It just occurred to me that the two sides of this dispute have a problem similar to the Catholic/Orthodox schism. We don't even agree on what the problem is.

One of the problems that LoveMonkey has (and perhaps Cody as well though it is not as clear with him) is that LoveMonkey thinks that this and other EO-related articles should be about who has what horse in the race. He seems to think that the Orthodox should present the Orthodox side and the Catholics should present the Catholic side and then that makes it NPOV. That's not NPOV, that's two POVs sitting side-by-side in an article.

Cody seems to think the section is "incomplete" because it doesn't represent the Catholic side. He wants us to complete it by inserting the Catholic side. LoveMonkey seems to think we need to find a Catholic theologian who will somehow attempt to refute what he has written about noesis. Perhaps Catholics don't particularly care about noesis. I don't know for sure. But I know that I never heard of noesis in either a positive or negative sense until this year (2009). If Catholics don't care much about noesis, it's not encyclopedic to drop a discourse about noesis into an article about the East-West Schism or Catholic - Orthodox theological differences. Neither article is about Orthodox theology per se. That's what makes the Noesis section so unacceptable. It doesn't once mention what the difference is between the Orthodox and the Catholics on this issue. We should state the difference and why it is an important obstacle to reunion. It might be that Orthodox care about noesis and Catholics haven't got a clue about it. Then we should drop the rest of the theological treatise, relegating it to another article which we can link to. We don't need to go into a deep explanation of what noesis is.

That said, I do understand the point that the Schism didn't occur solely at a single point in time or in some period in ancient history. I do understand that it is an ongoing phenomenon and that the Orthodox have a different perception of the divide than the Catholics. Catholics are taught to understand that the Orthodox are schismatic meaning that there is nothing wrong their theology, only their unwillingness to accept the supremacy of the Pope which is presented as an ecclesiological issue not a theological one. As described in the article, Orthodox see a theological problem that runs deeper than theology around the primacy of the Pope. I don't think anybody here disagrees with what I just wrote. The problem is... we need to find a reliable source that supports this so that we can say this as introductory material; for example, we could say this at the beginning of the "Theological issues" section.

--Richard (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Megadittos. Moreover, I think it bears emphasis that a horse race needs to have >1 horse, which is to say that if there are no sources regarding the difference between the Catholic and Orthodox views on Noesis, Noesis has no place in an aricle that is necissarily about the differences between the Catholic and Orthodox churches. The onus of showing the relevency of this topic to this article is squarely on those that think that the Noetic section is appropriate in this article. You'll have no argument from me against it's inclusion if you can show that it is a legitimate point of contention between the Catholics and the Orthodox. As it stands, though, the Noesis section belongs in an article on Orthodox theology, and not here. LOL^thulu 00:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the material on Noesis is more appropriate for the Catholic - Orthodox theological differences article. No one has shown that this is a cause for schism or for continuation of the schism. Majoreditor (talk) 02:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Orthodox theologians have criticized Western theology, for the absence of this (it should be explained why in the section). I hope the following may help [14], [15], in the "The Fundamental Difference Between the "East" and "West" "[16], Romanides mentions it). So the section should explain then that Western theology seeks (to explain) Truth, more through "(human) Rationalism" (perhaps, someone should explain in more details why they believe this). So, in other words Orthodox theologians would want Western theology to renounce "the way of (human) Rationalism" and accept this instead. Regarding the western views of "Faith" there is already something here on wiki[17]. (Also, as far as I know most Orthodox theologians consider that all theological differences are essential in the schism, (I thought this was common knowledge), for example many of the things shown in the section "Ecclesiological issues" (excluding "Papal authority") could be ignored by the Orthodox as a reason for separation if the "Theological differences" disappear.) Cody7777777 (talk) 08:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Bingo this is what needs and needed to be said

"This schism (as a fact) exists today because of the theological differences (for example, (at least in my opinion,) the schism (as a fact) would end nearly instantly (despite all other sad historical events), if the Pope in (Elder) Rome would become an Orthodox theologian, I'm sorry if this example upsets other users, I was only trying to emphasize the importance of the Theological differences)."

This is probably the most clear and concise to the heart, essence or as Richard sarcastically pointed out energy of the issue. That anyone in almost a thousand years could and can say about what is the schism and what caused the schism and what perpetuates the schism. PERFECT! LoveMonkey (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Too bad, Cody7777777 isn't a reliable source, elsewise you could cite him. --Richard (talk) 17:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Too bad sarcasm isn't a means to drive collaboration, cause if so by now the article would have been done and written at least a millions times over. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Well yes it was sarcastic. As long as we are engaging in what Wikipedia is not, here goes. Instead, I propose that all Orthodox patriarchs join the Roman Curia and the schism would end even more instantly. WE don't demand that you change your theology. YOU demand that we change ours. WE don't call you heretics. YOU call us heretics. I don't have a problem putting this in the article. It's in my proposed summary in the section below. (Well, OK, there do seem to be people who argue that the Essence - Energies distinction is heretical but most Catholics don't even know about the distinction let alone the charge that it is heretical and I haven't seen a reliable source that calls it heretical.) --Richard (talk) 18:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a minor comment, although I do not know if it is necessary, you should note that we're not actually forcing you to really accept that (renouncing your theology), since no one is forcing you to join with us, in other words no one is forcing this schism to end. Cody7777777 (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeh, sorry. That was an uncharacteristic outburst provoked by LoveMonkey, the wounded. It's mostly true that, if the Pope woke up one morning and said "I have seen God and he is Orthodox, then the schism would end." In truth, it's also likely that a bunch of new sedevacantists would arise and oppose him. It is less true that, if the Patriarchs woke up and had the opposite vision ("I have seen God and he sits at the right hand of the Pope."), the schism would end. We've already seen Patriarchs attempt reunion only to have it rejected by the Orthodox Church. You have your own version of sedevacantism. --Richard (talk) 19:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

There's no need for apology, I only wanted to point out that (hopefully) no one is forcing the schism to end (that doesn't mean in any way that there should be "holy wars" between us, there can be peace between us, even if the schism does not end). And I'm convinced that many people in the west, would choose a new Pope if that would happen, I posted that phrase earlier because I had to underline the "Theological differences" as seen by orthodox theologians. Cody7777777 (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Orthodox theologians have said (and some still say) that changing the calendar used at the Council of Nicaea is unacceptable. But in 1923 the Eastern Orthodox Church itself decided it could change that Julian calendar, and the patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch, and the autocephalous Churches of Albania, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece ... actually did change it. Just a thought. Lima (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I hope there won't be a dispute starting on this, but, to reply to your thought, in Orthodoxy, the calendar is not considered to be a theological issue, so the calendar does not cause a reason for schism. The Orthodox Churches of Jerusalem, Russia (the largest Patriarchate at the moment, so most Orthodox Christians follow the Julian Calendar), Montenegro, the Republic of Macedonia, Serbia, Georgia, Ukraine still use the unrevised Julian calendar. Also, all Orthodox Churches (except the Orthodox Church from Finland) celebrate Easter according to the Julian Calendar, but this causes indeed a conflict (in the Churches which use the revised Julian Calendar (the one similar to Gregorian)) with some of the council canons regarding the organizing of the Church which state that only one calendar can be used. But this is rather an "Ecclesiological issue". Cody7777777 (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The Ἐκκλησία τῶν Γνησίων Ὀρθοδόξων Χριστιανῶν doesn't agree with your opening and closing statements. I am not saying they're right. Lima (talk) 19:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me, but regrettably I don't understand Greek, so I can't check it, but I'll trust what you're saying about it. But as far as I know, calendar difference is not a reason for heresy (it could be for schisms, but this is obviously not the case at the moment between the Russian Patriarchate and the Ecumenical Patriarchate). Cody7777777 (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You needn't worry about them. They won't accuse you of the "arch-heresy of ecumenism" of which acceptance of the New Calendar forms part, and of which you are obviously free. Defteri (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Richard is now two policy interpretations wrong

OK Richard you where wrong that the article was too long, and it has been clarified that an article like this should be about 10 pages in lenght. As Adam pointed out what you are and have been stating about article length is not what is the actual policy. Now you are again arguing that a policy is something different then what it is. The WP:NPOV is not what you say it is and you as a Wikipedia admin need to contact one of the policy people and pretty please request that they come here and clarify what you are saying to Cody. Because from the way the article for the policy reads now you are not representing it correctly. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh, heh. Gotta interpret things in your favor, eh? Have you read my comment in this diff? By two out of three metrics (one of which is number of pages), this article is either near the maximum (by byte count) or beyond the maximum (by number of printed pages). The article is 14 printed pages, not counting footnotes. Using just printed pages as a metric suggests that it should be cut by nearly a third.

The only metric which considers this article to be "the right length" is word count (6,000 - 10,000 words of readable prose).

Besides, as I have indicated several times, the problem is not purely about length. It's about readability (see the guideline? 6,000-10,000 words of readable prose). And it's about relevance. There's nothing in that section that ties Nous/noesis to the schism.

Wikipedia has no "policy people". Every admin is charged with enforcing policy but interpretation of that policy is up to the admin. If you disagree on the policy being enforced by an admin, there are ways to appeal the decision primarily via WP:DR but also via WP:ANI if you think an admin is abusing his powers.

If you have questions about policy, you can request help on policy at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and you might get someone to come and express an opinion on your policy question/dispute. The volunteer might be an admin or might not. In any event, that person's opinion on policy will have no more weight than mine (but also no less weight than mine).

My point about NPOV is to consider a boxing match as an analogy. Each fighter represents a POV. But a sportscaster is (or should be) NPOV. His job is to relay the facts of the match without taking sides. That's what I'm looking for in all Wikipedia articles: the sportscaster's NPOV description of the fight. Wikipedia is not a blog or a discussion forum. We are not looking just for two POV sides locked in a polemical argument with each other. We are looking for an encyclopedic, objective description of the dispute.

--Richard (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

SO how long is this article East-West Schism in pages? Also deleting and removing one sides position from text seems to imply that there really is no conflict. As your comments imply that the conflict is on the Eastern side. Why support what the Eastern side is, I mean

I have posted various sources stating and supporting that the division is at least partially theologically driven as has Cody. Maybe the East would be more open to reconcillation if they could actually state their case. But since our case is poorly written or gibberish, maybe the schism is a good thing. I mean Majoreditor for example is under the Pope so he is Roman Catholic. Here's another editor being critical but doing nothing to articluate or contribute to this NPOV standard you keep misrepresenting. As just one example. There of course are more. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem is not that people don't want the Orthodox side presented. We just want it presented well. Since I felt myself to be the least expert in all of this and also because I knew it would be a lot of work, I shied away from doing it myself. However, since people seem to prefer arguing about the article than in writing the desperately needed summary, I have taken the bull (not a papal bull!) by the horns and tried the best I could (see section below). Hopefully, this will be a step in the right direction.

And to answer your question about how long the article is in pages, it is 24 pages including footnotes. However, since footnotes are not counted in the byte count, I assume they are not counted in the page count either. The article is 14 pages excluding footnotes. This is well over the suggested 10 page guideline. On reflection, cutting this article by a third is probably what I had in mind from the start although I had not really established any concrete goal in terms of numeric metrics.

--Richard (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand how, the NPOV is violated, as long as we say things like "Eastern theologians believe that...." or "Western theologians believe that...", because we're not saying who is right or wrong, we only point out what they believe. (I realize some of the content from the links I shown above may have offended some users, I'm sorry if that's the case, but it seems that I was asked to bring them.) Cody7777777 (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Eh, you're probably right. I think the real problem is having LoveMonkey plop down a bit of Orthodox theology and issue a challenge that amounts to "There, what do the Catholic theolgians have to say to that?". This does not lead to a readable, encyclopedic article. In the section below, I humbly submit what I think is a good basis for an encyclopedic passage that deals with the substantive theological issues that divide the Catholic and Orthodox churches.

I apologize that it took so long to write it. I finally decided that it was better to invest an hour of my time writing it than to continue wasting multiple expenditures of a few minutes describing what I thought was needed. Of course, it helped that all the discussion led me to actually write the opening paragraph which made the rest easier to write.

--Richard (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Extending this point a bit more. It's not encyclopedic to have a long theological discussion of something like nous/noesis and then expect that there will be a long Catholic response to it. That's not an encyclopedia article. That's a theology discussion forum.

First of all, not all of theology has a A/~A character to it. Orthodox have an idea about theoria and noesis. You charge that we don't have it and so we don't know God. I don't know whether any Catholic theologians have responded to this charge; I am not a theologian and don't claim to be. Maybe most theologians have chosen to ignore the charge. I don't know. What I know is that there is a better way to describe the issue than what LoveMonkey wrote. That better way, if I may so boldly suggest, is along the lines of my proposed text in the section below.

--Richard (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly Cody, this is what I mean impossible standards and unclear fallacy after fallacy being posted here as if it is some sort of legitimate outline or criteria that people can follow to "improve" the article. Bah. It's nothing more the ad hom used to editwar. Policies are not policies and don't really mean anything cause their vage outlines until they can be used to beat people over the head to shut up and remove what is not liked. I mean it all boils down to if Christianity is about a God, where is this God. If your religion is really real then it is really real because it's God -is real. The Orthodox clearly maintain that God is not only real but that anyone and everyone should be (that's what Catholic/Sobornost means) able to experience God in this life here on planet Earth and that specific experience is how and for what Orthodox has always fought and won it's battle, against the fakes (gnostics), against the rationalizers (Christological) and the Greek pagan philosophers who reduce God to ideas and ways of thinking rather then actually being Orthodox and telling people, fast, pray and be Orthodox and you will see God. Your God is real and people not just in the Bible see God Barlaamenians. When you and God are ready of course. God in the West is dead just like Nietzsche said. People treat God like a quante idea, relgion is a way of thinking God in the West is not an actual being. And when they get confronted about there REALLY being a God, they either play stupid and shameful hypocritical games or they just call us nuts. Crazy or not theoria is real and it is real and validate by allot of people. It is what makes Orthodoxy, Orthodoxy. and Theoria is purely theological. As is hesychasm. No one should give up God or the experience of God to have unity. People have died for it and will continued to.

Either God is real or he aint. If he is then theoria is the highest any humans have ever got and there is no reason tradition wise that only people in the bible get to have miracles and see God. Our dogma is the perservation of getting people to not only see God theoria illumination but also to became Holy or Saints. Roman Catholicism offers no such thing. Western Christianity treats this whole thing that a made up scam. There the differnce theology that really gets people closer to God instead of closer to their materialistic ego driven dreams of wealth and power. Noesis is the component in the nous that is developed to achieve this. And the Roman Catholics and their spokes persons have made very clear that they want this "nonsense" removed from Christianity. This auto-suggestion as they so like to call it. This hoax of "Eastern Christian Mysticism". LoveMonkey (talk) 18:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

citations needed

The section entitled "extant disputes" needs citations. NancyHeise ^talk 17:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey maybe once the article gets unprotected we can get that. Right now this request seems abit..

LoveMonkey (talk) 17:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

If you've got citations, you should make an {{editprotect}} request to have them added. I'm going to remove uncited assertions when this page becomes unprotected. LOL^thulu 19:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I would hope that we could hold off on citations until after we reach consensus on what the text should say. Otherwise, we risk spending effort providing citations for text that is going to get deleted anyway. Please review my proposed text lower down on this Talk Page. If that text is acceptable, we can provide citations for that and make a lot of the excessive detail go away since it's already being presented in Catholic - Orthodox theological differences (which probably does need more citations since it is largely a duplicate of what's here now). --Richard (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed introductory paragraph for "Theological Issues" section

It seems clear that we are not making good progress towards consensus regarding the "Nous/noesis" section. I would like to suggest that we step back and try a radically different approach. Let's work on a good introductory paragraph to the "Extant disputes" section and then see if a consensus on that paragraph informs and illuminates our discussion on the "Nous/noesis" section.

Consider this proposed text which is based on something I wrote earlier on this Talk Page with summaries of other stuff that is in the article now...

The Schism didn't occur solely at a single point in time nor is it something that can be relegated to ancient history. The Schism is an ongoing phenomenon despite recent efforts to heal the rift. These efforts have been complicated by the fact that the Orthodox have a different perception of the divide than the Catholics. The official Catholic teaching is that the Orthodox are schismatic meaning that there is nothing heretical about their theology, only their unwillingness to accept the supremacy of the Pope which is presented as an ecclesiological issue, not a theological one. In public pronouncements, Orthodox patriarchs often suggest that the fundamental stumbling block is the definition of Papal primacy, arguing that the Orthodox understanding of primacy is primus inter pares ("first among equals") and not supremacy as Catholic doctrine insists.

However, Orthodox theologians see a theological problem that runs deeper than just the theology around the primacy and/or supremacy of the Pope. In fact, unlike the Catholics who do not generally consider the Orthodox heretical, some prominent Orthodox theologians do consider the Catholic Church to be heretical on some fundamental doctrinal issues of theology.

The doctrinal issues center around the Orthodox's perception that the Catholic theologians lack the actual experience of God called theoria and thereby fail to understand the importance of the Heart as Noetic or Intuitive faculty. It is the Catholic Church's reliance on pagan metaphysical philosophy and rational methods such as scholasticism) rather than on intuitive experience of God ( theoria) that causes Orthodox to consider the Catholic Church heretical.

Other points of doctrinal difference include a difference regarding the original sin and human nature as well as a difference regarding the nature of Hell. The most important point of theological difference is embodied in the dispute regarding the inclusion of the Filioque in the Nicene Creed. While Catholics include this phrase in their recitation of the Creed in Latin and other languages, they do not include it when the Creed is recited in Greek. Orthodox, on the other hand, view inclusion of the phrase to be almost heretical. While the Eastern Orthodox Church has never formally declared the "Filioque" phrase to be heretical, some of its saints have qualified it as such. One Orthodox theologian argues that the Frankish scholastic method, mislead by Augustinian Platonism and Thomistic Aristotelianism, has led to the Catholic Church's "naive confidence in the objective existence of things rationally speculated about". Thus, the Orthodox believe that the Catholic Church's understanding of the Trinity is based on the rational and objective scholasticism of Augustinian Platonism and Thomistic Aristotelianism rather than on an intuitive and noetic experience of God (theoria) and thus the Catholic understanding is not genuine and therefore heretical.

There... that's my "sportscaster's" understanding of the dispute. Forgive me if I have gotten any parts of it wrong. All of the above is open to refinement and improvement. If we can agree to the above or an improved variation thereof, I propose that we gut much of the "Theological Issues" section since it already exists in Catholic - Orthodox theological differences and we don't wish to maintain the content fork much longer. As I've suggested before, this article should be a summary-style article. The details should be discussed in Catholic - Orthodox theological differences.

--Richard (talk) 17:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Either God is real or he aint. If he is then theoria is the highest any humans have ever got and there is no reason tradition wise that only people in the bible get to have miracles and see God. Our dogma is the perservation of getting people to not only see God theoria illumination (Tabor light) but also to became Holy or Saints. Roman Catholicism offers no such thing. Western Christianity treats this whole thing that a made up scam. There the differnce theology that really gets people closer to God instead of closer to their materialistic ego driven dreams of wealth and power. Noesis is the component in the nous that is developed to achieve this. And the Roman Catholics and their spokes persons have made very clear that they want this "nonsense" removed from Christianity. This auto-suggestion as they so like to call it. This hoax of "Eastern Christian Mysticism". I wish to have this addressed this distinction somehow in what is clarified as the "difference". Since my using technical terms means its gibberish we can now take off the gloves and address the "heart" or nous of it.

LoveMonkey (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You wrote "And the Roman Catholics and their spokes persons have made very clear that they want this "nonsense" removed from Christianity." Are you referring to editors of this article or people in the real world? That is, are you suggesting that Catholic theologians "want this nonsense removed from Christianity" or are you just protesting about the fact that people want the "Nous/noesis" stuff moved to a different article? --Richard (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) LoveMonkey, I think you need to review WP:OR and WP:NOTAFORUM. If you can show a reliable source that makes these points, then do so. Your opinion on these subjects, though, doesn't count, and is inappropriate in both article- and talk-space. LOL^thulu 20:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

[18] LoveMonkey (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Richard you have obviously not read your Church's definition of hesychasm. [19],[20] We have already covered Adrian Fortescue. These are nice there are uglier ones. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

LoveMonkey, the Catholic Encyclopedia is nearly 100 years old. Have you really read the answers in Catholic Answers Forum that you linked to in link [20]?

Hesychasm is not a heresy for Catholics, but almost no Catholics practice it. It requires strong spiritual direction from someone who has experience with it.

New Advent's Catholic Encyclopedia is not a good place to get information on a subject like this because the authors of many such articles let their prejudices show blatantly. It was written almost 100 years ago I think, and there was a cold war mentality at the time.

The Catholic Encyclopedia is not the definition of the Catholic Church's teaching. Much of it is outdated. It's clear from your citation of Palamas that you think nothing has changed in Orthodox teaching relevant to these issues in 600 years. Catholic teaching has evolved in the last 100 years. If you want to argue that the attitudes in the Catholic Encyclopedia stood in the way of healing the schism in 1900, I would have no argument with that. If you want to argue that other historical attitudes and doctrines in the Catholic Church have been problematic, I would have no argument with that. If you want to use the Catholic Encyclopedia as support for the assertion that the Catholic Church sees the Orthodox Church as heretical because of the Hesychasm, now I've got a problem. You need a much more contemporary source than the Catholic Encyclopedia to make that assertion.

Similarly, Adrian Fortescue died almost 100 years ago. He was one Catholic priest who was critical of Hesychasm. It's not clear whether his views are considered relevant to Catholicism today.

BTW, are you suggesting that Hesychasm is common practice among Eastern Orthodox laity? Or is it practiced among monks practicing a mystical quest for God?

--Richard (talk) 21:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So, actually you are now introducing a new assertion (or, to be precise, taking the old assertion a bit further).

• You have also shown that some Orthodox saints have qualified the Filioque as heretical.
• You have shown that Orthodox theologians assert that Orthodox Christians can and do "see God".
• You have also shown that some Orthodox theologians criticize Catholics for not having theoria and noesis.
• You have also shown that some Orthodox theologians hold Catholics in contempt for this and practically call them "godless".

Now you are moving on to arguing that

• "Roman Catholics and their spokespersons have made very clear that they want "this "nonsense" removed from Christianity."
  • Where is your support for this?
• "autosuggestion"
  • Where is your support for this?
• "Hoax of Eastern Orthodox mysticism"
  • Where is your support for this?

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary support." These are extraordinary claims. Who says Eastern Orthodox mysticism is a hoax? Who claims it is auto-suggestion? Who wants "this nonsense removed from Christianity"?

It is not sufficient that you cite a single Catholic theologian who holds these opinions. You must show that these opinions are in the mainstream of Catholic theology and represent the official positions of the Vatican. Thus, a secondary source will do.

Failing that, I suppose it's OK if you want to cite an Orthodox theologian who makes these charges but that would be the "Orthodox view of the Catholics" not the "Catholic view".

I will also comment that the citations of Romanides and Lossky are primary sources. It would be better if we could cite a book whose subject is Orthodox theology as a secondary source rather than citing Romanides and Lossky directly. That leaves us less open to the charge of "cherry picking" their quotes and misrepresenting their positions. (Although I don't think that's happening here.)

--Richard (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

In the Catholic Church theologians are free to uphold or to attack views on which the Church itself has made no pronouncement. The theologians are not spokesmen for the Church. Is it different for Orthodox theologians? Platia (talk) 20:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I would have thought that it was no different for the Orthodox. LoveMonkey, however, asserts that Romanides was the Greek representative to the World Council of Churches and that is the basis for arguing that the Orthodox position is represented by the positions that he presented to the WCC characterizing the division between Catholic and Orthodox churches. I am personally a bit skeptical of this assertion but I have nothing with which to rebut it so I have taken the stance that I will accept the assertion until someone else rebuts it. The assertion is sourced; we're just not 100% sure how reliable the source is with respect to the assertion being the official position of the Orthodox Church (if there is such a thing in a collegial confraternity of Patriarchs). As I've said before, I would prefer an official pronouncement of at least one Patriarch or someone claiming to speak for one. --Richard (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

In orthodoxy, theologians are those who "live" Theology (and experience Theoria), and all clerics are (or at least should be) theologians. So, yes in Orthodoxy, theologians (both clerical and non-clerical) can show the Church's beliefs. Also, Romanides was also a priest (so he was a cleric too). You can also check the works of Metropolitan Hierotheos S. Vlachos[21] (although they don't discuss about the schism, but they are about orthodox theology and you will find that there's no difference in theology between him and Romanides). Also, the following article[22] was shown from of the official website of the "The American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese" which is in the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Cody7777777 (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

OK...that's useful. I'm still not 100% convinced but the link to the official website of the "The American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese" was helpful.

Rationalism blocks out that noetic knowledge with a kind of mental static so that such theologians can't hear what's coming in at that level. As a result, they drift off into heresies of one sort or another: false distinctions between nature and grace, grace and free will, predestination, and various dilemmas that the rational mind, unaided by the nous (the mind of the heart) creates for itself. These are the "theologies" which the medieval Western scholastics, and later, Calvin and Luther and the 16th and 17th century Jesuit theologians, spun out for themselves.

Nonetheless, there's a difference between calling Catholics heretics and calling them "godless" which is where LoveMonkey's last diatribe went. If I remember correctly, I think Lossky and Romanides make similar charges. Does that represent the mainstream of Orthodox theology? Perhaps the Patriarchs are going against the mainstream in participating in ecumenical efforts and that's why one was ciriticized when he participated in a joint recitation of the Creed with the Pope. I think we have to move away from primary sources like Lossky, Romanides and the website of the "The American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese". We need to find a secondary source who presents these arguments as the mainstream of Orthodox theology. If someone came in and cited one of Adrian Fortescue's works and claimed that it was the official stance of the Catholic Church, he would be wrong and the problem on Wikipedia would be one of using a primary source rather than a secondary source. Similarly, we need to find a secondary source that characterizes the opinions of Lossky, Romanides et al as those of the Orthodox Church. Shouldn't be hard to find since they are such prominent theologians. I'm curious. Are there any Orthodox who criticize these positions? --Richard (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought we were proceeding by radically cutting the dense theology section of this article. Most of it seems to me to be wildly off-topic except as a footnote to the historical East-West schism. The sections are too detailed for this article, and over-wordy and poorly-written on top of that, with a lot of rambling. The "nous" section is completely impenetrable ATM. And Hesychasm seems more an argument within orthodoxy than one with Catholicism. See also "Hell" at orthodox catechism The Catholic church does not seem to believe intractable differences exist. I also suspect that the opinions being expressed as those of the Orthodox Churches as a whole are actually those of extreme or minority fringes. Some of the material is sourced to clearly fringe websites like Romanity.org. There are some EO elemments who are very hostile to the Catholic Church. I believe that some were recently excommunicated for intractable hostility. We need to be careful that we do not give such elements undue weight. Xandar 00:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, Xandar. I have no way of determining whether these positions are mainstream or fringe Orthodox positions. I do think a secondary source would be a great help right now.

I'm not that surprised to find that Orthodox think Catholics are heretical. I was quite surprised to find that they think Catholics don't know God at all. That was a bit of a slap in the face. Sounds like the inflammatory rhetoric of a firebrand but maybe it isn't. Maybe it is mainstream.

LoveMonkey and Cody assert that these positions are mainstream. How can we tell? I rather expect that they are not far from the mainstream of Orthodox theology.

The question that I have is whether the Orthodox understand Western philosophy/scholasticism and Eastern mysticism to be more like two lungs or more like fire and water. Everything we've read so far suggests "fire and water". We haven't seen a single Orthodox source that suggests "two lungs". So, maybe LoveMonkey and Cody are right. I would be disappointed if this were true but I haven't seen evidence that it isn't.

Now as for "cutting down the dense theology"... I'm hoping we will be able to do that if we can get agreement to my proposed replacement text.

--Richard (talk) 00:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Neither Romanides, nor Lossky were ever condemned as heretics, this alone proves that their orthodox theology is correct (if it wasn't they would have been condemned). I do not understand exactly what is needed as secondary sources, but these websites[23],[24] show an article by Vincent Rossi[25] and he cites Romanides. Lossky is cited several times in the following books[26]. (Regarding the views of "Hell", although they might be off-topic here, but the version shown above of the Orthodox Catechism is quite small, there are more longer versions, "St. John Damascene also writes the following: "eternal fire is not a material thing such as we are familiar with; rather it is something that only God comprehends." In other words, the fire of hell is not physical as we know it, but will be fire as God knows it.", "The very same Divine love which is a source of bliss and consolation for the righteous in Paradise becomes a source of torment for sinners, as they cannot participate in it and they are outside of it.", "God loves not only those who dwell in Paradise, but also those who are in Hell; in Hell, however, the Divine love constitutes a cause of suffering for the wicked." (you'll need to scroll down this one)). Regarding, the topics of the article, since this is about the religious schism between the Eastern and Western Churches, I believe it makes sense to show more information on the "Theological differences", (if you think the article is too long, some of the "Ecclesiological issues" (excluding "Papal authority") could be removed, since they are not considered so important. Richard's version does not look bad, but to be honest, in my opinion, it does seem short compared to the importance they have in this schism (it also does not show the different views of "Hell", although this not the most important thing). Regarding the hostility, regardless if you believe it or not, I have no hostility towards you (although I don't think you were speaking about me), I simply disagree with you on some issues here. (It might be possible that some of the links shown may contain things which you could find offensive, I'm sorry if that's the case, but I'm only trying to show the needed sources.) Cody7777777 (talk) 02:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the comment about the proposed text being on the short side, let's not consider the text that I am proposing to be all that will be in the article. The key question is: Does it capture the essence of the theological differences? It's one thing to say that the Catholics focus on a philosophical/scholastic understanding of God while the Eastern Orthodox are more intuitive and mystical understanding (although we have our mystics, too). It's another thing entirely to say that the Eastern Orthodox believe that Catholics are so tainted by pagan influence as to not have any understanding of God. This is the thing that I am struggling with. Is this the mainstream of Orthodox thought? Is this what is preached from the pulpit of Orthodox churches every Sunday?

On a personal note, I was not so much offended (although perhaps a bit offended as indicated by my little outburst earlier) as I was disappointed. I had been dismissing what Lossky and Romanides said as being extremist and it's disappointing to hear that they are mainstream. I had a much warmer sense of Christian brotherhood towards the Orthodox and I am now starting to feel that this brotherhood is a fiction perpetrated by the Catholics and Orthodox leadership (Pope and Patriarch alike) to pretend that there is less of a chasm than the indicated sources seem to show. Maybe it is self-delusion on their part and on my part. They would like to believe and would like us to believe that the chasm could be healed but the reality seems to be that it ain't happening anytime soon. Tant pis. Apparently, the world is not Epcot Center.

--Richard (talk) 02:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand, that your "outburst" was produced by LoveMonkey's posts, there's really no problem about it, in my post above I was mainly replying to Xandar. Regarding the text you proposed, in my opinion it does capture most of the important aspects. Regarding the preaching, priests don't usually preach things about the schism on Sundays (or in other days), some may do occasionally, but the problems of the schism is something usually discussed by theologians (both clerics and non-clerics), not in preachings on Sunday. I believe that both in the Eastern and the Western Churches there are some people with more hopes for reunion, while others with lesser hopes for it. Regarding, the mainstream orthodox theology, the works of Romanides, Vlachos and Lossky do represent the mainstream (at least in my opinion), because there cannot be two distinct forms of orthodox theology. Regarding the reunion movements, as far I observed (although, I could be wrong), in my opinion, many of the people (on both sides) who are involved in the "ecumenist" movement try to pretend that these differences are much smaller than they really are regrettably (I cannot know, if they really believe the differences are smaller or they're just pretending (they're not making their positions very clear), but if some of them are to agree to some compromises (at least, without the majority on their side), this may lead to other schisms on both sides). I understand why you are disappointed, I'm sorry you feel this way, but in my opinion it is better to accept the truth, instead of pretending it is different. I don't think is necessary to say this, but the existence of this schism and these differences does not mean that there should be any sort of hostility between us (although, to some, it seems there might be), we could still be friends regardless if the schism is ended or not. Cody7777777 (talk) 03:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I notice a problem with the following statement "While the Eastern Orthodox Church has never formally declared the "Filioque" phrase to be heretical, some of its saints have qualified it as such...", it was declared invalid at the 8th ecumenical council of Constatinople in 879[27]. Cody7777777 (talk) 04:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Cody, as for being friends, I find it much easier to work with you than with LoveMonkey. Without all the inflammatory rhetoric, it's easier to come to grips with the real issues. I don't see the schism as coming between us as individuals any more than religious differences would come between myself and a Jew, Muslim or a Protestant. Besides, we're still brothers in Christ even if you see him and we don't (or so you say).

When I said that I am "sort of" Catholic, it means that I am Catholic but so undogmatic and heretical that most would probably ask why I bother claiming to be one. I guess I would say that I am baptized Catholic and will die Catholic even if my personal theology is more Protestant in nature. The emotion of disappointment that I was expressing was due to the fact that I would prefer an optimistic view of ecumenism and this was a splash of cold water.

That said, this is not a social network, so let's get back to work...

I took the passage about the Filioque from the Wikipedia article. The sentence in the lead reads...

While the Eastern Orthodox Church has never formally declared the "Filioque" phrase to be heretical, some of its saints have so qualified it as, including Photios I of Constantinople, Mark of Ephesus, Gregory Palamas, who have been called the Three Pillars of Orthodoxy.

I would prefer it if you could work on getting that fixed in the Filioque article before we put something contradictory in this article. Silly me, I think Wikipedia should try to be consistent across articles.

--Richard (talk) 04:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing that article to my attention. Cody7777777 (talk) 12:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Good luck editwarring with Lima on that one Cody. I tried but maine that article is a mess. As for our differences East and West the most critical point of effective unification is the truth and it's acceptance, willthere be a reconcilation between East and West by the East. Even in the face of absolute devastation the Eastern congregation has outright refused reconciliation. Anyone as an outside observer to just this mess and the hell it took to try and actually post the difference doesn't wonder why. How could they? I mean I have been accused of everything from treating this like a forum to OR.

Why because nobody is really talking about what the differences are. Stand back for a moment gentlemen for just a moment. Think about how much time, just I have taken and how much nonsense and stupidity it has taken to get people to even come this far. And I believe my opinion is an informed one. Who would want to go through this?

And this is so and how the schism continues. People in the East have died for this under the yoke of Islam, Western conquest and Communism/Atheism. I mean does Richard really believe that the Ustashe was that long ago? Remember Richard , just so they could go to heaven. Why and how could people accept such a fate? How does someone refute atheism and it's big guns and its big sociopathic violent nature. I mean Alexander Men and Father Arseny where just priests after all right? I mean why did they not give up? Arseny was a target of the mob for example. Why -theoria. As for Richard's wrangling there is a book I have used to base allot of the overview (though it is flawed) in the article on. The Spirituallity of the Christian East: A systematic handbook by Tomas Spidlik, Cistercian Publications Inc Kalamazoo Michigan 1986 ISBN 0-87907-879-0.

The book exists it's real you can go buy it. It is a secondary source which treats Lossky and Romanides points as Church points that existed long before these two brave men stepped forward and tried to explain to a resistive and hostile West. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The need for secondary sources

OK... if we credit what LoveMonkey and Cody7777777 are saying, there is a larger chasm between the Catholic and Orthodox churches than is portrayed in the media and in Catholic teaching. The Catholic Church and most of the West teach that the rift is schismatic in nature and largely ecclesiological in nature. Yes, there's that troublesome Filioque thing but not that many people get wrapped up in it. The rest seems to be more issues about church governance (primacy/supremacy of the Pope) and other minor ecclesiological issues like married priests. The Catholic Church is less concerned about married priests than about female priests!

However, the Orthodox seem to view the schism in a different way. They see Western Christianity as so tainted by the St. Augustine (saint but not theologian), Franks, Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas (apparently not even a saint in their book) that the West is not able to see God or know God.

If we credit LoveMonkey and Cody's assertion that Lossky, Romanides et al represent mainstream Orthodox theology, then we appear to have a problem reconciling that assertion with the standard characterization of the schism in the West.

This is when we have to turn to the principle "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary support." If all we want to say is that "Some Orthodox theologians such as Lossky say X", then it is sufficient to cite Lossky. However, if we want to state that Lossky and Romanides represent the Orthodox view, we need to cite somebody other than Lossky and Romanides and the citation needs to not only repeat what L&R say but needs to assert that this is, in fact, the mainstream view. As I've asserted, the pronouncement of a patriarch or someone speaking on his behalf would fit the bill. A textbook on theology would also work.

A secondary source is one that reports on what the primary sources say. Here is what the Wikipedia policy on primary, secondary and tertiary sources says...

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable secondary sources. This means that while primary or tertiary sources can be used to support specific statements, the bulk of the article should rely on secondary sources.

Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion.

Primary sources, on the other hand, are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be reliable in many situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research.

LoveMonkey is theology-head; he loves to quote primary sources. The problem is that his use of primary sources leaves his writing open to the charge of original research. This is what underlies my continual question: "Does this represent the mainstream of Orthodoxy theology? Is this the official position of the Orthodox Church?" Despite assurances from LoveMonkey and Cody777777, I cannot be sure of their answers because Wikipedians are not generally considered reliable sources. Lossky and Romanides are not necessarily reliable sources because they are arguably primary sources (well, not clearly primary but arguably so). But how about Vincent Rossi? I would consider him a reliable secondary source because he is Director of Education for the American Exarchate of the Jerusalem Patriarchate of the Orthodox Church and editor of the journal Epiphany. Similarly, I would consider "The Betrayal of Tradition" by Harry Oldmeadow to be a reliable secondary source. If we can find citations in these sources that present Lossky and Romanides as representative of Orthodox theology, I think we are done. --Richard (talk) 07:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

2ndary sourcing for Romanides

Wah, La! Howz about a Protestant one? [28][29]

LoveMonkey (talk) 13:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me preface all of this with an admission of my abject ignorance of Orthodoxy and Orthodox theology. What I write below is based solely on a very cursory examination of quotes and sources that have been presented by other Wikipedians. I may "go off the rails" in my analysis below of what I have read. I am open to correction where I have made mistaken assumptions or conclusions.

First of all, the bio for Derek Davis doesn't make Daniel Payne a reliable source. We need to establish Payne as a reliable source independent of his PhD mentor but let's pass over that for the moment and look at what Payne's thesis says.

I haven't read the thesis yet but I did look at the preface which says "While some may argue that the theology of Romanides and Yannaras leads to a Palamite fundamentalism in the church, I believe their theology is important for the contemporary church..."

This wording does not suggest that, as of the submission date in 2006, that the theology of Romanides and Yannaras has been universally accepted by the Orthodox Church. Who are these "some" who "may argue"? Are they inside the church or without? The phrase "I believe their theology is important" suggests that it is important what Payne believes because others (who?) do not yet believe this. If the theology of R&Y were widely accepted as the mainstream of Orthodox thought, Payne would not need to make the assertion that it is important. In fact, the whole tone of the Preface suggests a seminarian who, having made the personal discovery of R&Y's theology, feels it important that the rest of the church adopt it as well. Perhaps I would come to a different conclusion if I read the thesis itself but that's the impression I get from the PReface.

Since the PDF doesn't allow copy-and-paste, I will just highlight some points made in the abstract that suggest that the theology of R&Y is relatively new (70 years or less) in the 2000 year history of the Orthodox Church.

• In the 1940s, Russian emigre theologians rediscovered Palamas
• Neo-Patristic synthesis of Florovsky and appropriation of Palamas' theology by Lossky set the course for Orthodox theology in the 20th century
• R&Y formulated a political theology using the ascetic theology of Palamas combined with the Roman identity of the Greek-Orthodox people
• R&Y called for a return to the ecclesial-communal life of the Byzantine period
• The resulting paradigm led to the formation of the Neo-Orthodox movement
• R&Y want to remove the Western pagan elements from the Hellenic identity of the people and replace it with the Orthodox identity rooted in hesychast spirituality

This does not sound to me as if it is mainstream Orthodox thought but rather a Neo-Orthodox "reform" or "fundamentalist" movement. When I say this, I am not in any way saying that this negates the validity of their ideas. This movement might very well transform Orthodoxy as it did Daniel Payne and presumably LoveMonkey and maybe Cody.

The point is... all of this is relatively new. R&Y are the spiritual and intellectual heirs of Lossky but we cannot determine whether Lossky spoke for the whole church and whether R&Y speak for the whole church. (Yes, I understand that Romanides was the representative to the WCC for many years but we need to understand why some Wikipedian asserted that some of his speculations were controversial in the article on him. "Romanides contributed many speculations, some controversial, into the cultural and religious differences between Eastern and Western Christianity, and how these divergences have impacted the ways in which Christianity has developed and been lived out in the Christian cultures of East and West." Who are these "some" people and which of Romanides' speculations are "controversial"?

Payne's description of Neo-Orthodoxy suggests a campaign to reform Orthodoxy which suggests that Neo-Orthodoxy is the minority opinion which is seeking to become the majority position.

I have no problem presenting the work of Lossky, Romanides and Yannaras as representative of the Neo-Orthodox movement. However, this highlights the need for secondary sources who can place their work in context for us.

--Richard (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

2ndary sourcing for Lossky

And my most favorite of all secondary sources....Rowan Williams the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury! [30][31][32]

LoveMonkey (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Rowan Williams is a reliable source about the Anglican Church. I'm not sure he is a reliable source about Orthodoxy. In any event, provide some citations of what Williams has to say about the topic at hand so that we can evaluate them. --Richard (talk) 18:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Is Rowan Williams a secondary source or not? He validates that Lossky represents the Orthodox. Stop playing games. I am not here to teach you Orthodoxy. I provided secondary sources and now you are refusing them as well.

LoveMonkey (talk) 18:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, stop playing the wounded martyr. When I wrote my comment (which didn't reject Williams outright but asked for more information), [this is all you had provided. There is nothing in that bio that indicates that he is an authority on the Orthodox. That's what I was responding to. Sneaking in a couple of extra links after I made my comment doesn't prove that I'm playing games. It might suggest that you are.

You subsequently provide two additional links that shed some more light on Williams although it is not clear if he substantiates the assertion in question (that Lossky, Romanides and Yannaras are in the mainstream of Orthodox theology).

He wrote a book on theology which covers Lossky. That suggests that he is a reliable source on what Lossky says. This book review establishes that the book covers a number of theologians. Inclusion in the book does NOT establish yet that Lossky represents the official position of the Orthodox Church any more than inclusion of Hegel and Barth establish that they are the official position of any Western church. Perhaps there is a citation in the book where Rowan Williams asserts that Lossky represents the Orthodox position. If so, please provide it. However, I would comment that even such a citation is only partly credible. After all, if you disagreed with Lossky, would you accept an Anglican telling you that Lossky represented the official Orthodox position? No, of course not, you would rant and rail about the presumption of an Anglican telling you which Orthodox theologian was right and which one was wrong.

We have two Westerners Spidlik and Williams who establish that Lossky (and presumably Romanides and Yannaras) are respected Orthodox theologians. What I want to know is the extent to which the Orthodox Church has actually adopted their Neo-Orthodox movement (well, actually, I think that is the product of R&Y and not Lossky). Does Neo-Orthodoxy assert unequivocally that reconciliation with the West is impossible due to differences in spirituality? Do all Orthodox Patriarchs agree? Where have they said so? Cody wants us to believe that, because they haven't said otherwise, they must agree. I'm not 100% convinced. --Richard (talk) 19:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Spidlik and Williams neither claim Lossky and Romanides as Neo-Orthodox. Neo-Orthodox was an ill informed position created to misrepresent some Orthodox theologians. This is a new set of requests you are making Richard that are not consistent with WP:Policy. As long as I can source with valid sources my edits I do not have to convince individuals. As I have repeatedly stated. This is about a fallacy called the style over substance fallacy which makes ad hom attacks under the guise that the substance of an argument can be ignored by making arguments about the presentation of the argument. Richard as an administrator for Wikipedia is behaving in an irresponsible manor. He is continually misrepresenting policy and also not fixing and or correcting disruptive behaviour by other editors. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not true that "As long as I can source with valid sources my edits I do not have to convince individuals." This is a major misunderstanding that you have had about Wikipedia and you and I have been discussing this for almost two years now.

Not every sourced statement is encyclopedic and even if a sourced statement is encyclopedic that does not mean it belongs in the section or article that an editor wants to put it in.

Daniel Payne is the one who used the word "Neo-Orthodox". I don't have enough information to evaluate what "Neo-Orthodoxy" is or isn't and who is part of that. Payne seems to imply that Romanides & Yannaras started Neo-Orthodoxy. Are you disputing my understanding of what he said in the Preface? I don't doubt that my understanding could be wrong. I'm still learning and I have a lot to learn.

WP:UNDUE is the policy which suggests that we should not give undue weight to a source even if he is reliable. What is he reliable about? Reliable about what Lossky and Romanides said? About what they meant? Reliable as to whether a particular statement by Romanides is, in fact, the official position of the Orthodox Church? Given an apparent conflict between the words and actions of a patriarch and the theological "speculations" of Romanides, which is the more reliable source regarding the official position of the Orthodox Church?

--Richard (talk) 19:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

2ndary source for Lossky Orthodox

According to Richard we are have Liturgy to a man that represents a minority opinion. At Notre Dame Joie des Affligés et Sainte Geneviève in Paris. [33] LoveMonkey (talk) 19:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You're asking people to draw conclusions. That's WP:OR. LOL^thulu 19:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Besides, which no one is saying that Lossky is not a respected theologian worthy of a liturgy. Does that mean every word he ever wrote is gospel truth? Protestants revere Luther and Calvin but they don't necessarily accept everything they ever wrote or said as gospel.

Not even everything the Pope says is considered infallible by the RCC. Only the things that he says ex cathedra are infallible and that has only been done twice in over 100 years.

I'm also not clear on what belongs to Lossky and what belongs to Romanides and Yannaras. It is Romanides that makes the assertion that there can be no reconciliation between West and East because of the West's inability to know God. Does Lossky make the same charge? Or does Romanides take Lossky a step further than Lossky himself would have gone? Being unfamiliar with the works of any of these theologians, I don't know who exactly espoused which positions.

--Richard (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You are engaing in harrassing behaviour LOLthulu. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

With respect solely to the comment by LOLthulu above, that is not harassment. He is right, it is OR to jump to the conclusion that because someone has a liturgy, everything he ever wrote or said is an official position of the Orthodox Church. Even great theologians make great mistakes. It takes the test of time to know what was gold and what was dross.

--Richard (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

If Richard ran the world it might be considered WP:OR, which is here an administrator enabling and fostering harrassment against another editor. BUT in the real world. People would and should be a little more level headed and would notice small things like, the seminary where Lossky learned and taught as a Porfessor is under the Patriarch of Moscow. That Vlachos is a Metropolitian not just a Priest. Both them and Romanides where selected by their respective communitees and have not been rejected. Romanides unlike George Florovsky was not ever force to step down from his position, let alone because he said something his respective institution disagreed with. So by Richards standard people working for the Roman Catholic church (as representives BTW like Romandies and Lossky) have no validity in their statements on the church unless the Pope explicitly acknowledges them. Where is this standard coming from Richard? Unless no matter what I post it will get rejected. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I have exercised no admin powers with respect to this article. I have not blocked anyone, protected or unprotected the article nor edited the article while it is protected. If you feel I have abused my admin status, there are channels to appeal this although I doubt you will find anyone who finds fault with my behavior here (except for one intemperate outburst for which I have apologized). Anything I write on this Talk Page and any edits that I make are solely in my status as another Wikipedia editor. --Richard (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

"people working for the Roman Catholic church" covers a wide category. People in the Roman Curia probably do speak for the Pope but it depends on what organization they work for and what they are speaking about. Bishops, archbishops and even cardinals speak largely for themselves and not for the Pope. Do Metropolitans speak for the entire Orthodox Church? Does every person teaches at the seminary that Lossky taught at also speak for the Patriarch of Moscow? Or the entire Orthodox Church?

If anybody working for the Catholic Church asserted that there was no possibility of reconciliation between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church, I would strongly question if that person was speaking for the Pope and for the official position Catholic Church. I am not saying that Lossky and Romanides do not speak for the official position of the Orthodox Church. I AM saying that "Extraordinary assertions require extraordinary proof."

Now, what I personally believe is that the Orthodox Church does not fully support the ecumenical efforts of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople towards reconciliation with the Catholic Church. I forget the details but there was a joint recitation of the Nicene Creed which was criticized by a Metropolitan. I believe that there is a hostility on the part of the "rank and file" against such moves by the Patriarchs. This is not news. It's happened in past centuries and it's very plausible to me that theologians, priests, bishops and Metropolitans have maintained a grass-roots opposition to reconciliation efforts by the leadership. (This is speculation on my part. I'm open to being taught differently.)

However, there is a difference between what I wrote above and the "official position of the Orthodox Church". Who establishes that? The Patriarchs? Or someone else?

--Richard (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Orthodox theology is a matter of libertarian- free will (it's called antideterminism,indeterminism or sobornost-spontaneous order), Richard.-[34] And no we are not anarchists, like Tolstoy tried to get Orthodox labeled and got called out for. Outside of the councils theology is supposed to get you theoria and then theosis. We are a church and community Richard we actually talk to one another and crazy stuff like that. If someone starts teaching heresy they get called out and removed (if they have power). If Lossky taught heresy a Priest or theologian would formally challenge him and then it would be so that Lossky would have been seen as wrong. Theology in Orthodoxy is not institutionalized like in the West it is libertarian. This is what Taleb is trying to do to epistemelogical knowledge for example. YOU ASKED. LoveMonkey (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

But then, if it is libertarian, we only know that Lossky and Romanides are not wrong. (It goes the same way in the Catholic Church, nihil obstat and imprimatur only say that the book is not heretical but does not say that it is right. In the Catholic Church, at least, there is a wide spectrum of things that are considered "not wrong".) It does not mean that all Orthodox have to believe what Lossky and Romanides teach. I am fine with saying that "Respected Orthodox theologians, Lossky and Romanides, say ....". I am not comfortable asserting that this is the belief of the Orthodox Church. Not because I don't believe it but because it seems Patriarchs Demetrius and Bartholomew don't believe it. (Well, I guess we shouldn't read too much into a joint recitation of the Nicene Creed).

--Richard (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Our theologians are apophatic or epoche. This is the very heart of the East. libertarian means the same thing in this context. They are mystics or they are not. Athos is the garden of Mysticism. Since our other places have been annhiliated. Though in Russia Optina, Sarov among others are coming back along. LoveMonkey (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid that I am unable to understand what you wrote above. I don't understand it and I don't understand how it relates to this discussion.

Can you tell me this... are Orthodox Christians required to believe what Lossky and Romanides teach? Can you assert that the majority of Orthodox do, in fact, believe what Lossky and Romanides teach? Or even just at the Metropolitan level... if we surveyed Orthodox Metropolitans, would they unanimously support the assertions of Lossky and Romanides? Or, if not unanimously, would an overwhelming majority support them? --Richard (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Lossky and Romanides were required to teach according to the orthodox theology, if they wouldn't they would've been delcared heretics (and there cannot be 2 distinct forms of orthdox theology in the Eastern Church, since they (are considered to) come through Theoria). (Also, the folowing article (which is shown the third time here), is from of the official website of the "The American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese" which is in the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate (which is probably the most involved of the patriarchates in these discussions about reunion), if they would disagree with it they would obviously remove it.) Cody7777777 (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand why it is really necessary to show the opinions of western authors about the eastern theologians, since to show the position of the eastern theologians we need to rely mainly on their works and those of other members of the Eastern Church. I would also like to add that until the 20th century there wasn't too much knowledge in the west about the eastern theology (at least, as far as I know), this was probably because there were very few (in case they were) sources about this written in western languages (english, french, german, etc.) and even today many of the works of the eastern writters are in their respective languages (greek, russian, romanian, etc.). But, they do prove, that these western authors agree that the works of Lossky, Romanides and Yannaras were important in orthodox theology. Also, there cannot be a thing in the Eastern Church as "Neo-Orthodoxy", Palamas' theology was recognized as orthodox during some (very important) councils in the period 1341-1351. These councils in fact dealt mainly with the problem "Theoria VS (western) Scholastic Rationalism", the council of 1351, is in fact considered as the 9th Ecumenical Council of Constantinople. So, Palamas' theology is considered orthodox at least since 1351 (although Palamas did not actually invented something new, these councils were started by the debate "Theoria VS (western) Scholastic Rationalism"). No other council (in fact there wasn't even another ecumenical council in the Eastern Church since then), ever condemned Palamas' theology, so the fact that some eastern theologians wrote about the Saint Gregory Palamas in the 20th century (and also published their works in western languages) does not represent a "Neo-Orthodoxy" (at least, not in the Eastern Church). Also, Metropolian (a bishop) Vlachos also cites Romanides in some of his books(one can be checked here). Also, if the works of these eastern theologians (Palamas, Lossky, Romanides, Yannaras and Vlachos) were considered wrong by the Eastern Church, I suppose it would be very easy to find some sources which would explicitly state this. Cody7777777 (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Facade and fallacy

Facade and fallacy represent the same thing. In that they represent a lie or a deceit. Meaning one acts as if they are genunie in their critieria and then just keeps changing it in order to not have contend that they are wrong and being outragious in their behaviour. As one can just keep changing and naming new criteria as an attempt to frustrate. And dodge. It is outragious to contend that if the statement was made 100 years ago about something still unresolved it is invalid. As much as it is that a statement make now which states the same thing is invalid because one's instutiion that they represent is invalid. Some might consider it despicable. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Tomáš Špidlík

OK now lets move forward through this great density. I have used a Western source (a secondary source according to Richard) to insert in and word the Noesis section of this article as a basis for understanding about the difference between East and West which is the basis for the difference that contributed to and partially perpetuates the Schism between East and West. Tomáš Špidlík's book entitled appropriately The Spirituality of the Christian East have little over half of it dedicated to what I was trying to reducte to about 3 or 4 paragraphs. Can we decide that this book is an agreeable (though again somewhat flawed) source for understanding and dialog between the various opposing editors here. Hey it's not even written by someone Orthodox Richard. It is current (not 100 years old) and whatever other excuse you want to throw in. Including that it was written by an extremist (Father Tomas is a scholar/lecturer from the Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome). Please let me know. Since again I am not making it up or engaging in OR or causign drama or trying to pick a fight or whatever other excuse you use to try and not post what it is the East actually believes. Since it's just LoveMonkey or LoveMonkey's a bad editor or contributor or has some other nefarious agenda- other then actually trying to explain to people what is actually going on from the Eastern perspective. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this relevant to the article? Does Špidlík say the differences are such that they make communion impossible? Which side does he say is heretical? Platia (talk) 15:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey Platia good to see you, thats almost ironic. Since you requested sourcing on the Orthodox Church of the East article. Father Tomas works for the POI. Here's a source for that article and clarification on his Institue.[35] LoveMonkey (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. The source you give does not seem to support the idea that either spirituality is heretical and rules out communion with the other, so as to merit a place in this article. Soidi (talk) 15:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Just what I wanted to say. Platia (talk) 16:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong. The source clearly states that their is different spirituality in the East and has wrote extensively on it and how the difference feeds into the schism. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

AGAIN: The Spirituallity of the Christian East: A systematic handbook by Tomas Spidlik, Cistercian Publications Inc Kalamazoo Michigan 1986 ISBN 0-87907-879-0.

Also the second volume on hesychasm. Not just conflict but difference.

Prayer: The Spirituality Of The Christian East Vol.2 Publisher: Liturgical Press (July 30, 2005) ISBN-10: 0879077069 ISBN-13: 978-0879077068

LoveMonkey (talk) 16:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Many differences "fed into" the schism, including the use of Latin and Greek respectively, without having to be disputes. Does Špidlík say this particular difference is a dispute, an "extant dispute", as the article would have it? Platia (talk) 16:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

From the conclusion of The Spirituality Of The Christian East pg 351 first paragraph.

"Before we summarize the characteristic traits of Eastern spirituality, we must stress one principle and stress it hard, that the Latin church originated from the Greek church as a branch grows from a tree trunk. The Church was implanted by the Greeks and expresseed itself in the Greek language until the fourth century. As early as the beginning of the fourth century centrifugal forces came into play which brought about the breakup of the political and cultural unity of the two halves of the Roman Empire, not without repercussions on the life of the church, and on the mentality of those who devoted themselves to the spiritual life. This principle will place a relative value upon specific key features among Eastern Christians. From it comes the nature of Eastern spirituality. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) This section does not support the assertion that you're attempting to make. LOL^thulu 16:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey if you want I can email him and ask him to say exactly like you want to hear it. Would that finally be enough? LoveMonkey (talk) 16:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) That would be WP:OR. If he doesn't say it in a published source, it doesn't matter what he believes. LOL^thulu 16:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

More irony, anybody got Father Tomas' book? Since the outline, overview structure to the section I wrote and added to this article is loosely based on his structure and topics in his books as well as how they are addressed by sobornost (journal). I mean look at the books TOC. His book doesn't cover hell. Also I tried to combine most of the section about nous and noesis into one section even though half of his book is based on this. He calls the sections on nous, Spirituality of the Heart.

LoveMonkey (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

According to LOLthulu's quotation, Špidlík says the break-up of the Roman Empire led to differences in life and spirituality. He doesn't say that differences in spirituality caused/causes schism, nor that they are "extant disputes". Platia (talk) 16:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC) So, isn't it off-topic? Platia (talk) 17:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that's LoveMonkey's source. I'd responded to LM in the line break between his comment and signature, erroneously. It's been corrected. LOL^thulu 18:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

"As early as the beginning of the fourth century centrifugal forces came into play which brought about the breakup of the political and cultural unity of the two halves of the Roman Empire" Father Tomáš Špidlík. Schism happen in 11th century. Platia article about schism not just breakup between East West. OK.LoveMonkey (talk) 17:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

This still doesn't say anything about differences in theology causing the schism or perpetuating it. This particular quote is about the "political and cultural unity" of the Roman Empire. I don't doubt that Tomáš Špidlík discusses theology and schism in the book. Find a quote that is more directly relevant to the topic. --Richard (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Are we arguing over the Theological section of the article including the section I wrote call Nous the intuitive faculity or not? Other editors used extrant disputes not me. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, wasn't it you who brought Špidlík up as supporting the contention that something prevents healing of the schism? It seems he doesn't. May we drop him? Platia (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I brought him up because he clarifies that there is a different spirituality in the East and what that is. Richard asked for a secondary source. Talk to Richard. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course there is are differences in Eastern and Western spirituality. Within the West, there are differences between Benedictine, Carmelite, Jesuit, etc. spiritualities. But different spiritualities don't have to mean divided Churches. Špidlík doesn't say they have to mean divided Churches. So, may we drop him? Platia (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Article talkpage discussion on keeping section on Eastern Spirituality. Richard requested secondary source that validated Lossky and Romanides positions. Positions stated schism not resolved due to theological issues. Richard denies validatily of Lossky and Romanides. Richard states that Roman Catholic and Orthodox have only political and structural issues. I posted Špidlík to address Richard request for secondary source. Ask Richard. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying RCC and Orthodox have ONLY political and structural issues. I am saying that the Western view is that healing of the schism is blocked primarily by political and structural issues (if this phrase means "ecclesiological"). The West sees no fundamental theological obstacles to reconciliation. Apparently, some Orthodox theologians do see such theological obstacles. In truth, you can probably find Protestant and Catholic theologians who see obstacles as well. However, in the RCC, the Pope is the final word and so, if he sees no theological obstacles, there are none.

Are there theological differences? Of course, there are. These should be documented in Catholic - Orthodox theological differences and referenced from this article to the extent that they are relevant to either causing or perpetuating the schism. I don't understand how the differences in conception of Hell perpetuate the schism but I do understand that not getting nous/noesis is probably a fundamental issue.

I don't know what it means to consider Lossky, Romanides and Yannaras "invalid". They they are respected theologians and have their theological positions. Now, in the West, we don't take every word of every theologian as gospel truth even if they haven't been chastised by the Pope. In fact, we recognize that there are extremists on both sides campaigning for their vision of the church (either conservative, liberal or whatever).

What I have been asking to validate is whether Lossky, Romanides and Yannaras are mainstream or are they extremists or on the fringe. Do they represent traditional, mainstream Orthodoxy or something else. Thanks to the Daniel Payne PhD thesis, I have an inkling that R&Y may represent a new movement ("Neo-Orthodoxy") which may be vibrant, dynamic and growing within the Orthodox Church. However, it is something new and, AFAICT, not necessarily universally accepted within the Orthodox Church. At least, that's what I conclude from reading the preface to the Payne PhD thesis. But it's a bit dicey to conclude so much from reading the preface of a single PhD thesis. Maybe we need additional secondary sources to help put the R&Y Neo-Orthodox political hesychasm movement into the proper context.

--Richard (talk) 18:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Without retracting any of what I wrote immediately above, it does seem to me, based on what LoveMonkey has written about him, that Tomáš Špidlík is a reliable source about Orthodox theology and I would welcome some citations from his work. He may have spent half a book on the topic but there should be a few choic quotes that summarize his points. --Richard (talk) 18:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I do wonder whether any choice quotes from Špidlík will support the idea that the differences he describes are communion-blocking "extant disputes", and not merely differences. Platia (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I rather doubt it but, assuming good faith, I will wait to see if LoveMonkey can provide them. I'm not sure if he has the book or not, though. --Richard (talk) 19:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Very irresponsible as an Wiki administrator Richard as there already is a Protestant movement by the same name of Neo-Orthodox. As for Špidlík I already posted from his book above and the text your are trying to delete can be validated by him. Again in the book the most pointed chapters on it (nous, noesis) is called Various titles involving the word heart, but the most important would be the chapter named "The Organ of Contemplation". Špidlík makes big time mistakes as does his organization but he can be used as common ground East and West for a generalized approach.LoveMonkey (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Does he say the differences make communion impossible? Please, any quotation whatever of his that shows it? Platia (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't coin the word "Neo-Orthodox". Daniel Payne used it in his PhD thesis and I'm not sure whether he coined it or whether it was already in use. I did check to see if there was an article on Neo-Orthodox and I did find the Protestant movement but it's not my fault that Payne used the word in a different context.

LoveMonkey, you seem unwilling or unable to understand the message that no one is disputing that the text on nous/noesis (as impenetrable as it may be) is part of Eastern Orthodox theology and that it is substantially different from the mainstream of Catholic thought and theology. What's not clear is whether the Orthodox have the same rationalist/mystic divide that the Western churches have or whether the mystic is more integrated into everyday practice than in the West (probably the latter). What's more central to the current dispute is whether this difference is considered by the mainstream to be the central obstacle to reconciliation between the Catholic and Orthodox churches.

At this point, I have no problem with the article saying that "Some highly respected Orthodox theologians such as Lossky and Romanides argue that the Catholic and Orthodox churches can never reconcile until....". That statement is clearly sourceable. I just am having difficulty saying "The Orthodox Church believes that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches can never reconcile because..." This statement requires extraordinary support because it relies on Lossky and Romanides to speak for the official position of the Catholic Orthodox Church.

--Richard (talk) 21:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Finally, it took an aweful lot to get to here. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

No Compromise with Catholics

Aha! Finally, we have something that fits my standards of a reliable source for the position of an Orthodox Church vis-a-vis relations with the Catholic Church. Thanks to LoveMonkey for pointing us at the Pontifical Oriental Institute.

Here is what Patriarch Kiril said (admittedly while he was still Metropolitan but still very recently) on the topic:

In our relations with other Christian confessions we have to understand the principle of distinction. The simple fact that we are communicating does not mean that we are trying to become a single entity." This is the position of Metropolitan Kirill, Patriarchal Locum Tenens of Moscow, who is regarded as the most likely successor to Patriarch Alexius II. In an interview released this week by Russian publication "Argumenty i Fakty" (Arguments and Facts) on the relations with other Christian confessions, Kirill explained that "unfortunately, differences in religious doctrines and practices have increased between orthodoxy and other confessions." "With some protestant communities, as the Lutheran Church of Sweden and the Episcopal Church of the United States, we have come to a complete break, due to the official recognition of homosexual relations," explained the Metropolitan. As for our relations with the Catholic Church, Metropolitan Kirill explains that the positions of the two Churches on social matters are "more close." "Nevertheless, we are accountable for a great number of differences in doctrine and practice between the Orthodox and the Catholic Churches and, in this regard, there is no room for compromise." "Nevertheless, this does not prevent us from being open and friendly with people who share different points of view, and with whom we live in the same society," he added.

What's not clear is what, specifically, are the "differences in religious doctrines and practices" that Kirill sees as leaving "no room for compromise". Based on the fact that Lossky is a respected theologian who taught at a seminary under the Patriarch of Moscow, one could argue that Lossky's ideas are at least part of what Patriarch Kirill is talking about. However, this is OR and we need some more help with sources to link up the dots between Kirill's statement and Lossky's theology.

Moreover, we also need to understand whether Patriarchs Demetrius and Bartholomew also feel this way. Have they said anything along these lines?

--Richard (talk) 21:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Patriarch Kirill is very kind soul. His words here might seem harsh but he comes to his place as Patriarch by survivial and he has taken his reosurces and rebuilt allot of the destroyed and abandon churches throughout Russia. As part of the sobor project. No body was helping him the West (per se) which also has made our faith and our clergy into bad guys.

LoveMonkey (talk) 16:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have subsequently read that some of his pronouncements could be interpreted as "posturing" to deflect criticism that he is too friendly to the West. It is my understanding that he has had good relations with the Catholic Church and I think he is trying to establish his sound Orthodox credentials with these pronouncements. The question becomes whether to just present his official statement without comment or whether to provide the analysis as well. I'll try to dig up a source for the analysis. --Richard (talk) 18:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, they did not ever said something against what Palamas, Lossky, Romanides, Yannaras and Vlachos have said about theology (if someone does know, then please show it up, I would be interested to know). But, I would also like to add the Ecumenical Patriarch cannot speak for the entire (eastern) Church, he can speak only about the position of his patriarchate, or even just about his own diocese, because in the eastern Church, there is no equivalent of the Pope (of the Western Church) in (Elder) Rome. In orthodox clergy, there are only 3 posistions, deacons, priests and bishops (archbishops, metropolitans and patriarch are only honorary titles given to bishops, there is no bishop with "higher authority" than another bishop), only an ecumenical council (and no ecumenical council recognized by the eastern Church ever condemned Palamas) could represent an equivalent to the Pope in the Western Church (although, even so, there were "robber councils" in the Church's history). Also, please note that the Patriarchate of Russia includes a population of more than 135,000,000 people, while the Ecumenical Patriarchate has only around 3,500,000 members. Cody7777777 (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting. And I had been getting ready to dismiss Kirill and Lossky as "just the Russians" but you're right to remind me that this is the largest autocephalous Orthodox Church. But, seriously, are you saying that Kirill does not speak for the entire Russian Orthodox Church as Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church? Doesn't being Primate count for something? --Richard (talk) 00:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, he does mainly speak for his own diocese, only the synod (council) of the Russian Orthodox Church can give the exact position of the Patriarchate. Being Primate, means he can act as president of the council, but he cannot "enforce" his will on the members, and he must accept the council's decisions even if he would disagree. Cody7777777 (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Ugh...OK, then that is different from the Pope. I had figured a Patriarch or Primate acted the same as the Pope but over a smaller jurisdiction. Instead, the Eastern Orthodox are truly collegial among bishops if it requires a synod to speak authoritatively. --Richard (talk) 01:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Another point that I read somewhere is that there was a shift in the way the Orthodox Church felt about ecumenism before the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Before that, Orthodox churches under Soviet oppression sought the support of Western churches. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the resurgence of the Russian Orthodox Church changed its attitude towards reconciliation with the Catholic Church. This sort of makes sense when you consider that it is the Russians who are most vocal in opposing reconciliation (cf. Primate Kirill saying "No compromise with the Catholic Church" but a more congenial approach from Patriarch Batholomew and Patriarch Demetrius). --Richard (talk) 01:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The Catholic perspective

I would also like to ask, that someone provide sources which explicitly state the following proposed statement "The official Catholic teaching is that the Orthodox are schismatic meaning that there is nothing heretical about their theology, only their unwillingness to accept the supremacy of the Pope which is presented as an ecclesiological issue, not a theological one. In public pronouncements, Orthodox patriarchs often suggest that the fundamental stumbling block is the definition of Papal primacy, arguing that the Orthodox understanding of primacy is primus inter pares ("first among equals") and not supremacy as Catholic doctrine insists." In my opinion, I suspect it is true, but I think it is better for it to be sourced. Cody7777777 (talk) 23:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to confess that I wrote that based on my understanding of the Catholic perspective. I would have to look for a reliable source that said specifically what I wrote. In the meantime, let me offer this paper which is not necessarily the Church's official position but pretty much matches my understanding.

The third and last factor in the turning of tensions into an actual break was the emergence of the four disputed questions which served as lenses concentrating the heat given off in these chronic or structural tensions until it became explosive.

In order of their historic emergence, these questions or topics are: the Filioque, the nature of the Roman primacy, the use of azymes or unleavened bread in the Western Mass, and the doctrine of Purgatory, and especially the symbolisation of the intermediate state as a purifying fire.

On all these points, even that of azymes which might be thought an issue singularly unprofitable or at least peripheral to Christian thought, theological ideas of great interest were brought forward on both sides, though probably only the Filioque and the primacy question would be regarded as 'dividing' issues today.

As regards the Filioque - the procession of the Holy Spirit, according to the amended Latin version of the Creed of Nicaea-Constantinople, not only from the Father but from the Son as well, I believe that, could we count on a modicum of good will, we might well be able, without damage to the doctrinal integrity of our two communions, to resolve this technical issue in Trinitarian theology: technical, yet also crucial for how we see the Spirit in relation to the Son, and so their respective economies in their interaction in our lives. The matter of the Roman primacy is less easily disposed of,

It would be excessive for me to paste in to this page, the parts of Part 3 that I found interesting. Instead, I urge you to follow the link and read it there.

--Richard (talk) 01:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I have read it, it was interesting (he also mentioned something about Romanides (regarding the view of eastern theologians)). Cody7777777 (talk) 01:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The Filioque Problem

Here is another source describing the schism from the Catholic perspective...

Once again, the point is that the theological problem most commonly mentioned (and usually the only one) is the Filoque and even then this is dismissed as a 'technical problem" or a miscommunication. It isn't until we see the Orthodox side that this is raised as a huge theological problem which is based on the Frankish heresy and the paganism of Aristotelianism and Scholasticism resulting in the godlessness of the Western Church.

As you read these sources, you will see that there is generally little anti-Orthodox polemic, certainly not on theological grounds. There is usually a lot of respect given to Orthodox theology (as being closer to Catholics than say the Protestants). In consideration of this, you can see why it is shocking for a Catholic to read anti-Catholic polemic from Orthodox theologians who go so far as to call Catholics heretics, pagans and godless.

One theological disagreement has to do with the Latin compound word filioque ("and the Son") which was added to the Nicene Creed by Spanish Catholic bishops around the end of the sixth century. With this addition, the creed says that the Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son." Without the addition, it says the Spirit proceeds from the Father.

Eastern Orthodox have traditionally challenged this, either saying that the doctrine is inaccurate or, for those who believe that it is accurate, that the pope had no authority to insert this word into the creed (though it was later affirmed by an ecumenical council).

Many today, both Orthodox and Catholics, believe this controversy was a tempest in a teapot. The doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as the Father is intimated in Scripture and present in the earliest Church Fathers. Controversy over it only arose again after the Eastern churches repudiated their union with Rome under pressure from the Muslims.

Eastern Orthodox often refer to the Holy Spirit proceeding from "the Father through the Son," which can be equivalent to the Catholic formula "from the Father and the Son." Since everything the Son has is from the Father, if the Spirit proceeds from the Son, then the Son can only be spoken of as one through whom the Spirit received what he has from the Father, the ultimate principle of the Godhead. Because the formulas are equivalent, the Catechism of the Catholic Church notes: "This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed" (CCC 248).

Today there is every hope that the equivalence of the two formulas can be formally recognized by all parties and that the filioque controversy can be resolved.

Okay, here's one more... After reading the report in the link, I can see that part of why Catholics are unaware of these theological differences that are so important to the Orthodox is the fact that John Paul II wanted reconciliation so much that he probably glossed over the theological differences and the rest of the Church followed his lead.

At the heart of the Catholic-Orthodox division is a dispute about the organization and nature of the church—the question of whether the Christian church is understood to be an integrated organization under the leadership and control of the Bishop of Rome, or a collegial body self-governing, geographically defined churches that share communion, theology, and identity. This single issue is far more important than differences over things like proper iconography, the use of leavened or unleavened bread in communion, whether clergy can marry, or even the definition of the person of the Holy Spirit in the Trinity.

It is here that, from the Orthodox point of view, Pope John Paul is stuck between his vigorous assertion of Roman privilege and his yearning for union. And why the Greek Catholic Church and the other Catholic "Eastern Rite" churches are such a thorn in the side of the Orthodox.

The position of the Orthodox churches of the Middle East and Eastern Europe is that they were never "under" the papacy. The Orthodox see the Latin rite as a valid, ancient form of worship and organization, especially if it abandons its claim of universal sovereignty. The 500 years of formal Roman policy of encouraging and even levering Orthodox worshipers into "union" with Rome, in Orthodox eyes, has created a series of hybrid groups that threaten the autonomy and integrity of local Orthodox churches.

The Orthodox "solution" is clear, if not well known: The Eastern Rite churches should be dissolved as part of the process of resolving differences between Catholics and the Orthodox. The fundamental unit of the historic Christian church is the diocese, and Christian believers in a given place who are in communion with another should live together in one ecclesiastical organization. That means that Greek Catholics in the Ukraine or Romania or Syria should revert to Orthodoxy. And it probably means that Orthodox worshipers in the West should integrate into the Roman church structure after reunion.

John Paul has been less than forthcoming about how thinks the issues that divide the two ancient churches can be resolved. In particular, he’s given no concrete sense of what he’s willing to do to make a deal. The Russian Orthodox, in particular, thinks that John Paul should have discouraged the dramatic revival of the Greek Catholic church in the Ukraine for the sake of peace and reconciliation with the Orthodox.

That, of course, is a lot to ask, of a pope and a group of people who suffered persecution for 50 years because of their loyalty to the papacy. But the Pope is the one who’s pushing for reconciliation. The trip to the Ukraine was almost certainly a step backwards in Orthodox-Catholic relations.

--Richard (talk) 01:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Some evidence that Romanides' ideas are relatively recent

Consider this article from www.greekorthodoxchurch.org:

This article deals with the fundamental difference between Orthodoxy and Western Christianity, mainly Roman Catholicism. Readers will be surprised to learn that the division between "East" and "West" was actually more of a political division, caused by the ambitions of the Franks and other Germanic tribes, than a "Theological" question.

Professor John Romanides of the University of Thessalonike challenges the common views regarding the causes for the Schism of the Church in the "Roman world," and offers his own provocative interpretation of the historical background of this tragedy in the history of the Christian Church.

Far from seeing basic differences in the "Roman world," which led to alienation between the East and West, Romanides argues for the existence of "national, cultural and even linguistic unity between East (Byzantine) and West Romans"; that is, until the intrusion and takeover of the West Romans (the Roman Catholics) by the Franks (German tribes).

Note the phrases "readers will be surprised to learn", "[Romanides] challenges the common views..." and "offers his own provacative interpretation". These are phrases that describe someone who is offering new ideas to upset the applecart of traditional thinking. I have no problem with that. However, I find it difficult to believe that this represents the mainstream of Orthodox thinking. The article in question was published in 1981. Perhaps Romanides has taken the Orthodox world by storm in the last 28 years. However, even if this is the case, the relative recency of this phenomenon would have to be documented so as not to give the impression that the Orthodox have always accepted Romanides.

--Richard (talk) 02:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I wish to thank you for your efforts in searching sources for both perspectives, but please note that the above article is opened to view not just for the orthodox, but to all the people using the internet, and the article is written in english (so the "common views" could refer to those of non-orthodox people reading the article). (Also, his newer interpretations might refer mainly to his accusation of the franks (the germanic people who corrupted (according to Romanides) the West), since it clearly says above "...offers his own provocative interpretation of the historical (not theological) background...".) Also, this website seems to be (or at least considers itself to be) an official website of the "Greek Orthodox Church". Since it has some of Romanides' works([36],[37],[38]) and also of others (I'm referring to the authors shown here on the left, but also to the one who wrote this article) with similar opinions in theology, I think it is obvious they are not considered to be wrong (especially if this is indeed an "official website"). Once again, I wish to thank you for showing it. Cody7777777 (talk) 03:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Cody, I don't think Richardshusr is attempting to either prove the views in that article correct or incorrect. He's just showing that Romanides work isn't generally indiciative of the whole of Orthodox views on the subject. You've as much as stated that there's no ultimate arbiter of these issues in the Orthodox Church (functioning as the Pope does in Catholocism), so the presence of this article on a OC website doesn't signify absolute acceptence or that it's a universally held opinion-- just one that the website's sysop finds compelling. LOL^thulu 17:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of precision, a small note. The official site of the Greek Orthodox Church is this: English version and fuller Greek version. Defteri (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I suspected it wasn't the official website of "Orthodox Church of Greece", but for some reason it considers itself to be an official website of the "Greek Orthodox Church", of course, that doesn't mean it really is "official", but as far as I see most of what is written there is indeed the orthodox view. At least in my opinion, the editor's note in article shown obviously claims the following ""...offers his own provocative interpretation of the historical (there is no claim about theological here) background...". Cody7777777 (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

On the true official website of the "Orthodox Church of Greece", there is a link to an article written by Lossky, it seems that Orthodox Church of Greece indeed agrees with him (they would remove it if they wouldn't). Cody7777777 (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Would they? Wouldn't they have to convene a synod to do so? LOL^thulu 17:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

If Lossky is wrong about orthodox theology, a synod would've declared this earlier, there is no need to do a synod every time to proclaim someone's works as orthodox, synods are call to identify heresy (maybe they convened a synod to add it, but I doubt it would've been necessary). Of course, websites do not represent the ultimate proof, but also note that the last councils which discussed these problems of incompatibility between western and eastern theology were around 1341-1351, since no other ecumenical synod spoke against them (in fact there was no other ecumenical synod since then), it makes sense this is the mainstream. Cody7777777 (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

There's theology and there's history. From a Western view, this historical interpretation of theological development is a bit of a radical innovation. Are you saying that it is not such from an Eastern Orthodox point of view? How far back can we go and find this interpretation of the Franks taking over the Church as being a major contibuting factor to the Schism? In brief, is Romanides simply repeating what the Eastern Orthodox have always believed about church history but the West has distorted? Or is Romanides advancing a novel interpretation of history which has found wide favor in the Eastern Orthodox Church over the last 30 years?

Same question applies with regards to Lossky and Yannaras. It is said by Daniel Payne that Russian emigre theologians "rediscovered" Palamas and Hesychasm. This suggests that prior to the 1940s, Palamas and Hesychasm had fallen into relative obscurity.

If we accept that Lossky, Romanides and Yannaras are mainstream Orthodox theologians, the next question is: have they always swum in the mainstream or did they redirect the mainstream in a new direction? And if it is "new", is it totaly new or a revival of an earlier direction that the Orthodox Church had wandered away from?

I really try to be neutral in this. I just want to understand so that we can present this in the article accurately .

--Richard (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Romanides' historical views, that the Franks (not the west Romans) are responsible for the schism, are probably newer (I think the earlier views were not concerned too much about the role of the Franks, there was probably a belief that western Roman Church separated through its own decisions (not the Franks' intervention). (But, also note the east Romans began to call most of the westerners as "franks" (sometimes also as "latins") after the conflicts started to appear during the period of the 11-15th centuries, (the westerners instead called the east romans as "greeks").) Regarding, Romanides' theological views of the conflict between "Theoria and (western) scholastic rationalism", they are not his "inventions", they were the main issues discussed during the councils of Constantinople New Rome during the years 1341-1351, regarding the "rediscovery" of Palamism, it was never forgotten (especially not in monasteries, and please note, that all bishops are also monks), the Orthodox Church never wandered away from "Palamism" (in fact to say that the Orthodox Church wandered away from "Palamism" is like saying it wandered away from Theoria or from orthodoxy, Palamas' himself didn't invented something new, he is remembered for his support of hesychasm and Theoria against (western) scholastic rationalism, and Palamas is recognized as a saint by the eastern Church for a long time). The fact that these eastern theologians (Lossky, Romanides, Yannaras, Vlachos (and there also others such as the romanian theologian Dumitru Stăniloae, but most of his works are in romanian) wrote about Palamas and Theoria does not represent a "neo-orthodoxy" (at least not in the eastern Church), maybe in earlier times, there was no need to rewrite what Palamas said, they probably read him directly. Also, note that before the 20th century there wasn't too much knowledge in the west about the eastern theology, this was probably because there were very few (in case they were) sources about this written in western languages (english, french, german, etc.) and even today many of the works of the eastern authors are in their respective languages (greek, russian, romanian, etc.). I hope this helped, (in short only Romanides' historical views about the franks' intervention could be considered as a new interpretation). Cody7777777 (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Propose unprotection of this page

When I requested protection of this page, I requested one week. However, I think the dynamic on this Talk Page has improved and there are more editors involved and talking in a collegial and collaborative way. I don't see any signs of reconciliation between LOLthulu and LoveMonkey but I am loath to let the rancor between those two continue to hinder progress on this article any more.

(In truth, I am impatient to add some of the stuff that we've been talking about into the article but I can't legitimately edit the article while it is protected. That would be abusing my admin powers.)

So... I am suggesting that we agree that, even if there is not a consensus on the specific content of the article, there is a general consensus towards collaborative and collegial editing and that we will make every effort to refrain from edit-warring and even step on any editor who does edit war.

If there is general agreement to this, I will lift the protection and start editing with the understanding that, like the edits of any other editor, my bold edits might be reverted with discussion to ensue on this Talk Page. The model to follow, IMO, is WP:BRD.

--Richard (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for a radical restructuring and rewriting of this article

So what is the real stumbling block to reconciliation? Perhaps the real problem is that the two sides do not even agree on what the problem is. If you read the various Catholic sources that I have provided, you can see that they differ quite dramatically with respect to what the central issues are. Consider the following as a very rough draft for a major rewrite of this article...

As far as ecclesiological issues go, most of these issues seem to be within the realm of compromise and accomodation with the exception of the doctrines of Papal Primacy and Papal Supremacy. With respect to Primacy of the Pope, the two churches agree that the Pope, as Bishop of Rome, has primacy although they continue to have different interpretations of what that primacy entails. The Eastern Orthodox insist that the primacy is largely one of honor, the Pope being "first among equals" primus inter pares. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, insists on the doctrine of Supremacy. It is widely understood that, if there is to be reconciliation, both sides will have to compromise on this doctrine. Although some commentators have proposed ways in which such compromise can be achieved, there is no official indication that such compromise is being contemplated.

From the perspective of the Catholic Church, the ecclesiological issues are the central issue which is why they characterize the split between the two churches as a schism. In their view, the Eastern Orthodox are very close to them in theology and the Catholic Church does not consider the Orthodox beliefs to be heretical. In contrast, the Catholic Church does consider a number of Protestant doctrines to be heretical.

For example, the Catholic Church doesn't really see the Filoque has a huge stumbling block. One source refers to it as a "technical problem", others characterize it as a miscommunication. In contrast, the Orthodox seem to think the Filoque is a much more important issue and where the Catholics are willing to be fairly flexible, the Orthodox seem to admit to little flexibility, if any. In contrast, the Third Synod of Constantinople (Eastern Orthodox) condemned the Filioque as heretical and several Orthodox saints have characterized it as such.

More importantly, at least some Orthodox see the Filioque as just the tip of the iceberg and really just a symptom of a much more deeply rooted problem of theology, one so deeply rooted that they consider it to be heretical and even, by some characterizations, an inability to "see God" and know God. This heresy is allegedly rooted in Frankish paganism and Arianism and tainted by Platonist and Aristotelian philosophy and Thomist rational Scholasticism (originating in the works of Thomas Acquinas). In opposition to these pagan, heretical and "godless" foundations, the Orthodox rely on an intuitive and mystical knowledge and vision of God based on Hesychasm and noesis.

While Catholics accept the Eastern Orthodox intuitive and mystical understanding of God as valid, they consider it to be complementary to the rational and philosophical Scholasticism of Thomas Acquinas. Pope John Paul II has characterized the Western and Eastern approaches as operating as "two lungs" in the Body of Christ.

In contrast, the Eastern Orthodox reject the rational and philosophical foundations of Western Christianity as pagan and heretical and assert that until the Western Church learns to see God and know God as the Eastern Church does, there cannot be even the remotest possibility of reconciliation.

Despite this pessimistic opinion of the prospects for reconciliation, Patriarchs of the Eastern Orthodox Church have shown a willingness to work with successive Popes of the Catholic Church in joint ecumenical efforts. A Joint Theological Commission meets regularly to identify areas where progress is needed in order to achieve reconciliation.

I propose that we put a version of what I have written above (cleaned up to be encyclopedic prose) early in the article. In fact, this might serve as an outline for the whole article with "History" being shoved down towards the bottom and summarized in such a way that most of the historical narrative is pushed off to History of the East-West Schism. Some of the history could be encapsulated in a "Historical background" section that provides the historical context for the main thrust of the article which would be what I have written above.

We would then reverse the order of "Ecclesiological issues" and "Theological issues" so that the theological section comes first and thus gets more emphasis. We would repeat in the "Theological issues" section the assertion that the Catholic Church does not see the obstacle to reconciliation to be theological but ecclesiological. We would indicate that the Orthodox Church sees the obstacles to be both theological and ecclesiological with the theological far outweighing the ecclesiological.

Somewhere in this, we need to find a place to document Romanides' novel interpretation of history. I'm not quite sure how to work that into the prose. Right now, it's alluded to in what I wrote above but not in a way that fully captures what Romanides wrote nor does it indicate that this is a novel interpretation of history. That point will need to be made somewhere but I haven't figured out how to do it yet. The problem is that, unless we make clear that this is a novel interpretation of history that is widely accepted among the Eastern Orthodox, the Western historians will pounce all over it as original research and synthesis.

I do still maintain that it is possible to encapsulate the nous/noesis part of the "Theological issues" section down to one paragraph with the rest of LoveMonkey's verbose and dense theological discourse relegated to a separate article.

Much of what I have proposed will read like original research to many Western readers but we have many sources to support the assertions. We will rely on the assurances of LoveMonkey, Cody et al that this truly represents the stance of the Eastern Orthodox Church. We may need more sources, especially secondary sources to back this up.

--Richard (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

To me your introductory text seems largely fine, but the council which condemned the filioque is the Fourth (not third) Synod of Constantinople New Rome. (Also, I think there should a mention of the word "Theoria", perhaps a small change like this "...the Orthodox rely on an intuitive and mystical knowledge and vision of God (Theoria) based on Hesychasm and noesis.") Cody7777777 (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm fine with these changes. The next question to consider is whether what I wrote would allow us to trim or eliminate certain subsections in the "Theological issues". The ones that I have in mind are: "The Heart as Noetic or Intuitive faculty", "Original sin" and "Concept of Hell". All of these are covered in Catholic - Orthodox theological issues and I think it is more useful to "hit the nail on the head" by making the bald assertion that Theoria, Hesychasm and noesis are at the heart of the theological divide with perhaps a few sentences to explain what this means. The rest of the discussion about what these are can be dealt with in the detailed articles: Theoria, Hesychasm and noesis.

My goal all along, contrary to LoveMonkey's bitter complaints, has not been to suppress the Orthodox view but to present it in a way that is comprehensible to the average reader. I am somewhat disappointed to find that the view is harsher than I had previously thought but those are personal feelings which should have no influence on our presentation of the state of the theological and ecclesiological universe.

--Richard (talk) 22:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, since these theological differences are important, there should be given some explanations about them. But maybe the content in these sections could be restructured in fewer sections (and at least if possible, shortened). But, we should wait to see what LoveMonkey thinks about this. Cody7777777 (talk) 22:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, but I would like the treatment in this article to focus on the differences between the Eastern and Western perspectives rather than an exposition of what the concepts are. Let us assume that the reader knows what the concepts are and use wikilinks to guide him to a detailed explanation of what they are elsewhere. Wikipedia is not paper. We don't need to stuff every Schism-related article with the full explanation of what theoria, hesychasm and noesis are. --Richard (talk) 22:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant. So far exactly what needs to be done. Noesis needs to be explained as part of the relationship between God and man. As that people are supposed to satisfy the soul/heart/spirit in the East. Nous is that place. The wording could better like your supposed to see God seems abit short of the bigger picture, message. There are other bigtime theological issues that both East and West teach differently like brimstone (i.e. in the East the cosmos/Universe is not destroyed by "fire" -per se), 2nd resurrection, baptism, Heaven is completely different (no Dante again). Theoria is a preview of Heaven note: noesis translates as insight. The Holy Spirit is different (outside and beyond the filiogue). Also the metaphysical pagan holdovers of soul and energy and power/force are different words with different functions east and west. But that can all be addressed in the C-O theological differences article with a small overview here(most can be skipped here). Richards articles from the Catholic side are quite good and most importantly needed for this subject. One last thing, though, lets try and use the language as it is presented by both of the parties. Here is so much a much needed article that we should briefly discuss for an entry into understanding. Cody probable already knows the article as it is the overview (of the difference between East and West) as taught at the University of Athens Greece. It is the product of theoria.[39] How to include it might not be possible, but noesis is just too critical. More critical then it is ekkenosis, though all of this still falls under noetic/intuitivism. LoveMonkey (talk) 02:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
As I believe that Father Metallinos [40] is the thing source that Richard appears to finally be articulating that he is requesting and yes everything Cody and I have been stating he teaches at Athens as Orthodox theology. I believe his article I posted here can explain ALLOT. LoveMonkey (talk) 02:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC) A passage for consideration in light of Richard comments..

Astonishingly unaware of Father Metallinos outstanding credentials, Professor Erickson characterizes him as lacking expertise in Patristics, Canon Law and the history of Liturgy, though Father Metallinos completed extensive studies in Patristics at Bonn (under Professor Wilhelm Schneemelcher), has held the Chair of Patrology at the University of Athens—his facility in this area of study is apparent in his works—, and has for many years taught the history and theology of worship, as evidenced by a significant scholarly output in this area, too. Indeed, Father Metallinos is one of the most prominent theologians in Greece today. Moreover, it is not true, as Professor Erickson, who is unfamiliar with the actual situation that obtains in Greece, asserts, that only Old Calendarists and Athonites Baptize Westerners, today; in fact, a large number of Bishops and Presbyters in the State Church of Greece have returned to the authentic practice of the Church. In fact, in the opinion of the most distinguished theologians in contemporary Greece, Roman Catholics are included among heretics, as evidenced by the pronouncements of the Eighth Œcumenical Synod of 879 and the Hesychastic Synods of the fourteenth century. Besides, how can one characterize as Trinitarian those who accept the Filioque and its presuppositions, who do not identify Christ with the Yahweh of the Old Testament, or who are ignorant of the presuppositions of the Œcumenical Synods (the notions of purification, illumination, and theosis [glorification]), as they have been carefully put forth in the writings of Father John Romanides? [41].

So no Romanides is not new, nor is he thought to teach the difference is some Franko thing and not theological. P.S. Dimitri Kitsikis and Father Metallinos are the objects of various political assassinations (Kitsikis as communist and Metallinos as right-wingish), which is hilarious as Kitsikis and Romanides was a left wing/socialist but they were and are brothers in faith. Oh nevermind politics-its a mess. And no they are extremists like the whole gnostic Epsilon Team stuff. LoveMonkey (talk) 03:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Minor edit please

With will an admin please change

"[[Category:Christian history|*]]" to "[[Category:Christian history|*7]]"

Or tell me how else to request this. This edit will sort the page (chronologicaly) better. Thank you.--Carlaude ^(talk) 06:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. The way to request edits to protected pages is via the {{editprotected}} template. --Richard (talk) 06:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent Changes

I like them, but I'd like them more if they had better references. I'm still unhappy with the Noetics section, and I don't know that copyediting will fix it. I'd like to take it out entirely. LOL^thulu 17:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I think many of the references have been supplied on this Talk Page. What remains is to go through the article and insert them where appropriate. I hope that other editors will now join in and "backfill" all the gaps in providing support for various assertions by adding citations where necessary. Feel free to add {{citation needed}} tags where you think better support is required. I like to use {{citation needed}} not as a weapon to challenge facts (Doing that is passive-aggressive in my book. If I believe an assertion is false, I try to challenge it directly on the Talk Page). For me, a {{citation needed}} tag is a suggestion that a fact is probably true but needs better sourcing in order to convince a possibly skeptical reader. In short, I would not be offended if other editors put {{citation needed}} tags on text that I have written. I hope that other editors will take the same approach to text that they have written.

As for the Noetics section, while I agree with you that it really doesn't fit here, I think it would be antagonizing to delete it completely without making a good-faith effort to address the concerns that motivated its insertion. I unprotected the article on the hope that the edit-war that necessitated protection would not resume. My negative assessment of the Noetics section has not changed from the time that the article was protected and I agree that it is in dire need of rewriting and just outright truncation. I am hoping that the rework of the article will help to bring out the important points about theoria, hesychasm and noesis and thus fulfill the objectives that LoveMonkey had in writing that section in the first place. I would hope to be able to reduce the discussion of nous/noesis/noetics to a single paragraph of maybe 3 sentences. The rest can be discussed in either Catholic - Orthodox theological differences or in the individual articles about Theoria, Hesychasm and Noesis.

--Richard (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe the content of the sections Theoria, Hesychasm, and Noetics, could be restructured in a single section, but since LoveMonkey worked on them, I'll leave these decisions mainly to him. Cody7777777 (talk) 20:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Combining into a single section is a good idea. Majoreditor (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

"The awful thing is that beauty is mysterious as well as terrible. God and the devil are fighting there and the battlefield is the heart of man."Dostoevsky

I respectfully request that Cody rework it and post here the hard parts (you personal talkpage me too). I ask this so that the edit warring be minimized also Cody knows just as much if not more then me. But there has to be Heart section, burning heart comparisons maybe, but a heart section none the less.

“The line between good and evil is drawn not between nations or parties, but through every human heart.” – Dostoevsky

"If I had to define man it would be: a biped, ungrateful".Dostoevsky

And of course his Roman Catholic quote, which gets noooo sympathy.

[42] LoveMonkey (talk) 23:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to edit it. However, I have not edited many articles about theology, so if you think there is something wrong with the current, feel free to edit it. Since, you have requested a "Heart section", I decided to turn them instead in sub-sections. I tried to reduce it a bit, but since the sections on Hell and Original Sin were deleted, I think the theology section is smaller anyway. Cody7777777 (talk) 02:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

There is something I would like to ask, although it is not really necessary, and I'm not sure if this is indeed a good question, but could someone explain why does the Western Church considers "scholasticism" to be a valid way in knowing about God? (I mean if they have some arguments in the present for this, if they do, they could be added, however there's no need for an answer, I was only asking because I would've liked to hear it from an "western perspective", according to the eastern theology, they would be obviously considered it so, because they don't have the concept about Theoria and probably because they also have a different opinion on the nature of God). Cody7777777 (talk) 02:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Cody I have added some new parts and changed some of the more wacky statements I could find. I hope you can help with the prayer of the heart stuff I added to the article. I hope to make it clearer and better. I think for the sake of scholasticism that, in order to make theology "institutionalized" meaning academic the West articulated God and theology through the rules of "scholasticism". So I need to be clear that I am not speaking for the West. I think that Western scholasticism is a set of rules or criteria that one has to met through a nomenclature in order to treat information as valid. I think there is a four step criteria that was established which is what the scholastic method is. I would prefer that Roman Catholic however speak for themselves. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

These questions could be discussed in the articles on Roman Catholic theology, Scholasticism or Catholic - Orthodox theological differences. --Richard (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is the whole thing sort of summarized I think from the Barlaam of Seminara article here on wikipedia.

Barlaam's views - that we cannot really know Who the Holy Spirit is exactly (an outgrowth of which is agnosticism), that the ancient Greek philosophers are superior to the Prophets and the Apostles (since reason is above the vision of the Apostles), that the light of the Transfiguration is something which is created and can be undone, that the hesychastic way of life (i.e. the purification of the heart and the unceasing noetic prayer) is not essential - are views which express a scholastic and, subsequently, a secularised point of view of theology. Saint Gregory Palamas foresaw the danger that these views held for Orthodoxy and through the power and energy of the Most Holy Spirit and the experience which he himself had acquired as a successor to the Holy Fathers, he confronted this great danger and preserved unadulterated the Orthodox Faith and Tradition.

LoveMonkey (talk) 18:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

This could be put into the Hesychasm and Noesis articles. --Richard (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I am pretty satisfied with the state of the article as it was after my last edit this morning. Not to say that it is perfect or that further improvements are not possible. However, I do think that many of the scope and emphasis concerns that have been voiced over the past few weeks have now been addressed and I would urge editors to work on improving the prose rather than expanding the scope or level of detail.

I think the article is finally readable and of a manageable length. The article is now 85kb long (with footnotes). Moreover, I think the text now fits the scope that I have been proposing. That is, it doesn't indulge in any long excursions into theological discourse.

Much of what was deleted and the topics that LoveMonkey discusses immediately above can, IMO, be more suitably addressed elsewhere. Perhaps in Catholic - Orthodox theological differences.

--Richard (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Major revamp of the article

OK... I have done a major restructuring of the article much along the lines of what I laid out in the section "Proposal for a radical restructuring and rewriting of this article" above. There are some departures between what I did and what was discussed in that section.

1. I had suggested that the "History" section should go last but, on reflection, it occurred to me that the history is needed to provide historical context for what the current situation is. Instead of moving it to the end, I worked to trim the "History" section somewhat although it could probably use a little more trimming and tightening up of prose.
2. I decided to try and clean up and beef up the section on "Efforts at reconciliation". This section could probably use more work but the idea is it is the "segue" from "History" to "Extant issues".
3. I did move "Theological issues" above "Ecclesiological issues" but, in the process, I deleted the sections on Hell and Original Sin. These are covered in Catholic - Orthodox theological differences and I don't have the sense that they either contributed to the schism or are central to perpetuating it. Is there reason to believe that the Orthodox consider the Catholics to be in heresy regarding these concepts?
4. I have pretty much left the sections on Theoria, Hesychasm and Noesis alone although I suspect these sections could be tightened up and reduced to about two short and concise paragraphs each. I would like to see the introduction to "Theological issues" include a couple of sentences that summarize the relationship of these three. Something like "The Orthodox insist on the centrality of a vision of God (theoria) achieved through Noesis. An important tool in achieving this is Hesychasm. From the Orthodox perspective, the heretical emphasis of the Catholics on rationalism and scholasticism prevents them from achieving the vision of God (theoria) which is central to any understanding of God."

I'm sure more work is needed in other places that I have not mentioned here. I hope, however, that this effort provides a better foundation for collegial and collaborative editing going forward.

--Richard (talk) 17:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh... I forgot to say that I have not yet integrated into the "History" section the Romanides interpretation of history that emphasizes the contribution of the Frankish influence on the Western Church. This needs to be done but it requires some additional writing and I was trying to work off the text that I had proposed in the "Proposal for a radical restructuring and rewriting of this article" section above. I will try to get to this in the next few days. It will probably require some reworking of the "History" section.

Just wanted to let you know that I hadn't forgotten this.

I do need some help reviewing whether Lossky and others make the charge about Frankish influence (i.e. how much of this comes from Romanides and how much comes from Lossky and others). And, in general, we need citations to support the Orthodox allegations that Platonism, Aristotelianism and Scholasticism are the root of Catholic heresy. I know from our discussions on this page that the citations exist. I just don't have at my mental fingertips the correlation between which quote by which Orthodox theologian goes with each assertion. I figure Cody and LoveMonkey are better able to do this sourcing than I am.

--Richard (talk) 17:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

History section leaves out several hundred years after the fall of the Byzantine Empire

There is a huge chunk missing in that we don't discuss the effect of the Orthodox living under first Arab and then Turkish rule. We don't mention the Russian Orthodox. All of this served to increase the cultural, political and (perhaps) theological divide between East and West. I think some useful text can be borrowed from History of the Eastern Orthodox Church. --Richard (talk) 18:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

As you requested, I added something about this, almost all of what I added was actually taken from other wiki articles. (However, it may be possible they still need some revisions.) Cody7777777 (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanx. That's a start. I think those new sections will need some honing to focus on the impact of these historical events on the schism.

Here's some questions to ponder... What were the effects of the following on the likelihood of reconciliation?

1. the Crusades (not just the infamous Fourth Crusade but all of them)
2. the conquest of the eastern and southern Mediterranean by Arab Muslims
3. the conquest of the Byzantine Empire by the Ottoman Turks
4. the growth of the Russian Empire
5. the Russian Revolution
6. the Orthodox diaspora (esp. the Russian Orthodox diaspora)
7. the dissolution of the USSR

--Richard (talk) 01:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to answer this as short as possible, the conquest of the eastern and southern Mediterranean by Arab Muslims, have isolated the other ancient patriarchates of the east (Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem) (, but these patriarchates were also splited among orthodox and miaphysites), leaving only two centers (Elder) Rome and New Rome (Constantinople) (, they also weakened considerably the Church of North Africa (in Carthage)). Regarding the crusades, they "helped" the two worlds (the west, the east) to meet face to face and know themselves better, Anna Comnena describes those events (of the First Crusade) in the Alexiad, (if I remember correctly, she even mentions a case when the crusaders came a around an eastern christian village or town, the people there expected to be left in peace by the crusaders, which did not happen), for example without the crusades, it may be possible that more time would've passed (despite the events of 1054) until they would've realize how big the schism is. The fall of the Eastern Roman Empire, isolated the orthodox in the Balkans, from the west, the ottomans also tried as much as possible to prevent any western influence on the eastern Church. However, most of the orthodox people and clergy came to believe during these times (following the sack of Constantinople in 1204 by the Fourth Crusade, the councils about hesychasm and scholasticism in 1341-1351, and the fall of Constantinople in 1453 to the ottoman turks), that there was no reunion possible (the attempts of reunion at Lyons (1274) and Florence (1439) were mainly the desires of the emperors of Constantinople (for various political reasons), not necessarily of the clergy, and the "uniate" appeared mainly through forced conversions). The rise of Russian Empire, did not really changed things too much, as far as I know, about the reconciliation (although they probably "reverted" some of the "uniate" movements in Ukraine and Poland), but it gave the orthodox from the ottoman empire the hope, that the Russian Empire would free them from the ottomans (in other words they had no more reasons to hope on western help to get rid of ottomans, although they (or at least a part of them) claimed to prefer the muslims more than the latins, however they did had a few discussions with some protestants). The Russian revolution led to the fall of the Russian Tsardom, but as far as I know the Russian Orthodox Church did not reconsidered about "reconciliation", and the soviets tried to keep it away as much as possible from the west anyway, and as far as I know, the Russian Orthodox diaspora remained on more "conservative" positions (however, there were also some other orthodox communities in the west, which were more open to these discussions). It was mainly the ecumenical patriarchate which found itself without Russia's religious support and also in a difficult position in the republic of Turkey, (nearly all orthodox Christians from Anatolia were transferred to Greece after the Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922), leaving very few orthodox in Turkey), turned to the movements of "ecumenism" and discussions about "reconciliation"(initially it involved only protestants, until the western council of Vatican II), the ecumenical patriarchate was also followed by the Patriarchates of Alexandria and Antioch (which is in fact centered at Damascus), and other Orthodox Churches in the Balkans, however there were some like Serbia who remained on more "conservative" positions, the Patriarchate of Jerusalem also did not got involved too much in these discussions. The dissolution of the USSR, led to the resurgence of the Russian Orthodox Church (which, as far as I know, wasn't very interested in reconciliation even before), but however there were also some other churches from the former communist bloc, which joined these "reconciliation" discussions. I think this was in short what could be said. Cody7777777 (talk) 04:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting point about the ROC not being particularly interested in reconciliation either before or after the dissolution of the USSR. Considering the huge number of adherents in the ROC, that casts a different light on the prospects of reconciliation. Have you seen any discussion of this in the popular or scholarly sources? I haven't but I think this is important. If, as you pointed out, Patriarchs Bartholomew and Demetrius have relatively few adherents compared to Patriarch Kirill, focusing on the efforts of Bartholomew and Demetrius is kind of like looking at the tail of the dog wagging when the rest of the dog is in attack mode. (Well, that may be hyperbole but you get my drift). Can we look for more info from reliable sources about the ROCs stance towards reconciliation in the past and Kirill's perspective on it now? --Richard (talk) 22:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I tried to search something, this book claims that the Russian Orthodox Church condemned "ecumenism" around the year 1948 (however, despite this, later the Russian Church did join the World Council of Churches, but its participation was quite uneasy (at least according to the book shown), more recently the WCC has received critics from the Russian Orthodox Church at the Thessaloniki Summit. Also, please note that in most communist countries (where orthodoxy was the largest Church), the state forced most of the "uniate" to rejoin with their respective Orthodox Churches (you can check their respective articles), because they did not wanted to allow the Vatican too much influence in their affairs (also, in the People's Republic of China (where there wasn't even the "uniate" problem with the orthodox) the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association was formed in an attempt to prevent the Vatican's influence in China). Regarding, the Russian Diaspora (actually the "Russian Orthodox Church outside Russia"), according to this other book, condemned "ecumenism" in 1983. (Also, the "ecumenism" movement is something which started in 20th century) I hope this was helpful. Cody7777777 (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

LoveMonkey's Edits

LoveMonkey, I'm going to need you to provide edit summaries for your contributions. It's WP policy, and diffing every one of your changes takes too long. LOL^thulu 19:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

LOLthulu, while I agree with you about the usefulness of informative edit summaries, I do think it's important for you to review Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and understand the difference between a policy and a guideline. Help:Edit summary is a guideline and in this particular case, this guideline comes in the form of a strong recommendation. As such, it's not really enforceable and I would like you to recognize that and consider that, now that you've made your point, it really is up to LoveMonkey to decide whether he will make an effort to help his colleagues at Wikipedia understand what he's doing. Marking edits as minor may also help.

Failing this accomodation from LoveMonkey, I would suggest that you not diff every edit but rather diff a sequential series of edits. Some editors like LoveMonkey edit in bursts. Wait for the burst to end and then do a "Compare versions" from the version before the burst began to the version resulting from the last edit in the burst. I know this is more time consuming than scanning a series of informative edit summaries but, unless LoveMonkey decides that he cares enough about the rest of us to make a better effort, that is what you are going to have to put up with.

--Richard (talk) 19:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm frustrated that you're so accepting of this sort of behavior from LoveMonkey. It drives potential editors away from this article. LOL^thulu 03:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry... if you feel another admin would respond differently, you are free to report this to WP:ANI. Given Deskana's response to your zinging LoveMonkey with standard templates, I suspect you're not likely to find a more receptive admin. It's not that we condone such behavior. It's more that this just doesn't quite rise to the level of actionable misbehavior. And the truth is: the current situation is a far sight better than when he had his preferences set to "mark all edits as minor" which gave the rest of us no indication at all as to whether he had made a substantive change or not. My advice to you is: step back, get some perspective and find something enjoyable to do on Wikipedia. This may mean finding a part of Wikipedia that interests you but does not interest LoveMonkey. --Richard (talk) 03:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Theological and ecclesiological Issues

As you probably noticed, I made some changes. I joined "Rejection of Uniatism" with the "Uniate Problem" in the history section, and removed "Divorce" and "Celibacy of the Priestly Order" (it is true there were some discussions I think, about this during the events of 1054, but I don't think they're so important too deserve a section and although they are not theological issues they are included already in the article Catholic - Orthodox theological differences), I have also made some more minor changes on the "Experience of God (Theoria) vs Scholasticism" section and I believe it is largely fine at the moment. However, if you disagree with the recent changes, feel free to correct them. I believe there are some things which deserve to be discussed in the theological section, such as the western doctrines of Purgatory (which includes the disagreements regarding sin, Heaven and hell), and the "Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary", which are not accepted by the eastern Church. Cody7777777 (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I think Purgatory/Original Sin/Hell and Immaculate Conception should definitely be covered in Catholic - Orthodox theological differences. However, IMO, they should only be discussed in this article if they are considered obstacles to reconciliation and reunion. I will defer to those more knowledgeable than I to argue whether these are, in fact, significant obstacles. --Richard (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as I knew, the purgatory doctrine, was discussed at the Second Council of Lyons and the Council of Ferrara-Florence (this can be checked here as well), so it means they were considered important for the schism. The articles from the following website also believe it is important. I believe, the disagreement has its roots, in the way sin is viewed. (As far as I knew, the doctrine of purgatory claimed that lesser sinners will receive a temporary punishment in the forms of suffering torture by some "purifying fire" (unlike other sinners who receive permanent punishment), since western theology views sin more like a legalistic or judiciary act (which requires punishment and forgiveness). But, in eastern theology, the problem with sin is viewed more like a "spiritual sickness" (which causes desires to do "sinful acts"), which requires a cure, so suffering cannot save one from sin, since here suffering is a result (or a symptom) of the sickness of sin.) Regarding, Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, it seems that is also considered important (you can check the following [43],[44],[45], and there are probably others). (As far as I know, the main problem, in eastern theology about this western doctrine is because, it claims that God himself protected the Virgin Mary from sin, so that she could give birth to Christ, while in eastern theology, the Virgin Mary was chosen to give birth to Christ because of her own desire to love and follow God, and she was saved from sin when she was chosen to give birth to Christ (not when she was born). But this also involves the differences regarding the concept of sin.) In my opinion, I believe that these things should be discussed, since they appear to be important in the schism. Cody7777777 (talk) 02:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

You know Richard I added them as they are points of contention that Romanides and even the OCA post as contingent. I mean this in that the Orthodox teachings on hell specially address the WESTERN problem of evil and Original sin that has so effectively vilified the Judeo-Christian God. St Mark of Epheus was very combative about the purging fire of hell/purgatory as such even at the Council of Florence. This aint new this aint special it is common enough to make the article to look incomplete and out of touch with the subject without it to some degree. LoveMonkey (talk) 03:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Ecumenism as it is currently

Now that we have gotten this far. I added Hilarion Alfeyev to the article as a see also. But his work and ideas with need to be addressed in order for the article to not be scholastic and therefore out-of-date LOL.[46] LoveMonkey (talk) 14:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Please stop linking to articles on individual theologians if they are not mentioned in the relevant article text

LoveMonkey, this is at least the second time that you've linked a theologian (in this case, Hilarion Alfeyev) without providing any explanation in the article text who that theologian is and why he is being linked. Presumably you are linking to that article because Alfeyev has written something about this topic. However, if you provide the reader with no indication of why you have provided the link, the link is not appropriate. In particular, your last edit of this type put the link as a {{main}} article link. This is not what the {{main}} tag is supposed to be used for. That tag is intended to be used to designate an article whose topic is the topic of the section. In essence it says "this section talks about article X in a summary style; the main article in Wikipedia on this topic can be found at...". I seem to remember you making this mistake before. Please do not misuse {{main}} article tags. Sometimes, {{see}} and {{seealso}} tags can be used. In the case of Hilarion Alfeyev, I am not aware of any reason to link to him at the top of the "Theological issues" section. Please stop this indiscrimate use of tags to link to theologians solely for the reason that they have written about the topic. It does not conform to standard Wikipedia style. --Richard (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

They need to be linked until the proper content about them can be developed here on the talkpage first and then added. TO STOP THE @#$% EDITWARRING. The most beloved (and he is) Bishop Alfeyev is what needs to be added to make all of the issues and dialogs current. Either you want to collaborate about this subject and have a good broad and CURRENT set of content for it or you don't. By you comments above it is quite apparent YOU DON'T.

Please dear God to wiki administrators tell that you haven't already reverted his tiny inclusion out of the article without discussion Richard. The ecumenism process did not stop in the 80s with Lossky's work nor the 90's with Romanides. Alfeyev is as it is now.

LoveMonkey (talk) 15:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Then write some text about that and link Alfeyev from it. The point is that his Wikipedia article does not belong in a {{main}} tag or a {{seealso}} tag. Those tags are not intended to be used as a lazy man's way of saying "Oh, by the way, you should go find out about person X but we haven't taken the time and effort to write down here why person X is relevant to this topic".

Consider these guidelines that are taken from Template:Main/doc and transcluded onto Template/Main.

When a Wikipedia article is large, it is often rewritten in summary style. This template is used below the heading of the summary, to link to the sub-article that has been (or will be) summarised. The template is also not used instead of inline links or as a "see also".

By the way, God has nothing to do with this nor does our friend Hilarion. It's all about proper usage of Wikipedia templates.

--Richard (talk) 17:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Richard is now editwarring from his bias

His recent edits do not show that he is trying to make an article that properly depicts the situation and the underlying reasons for not only what caused the schism but also what causes the schism to continue. Not only has he improperly worded his rewrite of the article to misrepresent theological issues that are sourced and public and extensively already discussed here and properly worded. He has also worded the article in such a way has to distort historical facts that are underlying causes of the schism. He himself as an administrator has now continued to editwar at the expense and acccuracy of the article under the guise that it contains "too much information". As it stands the article reads as if the only reason there is a schism is because the Orthodox are unwilling to accept Romes concessions. This is a disgusting and disrespectful attitude to take and Orthodox reading this article will see it as inaccurate, missing key events and issues and a distortion slanted toward a Eurocentric and Pro Roman Catholic stance. This will make the situation between East and West worse. WHY did you remove the mention of Orban as he is as famous in the East as Ghandi. What could you be thinking Richard? LoveMonkey (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Once again, not everything that is sourced belongs where an editor thinks it should go. There is an article History of the East-West Schism where details such as Orban can be discussed. The article is now starting to grow long again. This is not good.

I do agree that the strong emotional antipathies between the West and the East should be raised and perhaps we can mention Orban and the Ustashe in that context. It's been on my "to-do" list for this article. At the end of the day, however, historical details need to be relegated to subsidiary and related articles. --Richard (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Your consistent pattern of abuse is getting tiresome. Please cease your uncivil style of Talk Page comments. Accusing other editors of bias is OK if they are truly showing bias. If they are cleaning up after your misspellings, poor grammar, incomplete sentence fragments, incoherent flow of prose and misuse of tags, that is not a time to be complaining about bias. A little gratitude for the assistance would go a long way. Not every revision of your edits is about maintaining the Western Church's POV. In fact, most of it isn't about that at all. Much of it, despite your refusal to see it as such, is actually about writing a good encyclopedic article and part of that is paying attention to Wikipedia guidelines on article size.

This article is now up to 90kb in size (vs. a suggested guideline of 50-80kb), 19 pages when printed not counting footnotes (vs. a suggested guideline of 10pages).

This isn't about bias; it's about readability. If you feel the Eastern side is inadequately represented, then slim down your verbose prose and put the case more clearly and succinctly. More words doesn't necessarily mean a better presented argument. Sometimes, as has often been the case here, it means a more poorly presented argument.

As for me, I'm not that interested in presenting the Western side of the schism. I'm interested in presenting an NPOV description of the schism. My efforts here should make that abundantly clear. Except, I guess, to you. None so blind as they who will not see.

--Richard (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't looked at this article for ages, but it seems to have swung wildly to an Orthodox POV, especially in the over-long notes. Love Monkey is not an editor to introduce, or even welcome, balance. Johnbod (talk) 04:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

quote from NCE

"The New Catholic Encyclopedia says, "The consummation of the schism is generally dated from the year 1054, when this unfortunate sequence of events took place. This conclusion, however, is not correct, because in the bull composed by Humbert, only Patriarch Michael I was excommunicated. The validity of the bull is questioned because Pope Leo IX was already dead at that time. On the other side, the Byzantine synod excommunicated only the legates.

What is the end of the quotation? Is it just the first sentence? If so, the judgement that it was not correct should not be made by us. or is it the entire paragraph? DGG (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting. It never occurred to me to check the assertion. In fact, the NCE says something quite different and no part of the above quoted text is attributable to the NCE, at least not to the article on "The Eastern Schism". It just goes to show you how important it is to have verifiable sources. I have rewritten the section in question to more accurately represent what the NCE says. --Richard (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments?

One party unilaterally doing something without first consulting the other party can obviously and definitely be seen as divisive. So can breaking and breaching an agreement. Breaking an agreement is divisive. Breaching an agreement is divisive. Breaking and breaching an agreement simultaneously at the same time are divisive.

The Filioque clause can be interpreted in two ways, which might have led to some confusion and misunderstanding. “And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son.” is the relevant phrase. The problem is with the word “and”, specifically between “Father” and “the Son”. I think the problem is that language is imperfect, or there are miscommunications. I think this has something to do with the Tower of Babel, where God wanted us to not be able to communicate with each other perfectly so that we wouldn’t get too powerful, and where God made us have more than one language instead of just one language.

The first way is the following: The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son alone and only, as if the Jesus is the source of the Holy Spirit. This is the interpretation that the Eastern Orthodox Church disputes and rejects, probably and possibly and most likely rightly. Also, in this first interpretation, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone and only, as if the Father alone is the source of the Holy Spirit. Is the Father really one without Jesus? Aren’t Jesus and the Father one? Is Jesus Jesus without the Father? Or is Jesus and the Father one?

The second way is the following: The Holy Spirit proceeds from the-Father-and-Son, collectively and simultaneously, but not separately. Another way of writing or typing it is: The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father-Son. This is probably the way the Catholic Church interprets it. I can see why the Eastern Orthodox Church could disagree with this interpretation. Technically, the Father alone could be the source of the Holy Spirit. I guess this gets into whether the Father is one without Jesus. Yes, the Father is one without Jesus. You could say that the Father and Jesus are one, you could say that the Father and the Holy Spirit are one, and you could say that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are one, because in the same way, you can say the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are one. The Father is one. Also, the Father and Jesus together are one. Technically, the Father and Jesus are two as well. The Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are one. Technically, the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are three as well.

The Eastern Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church could both be right. The Holy Spirit could proceed from the Father alone. Also, since Jesus and the Father are one, the Holy Spirit could proceed from Jesus-Father.

The Eastern Orthodox Church, I believe, thinks it’s okay to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, which is clearer and more precise. Also, “the Holy Spirit could proceed from Jesus-Father”, while not as precise and while sloppy, could be right as well.

In one scenario, the Eastern Orthodox Church is right, and the Catholic Church is wrong, and it was wrong for the Catholic Church to unilaterally do something, breaching and breaking an agreement. I think we should all forgive each other and be unified and in unity once again. Then, our Protestant friends may want to join us. When Protestants, Catholics, and Eastern Orthodoxes unite, then the Oriental Orthodoxes and the Assyrians and the Restorationisms may want to join us. We could in harmony, unifiedly, and peacefully, with love, all be and be called the Christian Church, and we could in harmony, unifiedly, and peacefully, with love, all be and be called Christians. Love is what matters most. Loving God and each other is what matters most. Love builds up. We are all the body of Christ. We are all one body of Christ. Christ is not divided. We all follow Christ. Only God is perfect. We can try to be. A human can make a mistake. That is why we need forgiveness. Peace. The fruit of the Spirit is peace.

Please forgive the imperfections of my writing, typing, thinking, reasoning, and all of my other imperfections. I tried my best. I know I am not perfect. I know my thoughts are not perfect. I know my theology isn’t perfect. I know my knowledge is not perfect and certainly not complete. I know that my understanding is not perfect. I know that my interpretation isn’t perfect and that my interpretations aren’t perfect. I know that my discernment is imperfect. I am most likely being extremely naïve and idealistic, and the kind of unity I am seeking is most likely practically impossible. I could go on and on about my imperfections. I can only hope and pray that I didn’t say a heresy. These are merely my opinions. I tried my best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.135.45 (talk) 05:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Well whomever you are. I can not speak specifically to your beliefs. I can say that it is taught that God created the material world with his hands the logos (Christ) and the Holy Spirit. So by what your saying God has only one hand? It seems that by you saying that the Son and Father are one you are confusing the various hypostases of God. This is like saying that when Christ was crucified on the cross so too was God the Father since they are one. That comes I think from thinking of the various existences of God as persons maybe which isn't really a good way to translation the hypostasis Greek concept to English. Since hypostasis is the underlaying reality or foundation of a thing or object of discussion or indication. I can say that I have much trouble with language in that it causes people (including myself) much confusion. Here is an excellent example in your post. You see when we speak of that which is uncreated (God in essence) in the East we speak of it as being existent and then we speak of the uncreated as having realities of those existences. So Infinity exists, So Christ exists, so does the animator that gives light, life to the material world. But this is fallen and inaccurate. Then also God has realities to these existences, aka essence (ousia), hypostasis (existences) and energies (love, grace, ecstacy etc.). And then this is wrong because of how the West has like to willy nilly translate ousia to sometimes mean substance, to sometimes mean existence, to sometimes mean essence to sometimes mean nature, to sometimes mean being.

This density makes understanding difficult. The issue with the West and the alteration comes by way of the West getting in the habit of continuing to speak for Christianity as a whole and yet denying and attacking theoria. Doing this in favor of teaching Pagan Aristotlian metaphysics as the underpinning of their justifications to believe in God. Rationalizing existence rather then simply living it. Orthodoxy here is closer to Wu Wei. Rather then them stating that they experience God and that is how they know him. When the East says that we are to have God and to experience God here in this world, not strictly as a whisperer in your ear but as a relationship [1] we get told that we have no relationship with God. But the funny thing is if you get to experience God you will see that when we say that God the Father is all of God and that Jesus Christ is the man that is God and that the Holy Spirit is life. We can say that by, meeting God in this life it is obvious to us that God did not stop being infinity or "in Heaven" when Jesus Christ was born. It is obvious to us that life did not cease to continue being vivified by the Holy Spirit when Christ God died on the cross. That God appoints to mankind special people that he chooses and that we call saints. That good people are to be remembered in picture and veneration, for the world will find ways to always remember evil people. ETC. ETC. Boy this is a mess.

LoveMonkey (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Um... this discussion is only tangentially connected to editing the article. Let us please stop it here and not let this turn into a discussion forum on theology and comparative religion. See WP:TALK for our guidelines on the proper use of Talk Pages. --Richard (talk) 17:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The problems with this article

I've been observing from the sidelines for a while and would like to contribute what I think the problems with this article are:

1) First, and foremost (and I'm sorry to hurt feelings here) is the fact that LoveMonkey is blatently NOT interested in creating an encylopediac article on the Great Schism. His bias and inability to understand the relationship between claim and evidence is greatly detrimental to the quality of this page. It is almost comedic how he offers quotations that have nothing whatsover to do with the controversy he thinks they lend support to. In addition, any criticism leveled towards him (and almost all of it is justifiable) is ignored or taken as personal criticism, as opposed to criticism of his work. His continued editing (and basic authoriship) of this page is the primary problem here. In fact, if I may be so bold, LoveMonkey is an excellent example of what makes Wikipedia a dubious reference source. 2) The bias of the page towards Eastern Orthodoxy destroys any credibility the article may have. From little things (like referring to Aristotle as a "pagan" philosopher when discussing the Western Church's use of his ideas, as an obvious attempt to discredit him) to big things (like the footnotes, which quote at length the anti-Catholic views of Orthodoxy), the article veers away from reporting on the historical event of the Great Schism to supporting the Orthodox view of what caused and perpuates it. While it is important to report what BOTH sides sees as the issues, this article leans heavily (and may I say almost exclusively) to the Orthodox side. 3) The scope of the article is WAY beyond the Great Schism, as evident in the section on nous and other Orthodox doctrines. As Richard has tried to repeatedly point out, these doctrinal discussions belong in a different article, not on the article that is trying to report on the historical event of the Great Schism. But since LoveMonkey is more interested in convincing people of the correctness of Orthodoxy, such ideas are an anathema to him.

Unfortunately, as I see it, all the three of the above problems are almost exclusively attributable to LoveMonkey. As long as LoveMonkey remains an editor, I fear that this page will never rise above the C status it so deservedly has received.

Good luck, 71.222.200.11 (talk) 00:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)Jesse