Jump to content

Talk:East–West Schism/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Other moves toward reconciliation

It is written that: In May 1999, John Paul II was the first pope since the Great Schism to visit an Eastern Orthodox country: Romania.

However Pope John Paull II visited Albania in 1993, Apostolic Journey to Albania. Officially Albania recognizes Eastern Orthodox Church as one of the 3 religions present, with Archbishop Dr Anastasios of Tirana, Durrës and All Albania as the head of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Therefore, i am asking shouldn't the above statement modified to reflect the visit in Albania as the first visit of a pontiff to an Eastern Orthodox country? Orges 19:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

First Council of Constantinople

Would Tttom please explain the (re)insertion in a paragraph about the First Council of Constantinople (381) of information given in this source about the situation in western Christianity some seven centuries later? Esoglou (talk) 06:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Differing views about 'Prospects for reconciliation'

According to Esoglou the Eastern Orthodox (which he writes about but yet has not read the theology of from Eastern Orthodox theologians themselves), are hallucinating when they read articles like this [1]. Esoglou is again rewriting things to deny what the problems are and hide them because they make his position and his community look bad. That is rather than just let what is wrong be said. Esolglou engages in outright on the stop inventing of his POV which is call original research and even though several people have called him to task for this here he is doing it again. The truth does not care if it is tired nor if the whole thing seems dumb or petty. The Eastern Orthodox position has no business being written by the people whom opposite and yet between Psuedo Richard and Esoglou they are going all over Wikipedia and rewriting it to reflect their POV right or wrong. These two have no respect for any opinion no matter how factual and well sourced if it does not support their POV. They are also being enabled by staff at wikipedia to be allowed to do that. And God help anyone who points this out. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The link you provided also calls Pope Benedict and Blessed John Paul the Great heretics. The site itself is run by heretics, sedevacantist traditionalists. How in the world do you propose that they speak for the Catholic Church? Elizium23 (talk) 21:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
What am I missing? The definition of an 'edit' is clear, whoever may have supplied the material originally. If LoveMonkey again modifies a statement about what Catholics believe, he may be blocked. If people want to improve this article, why not make a proposal on the talk page. Is it hard to believe that http://romancatholicism.net counts as a good source about the position of the Catholic Church on the schism with the Eastern church. It looks to be a random web site espousing a particular doctrinal position on the far end of Traditionalist Catholic belief, and it does not seem to be a WP:Reliable source for purposes of Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 03:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I would refer you to Orientalum Ecclesiarium ch. 24-29 and RESPONSES TO SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE DOCTRINE ON THE CHURCH, fourth question, for starters. I believe that you will be shocked to see the kind of language employed in these documents for the Oriental Churches, particularly the complete lack of terms such as "heresy" or "schism" applied toward them; in fact the term used is "separated". I am aware that the respect is not always mutual, but the centralized nature of the Roman Catholic Church makes it very easy to point to these particular documents as authoritative and final when it comes to the question of how the Orthodox are regarded. Indeed, since the close of Vatican II, Blessed John Paul the Great as well as Benedict XVI have made great strides in ecumenism and improving relations between Catholics and many groups outside the Church. Benedict, in fact, has been called by reputable people the Pope of Christian Unity. So I certainly cannot see a present, or a future in which the Catholic Church hurls epithets such as "heretic" or "schismatic" at respectable institutions such as the Orthodox. There is indeed a well-founded hope of eventual unity, or at least improved respect and communication. Elizium23 (talk) 04:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
The Eastern Orthodox know who Adrian Fortescue is.

"Palamas withdrew their heresy outwardly, and waited for a better chance." [2]

And Siméon Vailhé

"The conflict began in 1338 and ended only in 1368, with the solemn canonization of Palamas and the official recognition of his heresies. He was declared the "holy doctor" and "one of the greatest among the Fathers of the Church", and his writings were proclaimed "the infallible guide of the Christian Faith". Thirty years of incessant controversy and discordant councils ended with a resurrection of polytheism." [3]

And Miroslav Filipović as well. And as for Pope John Paul his actions speak louder than words and his beatification of Aloysius Stepinac. Which speaks a louder truth than any unofficial and or official sources. No one here will allow for people to post what is really at the heart of the conflict. I have provided sources. It does not matter. Because it makes people think that maybe they are wrong, and who likes to face that kind of a thing. As Roman Catholics calling the Eastern Orthodox heretics we could start with the online source of the Catholic Encyclopedia. If it is out of date and not correct then CHANGE IT and or get rid of it. As far as google is concerned its official and Roman Catholic POV pushers on here just love to use it when its supports their position and then attack it when it doesn't. If thats the source that pops up when I search google and some random anon person on here tells me its wrong whom am I to believe? Let alone the rest of the world. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
AFAIK, none of us have the ability to "fix" either the original Catholic Encyclopedia or even the New Catholic Encyclopedia. It is unreasonable to base text for a section on "Prospects for reconciliation (in the 21st century)" on the words and actions of people who lived in the late 19th and early 20th century. It is perfectly reasonable, however, for the History section to point to a time (as recent as the mid-20th century) when relations between the two churches were far more hostile than they are now. (with sources, of course!) --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Of course its impossible to fix any of it. So it should be ignored. Except this article is about all of it. And you Richard have no respect. As for Richard whom I have had to report to administrators here from harassment. You are most uncivil and Ed seems to think that's just fine.

"In particular, the bit about the Eastern Orthodox delegation having the Filioque rammed down their throats at the Council of Florence has to go. There's no point in bringing up ancient history in a section titled "Recent theological perspectives". I plan to ax this text shortly. If LoveMonkey wishes to resume the edit-war, it will be RFC time next. Wish me luck." User:Pseudo-Richard [4]

NEVERMIND that I posted a sourced passage that the Roman Catholic church has continually been most violent to the Eastern Orthodox church. No I give an example and now its about how I post or what you don't like... Hey so much for history. You Richard have done this to User:Montalban so this kind of impossible edit warring and blocking Orthodox editors from articles about their church you have a history of.. As anyone can see from your edit warring with User:Montalban on the papacy articles and the filioque among others. You and Esoglou just love to tag team and hold other contributors to a standard that you in no way could ever comply to. And you said that it is beneath you to even do so. Heaven forbid you actually have to read the works of an Orthodox theologian before you author articles on them (like your none sense article Palamism). Tell me what Palamism you have read? Yeah what you posted here on wikipedia. And Ed protects this. And why now are you constructing articles like Palamism that can't even be found in other Encyclopedias? Let alone that such a thing might just be Original Research. But Wikipedia is about having people whom never read anyone of the subject they are writing about create complete articles about it. ISN'T IT. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Some of what LoveMonkey complains about is rooted in differing views as to where things should be presented as much as it is about what things should be presented. It's not so much that I am opposed to presenting the views of Adrian Fortescue or Simon Vailhe. However, I think that, in this situation, their writings constitute primary sources and it would be better to cite secondary sources that describe and analyze their writings (ideally from a 21st century POV) rather than to quote directly from their writings.

Moreover, since both Fortescue and Vailhe wrote in the early 20th century, any discussion of their views should be presented in the History section rather than in the recent past or future prospects sections.

Finally, it must be pointed out that, while these may have been influential and respected Catholic writers, their writings must not be construed as being representations of the official position of the Catholic Church, even at that time. Yes, it would be naive to think that their positions did not represent the views of most Catholics, even most Catholic clergy and hierarchy. However, that is still not the same as being the official teaching of the Church. If we present the views of Fortescue and Vailhe, we must make this distinction clear.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I have tremendous respect for ALL of the editors involved here. It's a shame things aren't more collegial. – Lionel (talk) 03:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Palamism

I'm really put out by your criticism of the Palamism article. I put a lot of hard work into it and, IMHO, I think it does a good job of providing an NPOV overview of an important period in the history of the Orthodox Church. It also provides an overview into a number of important articles on Orthodox theology such as: Essence–Energies distinction, Theosis (Eastern Orthodox theology), Theoria, Tabor Light and Hesychasm. Before the creation of the Palamism article, the story of how these theological doctrines were challenged and defended was spread out across a number of articles and there was no one place where a reader could read and understand the entire historical episode and its importance to Orthodoxy. That said, this is not the appropriate forum to discuss that article. I invite you to elaborate on your issues with that article at Talk:Palamism. I will respond to any comments that you make there and I remain ready and willing to address any valid issues that you raise.--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Moved LoveMonkey's comment to Talk:Palamism which is a more appropriate forum for discussion of that article. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 07:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

History section is really weak after 1453

This article is organized in three sections: History, Recent past/present, Prospects for future reconciliation. Extra care is needed with the last of these three because we must remember that Wikipedia isnot a crystal ball and who really knows what will happen in the future? Nonetheless, it is encyclopedic to include a well-sourced description of future directions that are grounded in current efforts (and objections thereto).

In reviewing the History section, I note that there is really scant coverage of the period from 1453 to 1963. We mention the Russian Orthodox Church but without really saying anything about the relationship between the Catholic and Russian Orthodox Churches. We don't really mention the fact that the Greek/Eastern Orthodox Churches began to emerge from Islamic domination in the 19th and 20th centuries and what the relationship was between those churches and the Catholic Church. There is clearly a religious conflict backdrop to the atrocities committed by the Ustaše and this ugly episode in history should perhaps be mentioned although in passing because it is unclear the extent to which the Ustaše was acting as an arm of the Catholic Church. My guess is that our coverage of the Ustaše should be roughly equivalent to our coverage of the Sack of Constantinople and the Massacre of the Latins. That is, these are effectively secular events with a religious overtone to them. The emotions that inspired the events and that were carried for generations afterward contributed to the schism, even up to the present-day. However, at the end of the day, none of these events were primarily religious in nature and none of them were official acts of either church.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

You left out the ratlines :-)
Montalban (talk) 14:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Eh, it seems to me that mention of the ratlines would belong in Criticism of the Catholic Church. I note the glaring absence of a section describing allegations regarding the relationship between Pius XII and the Nazi regime. I will work to fix that eventually. However, I'm not sure why we would want to mention the ratlines in this article. What role do the ratlines play in the East-West Schism? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

/* Alleged violation of edit restriction on Esoglou and LoveMonkey */ New section using text moved here from User talk:EdJohnston

Please keep another fight from starting with this violation ("From the perspective of the Catholic Church, the ecclesiological issues are ...") of the restriction (which I'm sure you remember) against making edits concerning Roman Catholic teaching and practice. Esoglou (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

This edit by LoveMonkey appears to be stating what Catholics believe. That is not the domain he is allowed to edit per the ban. See WP:RESTRICT for the details: "LoveMonkey will not make article edits regarding Roman Catholic teaching or practice." I will ask him to comment here. EdJohnston (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

OMG the amount of frustration caused by the double standard hypocrisy at wikipedia is waaayyyy beyond the pale. Do you Ed even step back and think about what your conduct does to people, to the project. I bet you don't really care now do you Ed..Almost 25,0000 edits 30 or 40 articles I either authored and or did heavy contribution too. For what? To be harassed like this. For the record..

1.The section is not specific to either side nor the content per se its not exclusive to Roman Catholic teaching it covers BOTH. That was a good enough excuse for Ed in the past to slap Esoglou on wrist and say don't do it again. And leave it at that. WASN'T IT. Reverts don't allow edits that specific. The source says what I restored someone else wrote it, as I did not write it PERIOD.
2.I reverted, I did not write or rewrite anything.
3.Esoglou again gets a free pass from Ed Johnston his protector and benefactor because by the standard of accusation against me, Esoglou is just as or even more guilty of a vio AGAIN for his radical original research rewrite (YES the source Esoglou left in the article says what I reverted too, what was there first attributed to it)..And yet I get a notice and if I have committed a vio against the restriction it would be like my first where as for Esoglou it would be his 4TH OR 5TH. So why is it OK for Esoglou to WP:OR from the Eastern Orthodox perspective all the way to abortion all over wikipedia. To make wikipedia over into his perspective and opinion to call on Ed here to again run me off. And thats sane..And here I am being called to task. INCREDIBLE. Go ahead revert it back and ban me. Cause either way Im gone. I just wanted to show Steven Walling just how impossible this whole thing called wikipedia has become and how out of control and impossible it is to contribute to this mess this nightmare called wikipedia. I'd call it a joke but there is nothing funny about what you or Richard or Esoglou are doing. LoveMonkey (talk) 02:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
LM, if you think Esoglou broke his restriction, please supply diffs. I have explained above why you should not have changed a statement about what Catholics believe. The fact that you were restoring a sentence that you did not write yourself makes no difference. If you think Esoglou is mis-stating what Catholics believe, you should explain patiently on the talk page and use reliable sources to back up your views. (The one web site you linked to to show what Catholics believe, romancatholicism.net, seems quite inadequate for Wikipedia use). I've commented further at Talk:East–West Schism. EdJohnston (talk) 03:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
If LoveMonkey believes that EdJohnston is biased or in some sort of cabal with Esoglou and myself, he is always free to invite another uninvolved admin to review the situation. I doubt that this would yield any different results but LM should not feel that he is at the mercy of a biased admin. If LM does not avail himself of this option, then perhaps he should tone down the histrionics and invective aimed at EdJohnston. It's very poor form. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Ed, here is what Esoglou added to the East West schism article..It is in direction vio of his restrictions.
"However, from the perspective of Orthodox theologians, there are theological issues that run much 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, and speak instead about the Eastern "schism".[5]
Please note this obvious POV and distortion of the Orthodox perspective has been RESTORED by Pseudo-Richard to the article. [6]
The original wording did not say; that the Roman Catholic Church don't see the Orthodox as heretic but the Orthodox have got the problem and are the only ones calling people heretics. No it is much more neutral and stated.
"Catholics refer to the Eastern Orthodox adherents as schismatics in as far as their rejection of the papacy and recognition of only the first 13 Councils, and as heretics in as far as their rejection of defined Catholic dogma (ie, the Immaculate Conception, Filioque."
Also the original passage doesn't white wash the Roman Catholics and distort the truth of the matter (see the Roman Catholic theologians I name on the article talkpage whom do indeed call the Eastern Orthodox heretics and my comments about the source itself the Catholic encyclopedia the contradicts it stance on this issue between the various articles and authors it reflects). And the passage conforms to the actual source given to it in the article. Where as what Esoglou rewrote about Orthodox theolgians is not in the source in the article as it stand right now. Again no one has called him to task for distorting the passage. For using a source that does not say what Esoglou put in the article. No one has called out Esoglou for posting what Orthodox theologians say. No one. No I got a notice that I might get blocked. This edit warring POV pushing editor Esoglou and his tag team partnet Pseudo-Richard are disruptive and run off contributors. Just like me, just like Taiwan Boi, just like Cody, just like Montalban. And you Ed doing their bidding and not calling them to task facilitate the whole nightmare of it. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Let me add that I have and will again voluntarily leave Wikipedia and retire from contributing. And until about 4 days ago I was content with that. But now because I left you have Pseudo-Richard asking that Esoglou's restriction be lifted because I left [7]. I have also been contacted by Steven Walling so Pseudo-Richard can say whatever he wants. I reverted Esoglou vio-ing his restriction after I let it set for awhile and Pseudo-Richard and or Ed did not say anything. I also notified Steve about it. And again nothing. So I reverted it and guess what its back in the article anyway. See thats what I keep trying to point out to Steve. THIS IS how Wikipedia works. Esoglou STILL has not even been addressed for doing something that at the very least on the surface should have been passed by other Orthodox contributors before doing. As the Catholic Encyclopedia is the source I already used TWICE with two different Roman Catholic contributors (theologians) saying that Orthodox theology has teachings of heresy in it. You can't tell me that the quotes I gave don't exist nor that somehow thats OK. Any human being with eyes can see that Esoglou is going to start rewriting Orthodox positions in a light that favors not their actual perspective but instead the POV of his Roman Catholic edit warring opinion. I just pointed out an example of it that has nothing to with being instigated by me. People here should read so they can see what Pseudo-Richard is up to. Why is it that other editors other than myself complain over and over again and yet Esoglou/Lima gets away with it? Cause thats how Wikipedia works, thats why. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't believe Esoglou falls into the category of acting with good faith. From what it seems like there's been some waiting for LoveMonkey to leave the scene so that he can get back to re-writing material to suit a particular POV.
There seems no point to having either rules, or procedures when someone is in effect given a free pass to do as they wish.

Montalban (talk) 07:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

There ya go Montalban.. Hey notice how Esoglou committed this violation here [8] of his editing restrictions and no one has said anything to him. That is of course since only the Esoglou - Pseudo Richard tagteam has valid or legitimate concerns. Anyone of us committing this kind of blatant disregard for restrictions would have gotten the dogs sic-ed on em. Just look at the demons coming out of the wood work when I got posted to the notice board on here about this very article. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Next steps

  • An article talk page is not a good place to raise behavioral questions about editors. Those should go to an admin noticeboard or to an RFC/U.
Hey Ed are you going to hold people to the restrictions? Since you got Psuedo Richard removing my comments off of your talkpage about those restrictions and moving them to article talkpages [9] (comments that have no business being removed) so which is it? Are they talkpage or your page? Can I get a clear answer on that? (Hey just so you don't worry I won't hold my breath) ;>) BTW I agreed to not post contributions to this article thanks to you and your buddies on the Administration notice board so?????? Also since you haven't noticed I am pretty much here to makes notes on the article talkpages and return to retiring from this nightmare. To consider though. Thanks Ed for making this a terrible experience and for basically ignoring peoples concerns. That is in between attacking and or retailing against them for speaking up (and or just ignoring peoples concerns in general but hey that's the lynchpin of the Wikipedia experience). I just want you to know that you and your buddies and fellow administrators here are out of control and when called to task on that, are well known to either retaliate and or post dodges about peoples concerns like you just did. Its amazing how no one can do anything about mine or Cody or Montlban or Taiwon Boi's complains. But we should just go right on taking the abuse. But hey whose here for the contributors anyway. Thanks for doing nothing and wasting my time (AGAIN) I will again return to my retirement now. To my fellow Orthodox Christians, leave, leave now and stop contributing your time to this nightmare. It should be quite obvious to you guys how concerned and committed administrators here are to actually living up to their supposed standards. You can see just how well this really does work, and there are plenty of burned people out there other than me expressing the same sentiment. See ya. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
LoveMonkey, I thought you were retired. If you want to sincerely work on improvement of East–West Schism there are some options we could explore. I notice that you and Esoglou/Lima are the top contributors to the article. Since the article has caused a huge amount of trouble in the past, I am hoping for some genuine ideas for improvement from you, and some ideas for avoiding the past problems. So long as you continue to pursue an apparent vendetta against Esoglou here on the article talk, I am not optimistic. If you have concerns about my admin actions (of which there aren't any, in recent months) about this issue you are welcome to ask for review at WP:AN. I have never blocked either you or Esoglou and I've never protected this article. If you have been paying attention you may notice that I wound up opposing a removal of Esoglou's editing restriction. EdJohnston (talk) 17:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

East-West Schism

The central issue is the papacy.

This itself is not because of 'administration' as such.

We (Orthodox) view the church as the visible body of Christ. How it is structured reflects how we view the Trinity. To change the structure of the church is to change our idea of the Trinity. As with the Trinity although there is one 'origin' (or cause; God the Father) no one member is more 'God' than any other member. Each person of the Trinity is fully God. Thus the church is, in the Orthodox view, one of equal churches heaed by equal bishops, who (like the Trinity) are united in love.

I think that the article doesn't really address this view point

Montalban (talk) 12:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I should note that the article does deal with Papal Supremacy only as an issue of relationships of power. Montalban (talk) 12:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Montalban. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks LoveMonkey.

I think that it is in not understanding this that Catholics become frustrated with their moves to re-unite the two churches. As a legalistic faith they think all they need do is work out some kind of treaty/contract/accord to join the churches. But the Orthodox church is not a church of 'Catholics without a pope'.

From this misunderstanding on the idea of what the church is all else flows.

If I had the time I might write in a section on this, quoting liberally from Sherrard, P., (1978) Church, Papacy and Schism: A Theological Enquiry. (Denise Harvey Publisher; Limni, Greece) (hint: Book recommendation) Montalban (talk) 14:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I do not disagree with Montalban that Catholics are (usually, but not always) excommunicated from the Orthodox Church. (Despite both churches supposedly renouncing mutual excommunication!)
The reverse is not true, though it is not helpful either! I've heard Catholic pastors tell a congregation (and read this as well) that (visiting) Orthodox are not restricted from communion during Catholic services. But since the Orthodox do not recognize Catholic sacraments, their priests would most likely object as being invalid and maybe even sacrilegious! Orthodox were warned to "act according to their consciences." Student7 (talk) 20:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't know about the Orthodox understanding of excommunication, perhaps they consider Catholics to be under anathema due to our position completely outside the Orthodox Church. But to Catholics, excommunication is a medicinal penalty intended to return the member to full communion with the Church. The whole purpose, in carrot/stick terms, is providing both a stick (deprivation of the sacraments) and a carrot (reception of the Eucharist) to those who have broken actual Church laws. And that brings me to the next point, that excommunication is a specific penalty given under juridically particular circumstances. Not every extreme sin is punished by excommunication. There are only about a dozen instances written into our Code of Canon Law whereby a person is excommunicated. So it makes no sense to us to say that "Orthodox are excommunicated" from our Church. They are separated brethren and at the same time they partake in the sacraments and the graces of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church as their priests and bishops share apostolic succession. The mutual lifting of the excommunications was mostly a symbolic thing - not to mention that excommunication has no effect on the dead. So that is my side of the story on excommunication. Elizium23 (talk) 00:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
You are correct of course. The Catholic Encyclopedia is somewhat helpful on this issue http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13535a.htm, though the article is a bit too polemical (unusual BTW) for general use. Therefore no mention of general excommunication by Catholics. And careful to mention that in 1913, and probably long before that! Not really sure where Orthodox stand on "intercommunication" nor "officially" why. Somehow this should be addressed. Student7 (talk) 20:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Disagreement with changes

Why is Esoglou making changes to Eastern Orthodox positions and content and playing games with how Eastern Orthodox Vladimir Lossky is in the article. No talkpage comments no discussion. [10]LoveMonkey (talk) 00:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I did not change even one word of what the article says of Vladimir Lossky. I did remove the phrase "Orthodox theologians such as (Lossky)", which isn't sourced, since the citation is Lossky's alone and without a page number (indeed a Google Book search within the book for the quoted phrase "God in uncreated essence" said the phrase is not in the book). I am still unaware that "Orthodox theologians such as" is "Eastern Orthodox teaching or practice", but if that phrase is shown to be indeed Eastern Orthodox teaching or practice, I will humbly apologize for my ignorance. Esoglou (talk) 06:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Change is not change up is down right is wrong and remove is not a change. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Esoglou's restriction was "Esoglou will not make article edits regarding Eastern Orthodox teaching or practice." How is Esoglou's question above here not a vio. As indeed it is Eastern Orthodox teaching and practice that Vladimir Lossky is an Orthodox theologian. [11], [12]. Again Esoglou violates his restrictions and nobody does anything. Again Esoglou shows he is completely ignorant of the positions of the Eastern Orthodox and has no problem acting from that ignorance to misrepresent the Eastern Orthodox and rewrite the Eastern Orthodox to fit his Roman Catholic POV. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Both Esoglou and LoveMonkey are free to discuss these matters on talk pages. A change in a mention of Lossky appears to be something that Esoglou shouldn't do. Since eastern and western are closely interwined in this article it is best if E and LM will propose any changes like this first on the talk page before making them. EdJohnston (talk) 14:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
This change, which was among many that I made at the same time, did not deny that Lossky is an Orthodox theologian. It is obvious that he is. I wouldn't dream of denying it. And I did not in fact deny it. But, while I accept EdJohnston's ruling and advice, I do not myself believe that the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches that Lossky is an Orthodox theologian, and I do not desire to make changes in Wikipedia statements about the teaching or practice of the Eastern Orthodox Church. With his blanket revert LoveMonkey changed a great many Wikipedia statements about the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, but I think that action must be ignored, as must also his complete removal elsewhere of one such statement, which he afterwards restored. Nor, in my opinion, is it worth making a fuss over his minor edit concerning Latin Patriarchs, although that obviously concerned the teaching or practice of the Roman Catholic Church - much more obviously, I think, than that the edit LoveMonkey has complained of concerns either the teaching or the practice of the Eastern Orthodox Church. So I make no counter-charge against LoveMonkey. Esoglou (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
And that is the extent of it. No punishment no threats on his talkpage that he might be in violation. [13] Total bias and B.S. Esoglou has done this now how many times? Yet nothing happens. NOTHING. Here's an example. I posted a link above from Saint Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary saying it gave the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams (on his visit to the school )an honorary doctorate for Rowans work on Vladimir Lossky [14]. So no one should be alarmed by Esoglou saying something like "I do not myself believe that the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches that Lossky is an Orthodox theologian" [15]no alarms that this editor is now admitting that they do not believe that the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches that Lossky is an Orthodox theologian. And that their edit removed mention of Lossky as such. No alarm no reprimand. Nothing. As for the Roman Catholic church killing and conquering the Eastern Orthodox and their territories, lands and then by force imposing conversion and Papal rule on the Eastern Orthodox, as encapsulated under the historical templates Latin Patriarchs and or the Latin Empire a few things.LoveMonkey (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
  • )The creation of the Latin Empire and why it is important and why Roman Catholic POV edit warring editors like Richard and Esoglou wish to either remove it's mention and or diminish it as much as Wikipedia will allow them.
  • )The existence of the Latin Patriarchs and the Latin Empire (Frankokratia) show that the Roman Catholic church collectively benefited from and exploited the Fourth Crusade and Sacking of Constantinople. This directly contradicts the idea put forward by the Roman Catholic church that the entire evil committed against the Eastern Orthodox Christians by the Roman Catholic crusaders was not the Roman Catholic churches fault and or that the Roman Catholic church did not condom it. It shows very clearly how the Roman Catholic church specifically exploited the events to impose on the Eastern Orthodox the power of Pope and the West and it's practices and doctrine. As it also shows that the Roman Catholic church did not try and REVERSE what had been done but rather exploited it. As after the Sacking of Constantinople the crusaders did not just leave, the Roman Catholic clergy actually moved in and took over. Thats pretty damn important to give people a perspective and understanding of the extent of what actually happened.
  • )The imposing of Latin Empire onto the Eastern Orthodox shows that there was a long long long history of Western Roman Catholics warring against the Eastern Orthodox. As people here like to point to things like the Massacre of the Latins but miss that William II of Sicily in 1185 sacked Thessalonica as retaliation for that (see Eustathius of Thessalonica which is a little hard to get the EO side of history in general considering the Roman Catholic crusaders destroyed the library of Constantinople). This for people whom might have missed it means that the Roman Catholic church warred on exploited and killed Eastern Orthodox Christians long before any Crusade and that the goal of the Roman Catholic church (as such) was finally obtained (at least from an Eastern Orthodox perspective) by the establishment of the Latin Empire and it's Latin Patriarchs. Example of Western double-cross. The West double crossed the East when it tried to with force, make the Eastern Orthodox recite the filioque, and or put the filioque in the Eastern Orthodox's recitation of the Nicene Creed (in Greek mind you not Latin) in the East, not simply accept that the West said it, but to make the Greeks say it as well. Pope Nicholas III indeed tried that very thing after promising that they would not do that exact thing (after the East agreed to reconciliation). And after the Eastern Orthodox accepted the Roman Catholic using the filioque modification in the Creed as recited in the West.. [16]
  • )How is it that the Pope was sorry for and said that the Fourth Crusade was a bad thing and yet setup a Latin Speaking Patriarch in Hagia Sophia after converting the church to a Roman Catholic church (if East and West are Christian what conversion was really needed). How is it that the Popes and the West was so against what had happened to the Eastern Orthodox by way of the Fourth Crusade, that after the Fourth Crusade rather than leave and try and clean up they instead CONQUERED? And CONQUERED MORE causing a set of wars (The Eastern Orthodox rebelling and removing them from their lands). There is allot of fabricating documents by the Roman Catholic church (the donation of Constantine for example) and killing and warring and double crossing that simple is missing from the article. Right now the article tries to sell the Roman Catholic non-sense that the Roman Catholic church really are misunderstood, never did nothing wrong and the Eastern Orthodox are just but hurt about a bunch of things that happened so long in the past (like Catholic clergy involvement with the Ustaše) that the Eastern Orthodox are just being big babies. There is no attempt at the higher ups in the Roman Catholic church to tell their parishioners the truth about this and that it has been going on and continues to go on to this very day. Christians confess their sins and atone for them. They don't cover them up and lie about it. They don't tell other Christian groups that they have murdered (for a non Orthodox one see St. Bartholomew's Day massacre) and slandered in the past that they have no justification for being traumatized for what happened in the past nor do they have a right to their grievances. When the establishment of the Latin Empire further drained the Eastern Empire of men and resources so desperately needed to fight off the on coming Muslims. Of course this is without mentioning that the Westerners like Orban actually helped the Muslims successfully win against the Eastern Orthodox in the fall of Constantinople.
  • )Esoglou and Richard are here to make sure that people don't find out the Eastern Orthodox side of these conflicts and that the Roman Catholic church can continue to not have to answer for the things that this schism represent as historical events that happened in the past. They are here to keep people ignorant and misrepresent the Eastern Orthodox perspective. It's easier to make labels to marginalize and discredit people. Like labeling Eastern Orthodox Christians activities when they know this past and speak out about it as Anti-Catholicism [17]. Even though the word catholic is Greek in pedigree and origin, now Greek people can't even use their own words. Steal kill kill, how Christian. The Latin Empire is a very important part of the pattern of behavior exhibited by the Roman Catholic church that DIRECTLY influences the Eastern Orthodox in their rejection of the supposed attempts at reconciliation by the Roman Catholic church. Here's is Richard deleting sourced content showing that the Roman Catholic church has tried to force the Eastern Orthodox to recite their creed with the filioque included. [18] Richard has no justification for this (which is one of maybe thousands) of him and Esoglou censoring and silencing history and exorcising it from Eastern Orthodox subjects and articles they have no business white washing here on Wikipedia. And administrator Ed Johnston has helped out with them pulling this, quote a bit. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

LoveMonkey has indulged once again in a long rant in which he maligns Esoglou, EdJohnston and myself. It's too bad his passion for this topic comes with so much invective and vitriol because, if we could get past all that, he actually has some valid points. I reiterate that much of the seminal work on Wikipedia's articles on History of the Eastern Orthodox Church was done by me in response to LoveMonkey's complaints that History of Christianity didn't adequately address the history of the Orthodox Church. This effort dates back to 2007. I remain committed to presenting the Eastern Orthodox POV to the extent that I am able. I only wish that progress could be made in a collegial and collaborative manner rather than in this atmosphere of conflict and contention which makes the effort quite unpleasant.

For example, LoveMonkey points to this edit as an example of "deleting sourced content showing that the Roman Catholic church has tried to force the Eastern Orthodox to recite their creed with the filioque included." A look at the edit summary that I left reveals that my comment was "First step towards tightening up this section; leave history in the "historical" section; this section should focus on "recent theological perspectives"" I don't remember the details of that particular edit but I do remember feeling that the section on "Recent theological perspectives" had too much history in it and that a section titled "Recent theological perspectives" should focus on "recent" developments that were "theological" in nature and not events that were further back in history. In brief, I was only trying to reorganize the content of the article into appropriate sections rather than leaving the article to be a mish-mash of text that had no relation to the actual section headings.

That said, I think it is worthwhile for Wikipedia to address what LoveMonkey calls the "long long long history of Western Roman Catholics warring against the Eastern Orthodox." We might even want to consider an article dedicated to that topic although it would have to be more NPOV than LoveMonkey's rant above (i.e. it should not assume that the history is uniformly "Western Roman Catholics beating up on defenseless and oppressed Eastern Orthodox". If "history is written by the victors" and the Catholics were the victors (with the help of the Muslims), then Wikipedia should ensure that the history of the losers (i.e. the Eastern Orthodox) is also told. However, we must make sure that any such coverage is NPOV. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes boys and girls what Richard just posted nullifies all these historical things from happening and all of his actions here on wikipedia. Restore the edit you removed from the filioque article if you think its in the wrong spot don't edit war and remove it, no just move it, you can place it anywhere you think it is appropriate and you could have done that in the first place. Be warned everyone, don't hold your breath. Richard edit wars under all kinds of guises and loves to demean people by threatening RFCs [19] and calling their comments rants. Maybe Ed Johnston can go and put another threat, warning on my talkpage and pat ol Ricky here on the back. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
As mentioned before on this page, the Fourth Crusade which ended with the sacking of Constantinople was originally not sanctioned by Rome. (Skipping a long prequel), the pope had excommunicated a number of the Crusaders leaders for (essentially) "going rogue." When confronted with the fait accompli of the "restoration" of Constantinople to the Latin realm, he rescinded the excommunications and presumably was happy with the unexpected result. But the original intent, and agreement with the Vatican, was Jerusalem. Student7 (talk) 19:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
What's your point? How does what you say mean that the outcome of the Fourth Crusade and the Latin Empire are any different? If the Pope thought them (the consequences) bad then by your own accord rescind anything then? That undoes the whole Latin Empire (Frankocratia) history? You know it doesn't, it does cheapen all of these wrongs including peoples' lose of sons and daughters Eastern Orthodox human lives. And those of Byzantine Empire are not allowed to have grievances nor does it speak to the modern manifestations of these events in how the Eastern Orthodox consider the brutality of Western Christianity all the way down to the bombing of Kosovo and the vilification of the Serbs. However it is easier to see that wars for the West can be justified by lies even against "other" Christians. [20] As anyone familiar with the Crimean War for example knows what Western Christianity has done repeatedly to Eastern Christians with the help of the Muhammadan and for the sake of Muhammadan [21]. Lets not forget [22]. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Quartodecimanism section controversy

With Esoglou's edits today on the Quartodecimanism section of the article [23] can anyone tell why the Quartodecimanism should be mentioned? Let me guess, no you can't and therefore it would make sense that such non-sense be taken out of the article and I am beyond tried and sure that Esoglou would just love to jump at the chance to remove it. When will people ban this disruptive POV pushing editor from the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic overlapping articles? For pulling underhanded things like this. Esoglou loves to feign ignorance to the heightening of frustration, that his actions are causing and that la la la I can't understand or hear you is justification for the things he pulls. Let me explain what Esoglou did. The Quartodecimanism is a controversy because the Pope of Rome Victor I went against Polycarp and by proxy the Apostle John (Polycarp was John's disciple) and the entire Middle Eastern churches and their tradition of Pascha.

Or in as plain an English as I can muster you have Pope Victor I saying that the Rome Church does not have to follow the traditions of the Apostles, the churches they established in the East, and those Apostle's disciples either. The Roman Catholic church does what it wants and does not have to listen to the Eastern churches that are actually in the bible and what they established by way of the Apostles. Quartodecimanism is just one example of that type of behavior. So there you have the Roman Catholic church breaking with Apostolic tradition. Now read what Esoglou did to that section in the article and see if you can see that this pattern of behavior is actually fully articulated in what Esoglou has contributed? It isn't, as a matter of fact what Esoglou put in the article makes it look like the Roman Catholic church and Western Christian's don't use the word Easter and that they call passover the same thing that the Eastern Churches call it, Pascha when in fact there are plenty of Roman Catholics and Protestants alike that have never heard of the holiday as anything but Easter. Why is Esoglou allowed to confuse things like this? Over and over and over and over again. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

It appears that Esoglou's edit is establishing that the Eastern Churches and Western Churches have differed on points of theology going all the way back to the earliest days of Christianity. The assertion seems to be to imply that the seeds of the East-West schism go back much further than is usually discussed in history books. I readily admit to being an ignoramus on this subject but, to me, this smacks of original research and I would like to see a citation that mentions the Quartodecimanism controversy in the context of the East-West schism.
However, LoveMonkey goes a bit too far in his rant about Easter and Pascha. I have to confess that in the 40 years since I was baptized a Catholic, I never learned the word "Pascha" and have never seen it as such. I agree that most Catholics and Protestants might have to think a bit before they could place that word. However, it is a regular part of the Catholic liturgy to talk of the "Paschal lamb" and the "Paschal sacrifice". We recognize these terms to correlate Jesus' death by crucifixion with the sacrifice of the Passover lamb. It is difficult to speak of Protestants as a group but the idea that Easter and Passover are related through the symbolism of the Last Supper as a Passover meal and the sacrifice of Jesus as a substitute for the Paschal lamb is quite commonplace in most mainline Protestant denominations. If you don't believe me, look at the articles on Easter and Paschal mystery.
Where Western Christians are more likely to get confused is the possible connection of Easter with Ēostre, a Germanic pagan goddess. A purist would condemn the conflation of Pascha with Eostre and the introduction of pagan symbols such as Easter bunnies and Easter eggs. Perhaps it is the fault of Arius or Aquinas that such pagan interpolations have been allowed to occur.
--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 05:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Or perhaps Roman Catholic POV pushing editors on Wikipedia. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Excuse me, Richard, but you really don't need to cushion your well-founded criticisms of LoveMonkey's good-faith but wildly mistaken claims by at the same time criticizing me, this time for supposedly having indulged in original research in a Wikipedia article. What did I change in the edit that LoveMonkey complains of? Only this: I supplied reliable-source citations for three statements that have been in the article at least since 20 June 2010 (I haven't considered it worth my while checking back beyond 500 edits ago), and for which LoveMonkey took it into his head yesterday to demand supporting citations. The basis (if it can be called a basis) for his complaint is my having supplied sources for the statement that Easter is called "Pascha" in both Greek and Latin. I cited this source for the statement about both languages together and, for good measure, I cited two more for Greek: this and this. Esoglou (talk) 08:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Esoglou, my complaint of OR was not inspired by a desire to balance criticism of LoveMonkey with criticism of you. The two criticisms were meant to be independent although they relate to the same text. I confess that I have not researched the edit history to understand who is responsible for what text. It may well be, as you assert, that you were just providing citations for existing text that someone else wrote. So... rather than accusing you of conducting OR, let me say "the inclusion of the Quartodecimanism controversy here smacks of OR" regardless of whether it was you or someone else that introduced it. I wrap this whole discussion with the disclaimer that I know very little on this topic and I am seeking to be educated on it.
That said, my understanding is that the East-West schism did not so much occur in 1054 as it was the culmination of events starting several centuries before and continuing for a few centuries afterward. However, I think the mention of a late-second century controversy (Quartodecimanism controversy) may be inappropriate given that it arose before Constantinople was even a city. Since I am not intimately familiar with the literature on the East-West schism, I am willing to accept the possibility that some scholars might point to the Quartodecimanism controversy as an example of early frictions between the Eastern and Western churches or that it might have been invoked by either the East or the West as an example of how the other side went off the rails. I'm just saying that I'd like to see a citation to a reliable source who says this.
--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Some of this stuff is not easy to follow. Thanks to Pseudo-Richard for a clear explanation. It appears that Wikipedia already has a plausible-looking article on Quartodecimanism. It is up to the editors here to reach consensus on whether Quartodecimanism is relevant enough to the East-West schism to deserve mention here as being part of the history of that schism. The article has asserted this for at least three years and as of 2009 had no citations at all for this claim. It also used to say that the Rebaptism controversy of ca. 250 was part of the history of the schism. EdJohnston (talk) 16:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
There ya go Ed same old same old. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
May I recall to everyone that LoveMonkey's complaint against me was, LoveMonkey said, with regard to this particular edit by me, a complaint that he put under the heading "Esoglou's confusing and obfuscating of the Quartodecimanism section controversy". The mention of the Quartodeciman controversy in the article has nothing whatever to do with me, being introduced on 17 December 2008 by a certain "Orthotheo", who, as his name perhaps suggests and as his edits indicate more clearly, appears to be a natural ally of LoveMonkey. I have no objection to the rest of you discussing the appropriateness of Orthotheo's insertion, but please recognize that the complaint against me that this section was originally about is quite baseless, and that the confusion and obfuscation evident in the discussion ("some of this stuff is not easy to follow") was in no way created by me. Esoglou (talk) 18:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I apologize for having credited LoveMonkey's description of Esoglou's edit instead of believing my own eyes when looking at the edit. It does seem that Esoglou did not rewrite the text and that any evisceration of the text, if it happened at all, was perpetrated much earlier. However, we should not be looking for the criminal who changed the text but rather we should be looking at the question of whether the Quartodecimanism and Rebaptism controversies should be mentioned in this article (as EdJohnston suggested). We should ask whether scholars mention these controversies when discussing the East-West schism. I found a quote from Philip Voerding's "The Trouble with Christianity" that makes this assertion. I am not convinced that it is relevant but at least we have one reliable source that asserts that it is. I also have a quote from another source that suggests that it is not.[24]

And my account still stands as Ed is right now suggesting that the section be removed. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

No... I was the one who suggested that the text be removed and EdJohnston was just saying that we editors should come to a consensus on whether or not that was appropriate. I had difficulty finding reliable sources who made the linkage between the Quartodeciman controversy and the East-West Schism but I did finally find one in Voerding's book "The Trouble with Christianity". I have added Voerding as a reference. If you can provide other sources that make this linkage, I would appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardshusr (talk • contribs)
Hey but no one should be bothered by any of the other concerns I posted. Funny though with as much text, editors have posted here on the article talkpage they could have done allot to add some of these concerns into the article. But they keep saying that they are just too busy to contribute and yet not too busy to make excuses. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
This page already contains difficult issues. They may take patience to resolve. At various times I've been frustrated by either Esoglou or LoveMonkey. At the moment there is some criticism due to both parties. Esoglou seems to have tried out a bold edit instead of first asking for feedback on talk. In response, LoveMonkey reverted and then made a hard-to-understand speech on the talk page suggesting various bad intentions by Esoglou. ("The Roman Catholic church does what it wants and does not have to listen to the Eastern churches that are actually in the bible..") I encourage both of you not to personalize issues. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I am accustomed to baseless accusations by LoveMonkey, and Richard has withdrawn his accusation, but what bold edit do you, Ed, think I tried out. I merely gave sources that showed that Easter is called Pascha'in both Greek and Latin, a statement that LoveMonkey had tagged with "citation needed". What was bold about that? The link to my edit was given right at the start by LoveMonkey. Please look it up. Esoglou (talk) 20:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I was thinking of this edit. I need to withdraw my comment about that, because the matter is too confusing. Nonetheless I'm not seeing the urgency of your making a direct edit to the article in controversial areas without asking for comment on Talk first. I assume you've been adequately notified that this article is controversial. The original 'citation needed' was a bit strange because why would anyone dispute about the word for Easter in different languages. The person who placed the 'citation needed' may have been inexact. EdJohnston (talk) 20:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
That is precisely the edit in question. What is controversial about the Latin and Greek for "Easter"? The Latin for "Easter" is Pascha and nothing else, the Greek for "Easter" is Πάσχα (transliterated Pascha) and nothing else. You surely don't mean that every time LoveMonkey asks for a citation on such an obvious and objectively non-controversial matter, I may not provide a citation, but must instead initiate on the Talk page a section beginning: "Please, I would like to enter on the article page information related only to language translation and not a matter of either Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic doctrine, so as to answer a question that has been put there by an editor who must think that, his question not being a matter of either Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic doctrine, he need not raise it on the Talk page"! Esoglou (talk) 21:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
And yet the Roman Catholic church still uses the word Easter [25].. LoveMonkey (talk) 00:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
LoveMonkey placed a citation-needed tag on the statement that Easter is called "Pascha" in both Greek and Latin. I responded to the request for citations, never dreaming that anybody other than LoveMonkey would object to this action for the good of Wikipedia. Imagine an encyclopedia maintaining a question mark over so clear and undisputed a fact! Should I have instead removed the tag and given as edit summary "Please don't try to pick a quarrel over whether the sky is blue"? (This is obviously just an ironic rhetorical question.) LoveMonkey did object. I thought that the best course of action was simply not to reply to so baseless an objection. But two other editors let themselves be persuaded by it, in one case in spite of a cautiously expressed appeal I had made, in view of past experience: "Perhaps it is best to let the discussion on that page play out and not intervene, at least not at an early stage." Their intervention forced me to protest against their condemnation of me for providing citations for something that is objectively non-controversial and that anyone can easily check by, for instance, Google Translate. I am not sure that both condemnations have even now been withdrawn. Esoglou (talk) 06:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Esoglou violated his edit restrictions that has been established. Esoglou has no respect for anything POV but his own. LoveMonkey (talk) 12
55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Mention of Quartodeciman controversy

Mention of the Quartodeciman controversy in this article arose out of an edit by Leadwind on 21 March 2008 stating: "Prior to the official start of the schism, Eastern and Western Christians had a history of difference and disagreement dating back to the second century." When the phrase I have italicized was questioned (by me) on the grounds of lack of evidence of trouble between Rome and the East (as a whole) that far back, Orthotheo responded with the example of the Quartodeciman controversy. If Leadwind's claim is not maintained, the mention of the controversy will go too. Esoglou (talk) 06:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I have never heard of nor see how the source Richard just added to the article is conformed to WP:VS. [26]. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:56, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Yuh... I found Voerding's book via Google search. I had my doubts about adding that source especially since the publisher is AuthorHouse which suggests that it could be self-published but since it was the only non-blog source I could find that linked Quartodecimanism to the East-West schism, I added it pending further research. I am happy to withdraw that reference in favor of more reliable sources.--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 21:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Mention of this book, apparently by a Muslim ("PBUH"), which has been objected to on reliable-source grounds and has not been defended, can surely be removed. Esoglou (talk) 06:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps this has been known to you all along but I only just figured out yesterday that "PBUH" stands for "Peace Be Upon Him". Of course, if I had bothered to consult Wikipedia, I would have figured that out much earlier cuz there's an article titled PBUH. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 23:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
But, if we remove the source, it leaves the assertion that it supports unreferenced and therefore also subject to removal. I am OK with removing it since no one has stepped forward with a more reliable source. If LoveMonkey will agree to its removal, we should go ahead and do it. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
From reading our article on the First Council of Nicaea (AD 325) it seems that the Quartodeciman controversy was a minor footnote even then. (See this reference). Also, it is hard to read the events of Nicaea as showing any East-West difference of opinion. It appears that Nicaea was trying to resolve a controversy among churches in Asia. Higher-quality sources would need to be found if they are going to persuade the editors here that the Quartodeciman stuff is part of the East-West schism. EdJohnston (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
As I said in my 8 December 2008 objection to Leadwind's edit, the disagreement was between Rome (not the West as a whole) and a mere part of the East (and, I could have added but didn't, there were disagreements also between Rome and certain parts of the West). When Orthotheo thought he had answered my objection with his reference to the Quartodeciman dispute, I thought it best to say no more. Any repetition of my objection could have provoked a defence of Orthotheo's edit by another editor who will do me a favour, if now he allows the claim of a second-century East-West divide to be removed. Esoglou (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. It seems we are waiting for LoveMonkey's agreement. (Although we don't NEED his agreement, it would be nice to have a true consensus. Since he himself has questioned Voerding as a reliable source, perhaps he will concede that it is not at all easy to find reliable sources to support Orthotheo's assertion that the Quartodeciman controversy is related to the East-West schism. In truth, I half expected LoveMonkey to bring forth a quote from Lossky or Romanides but, if none can be found from such strident anti-Catholic writers, then we should consider that the linkage between the Quartodeciman controversy and the East-West schism is more likely a popular notion than a scholarly one. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Object. Christos Yannaras mentions it. I have to find the book. I believe it is the Western Identity one. As it is obvious that it is beyond time consuming and disgusting to try and contribute. It is editors like Esoglou and Richard whom make wikipedia a nightmare and I dare anybody to take a look at some of the things Wikipedia has allowed them to pull on other editors here whose only crime was not agreeing with their Roman Catholic POV. [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35] No matter how many wiki here will find an excuse to not be even handed. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I suppose we must wait for LoveMonkey to present (within a reasonable time) the promised reliable source that not merely mentions the Victor-Polycrates dispute (there are many such reliable sources) but states that there is a relationship between that dispute and the East-West schism (which Richard, no doubt rightly, says is not at all easy to find). Esoglou (talk) 19:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Nope. I am here on the talkpage and that's it I am tired of wasting time to only get my opinion ignored and my contributions removed. There are sources and they need to be found and that's the whole reason I requested them. However you both are not of the cut to be doing the edits that you have been doing here. Just like the disasters you've committed with your edit warring (article like theoria and Eastern Orthodox- Catholic differences) you're making wikipedia a mess. LoveMonkey (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Sounds like a declaration of no intention to present any reliable source linking the Victor-Polycrates dispute with the East-West schism. But I doubt if the matter is important enough for resisting LoveMonkey's will. Esoglou (talk) 07:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Sounds like Esoglou doesn't care if something is right or not. Nor to actually do some work and find out for himself. No that would mean he might have to do something other than push his Roman Catholic POV. As it has been said time and time again Esoglou doesn't even read or know the works of Orthodox theologians or the Orthodox POV he spends his time creating and or pushing original research against Orthodox theologians. Post here that you actually tried to source the passage as it was. Instead of doing another drive by like it looks right now. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


My assessment is that the entire beginning of the "History" section is sorely deficient and that even a "rewrite" would not help. What's needed is an entire block of text (perhaps 2-3 paragraphs) that summarizes the history of the schism and devotes an entire paragraph to explaining the roots of the schism including the early divisions of the church and the existence of early schisms. Unfortunately, this is an effort that will require at least a few hours of work and I don't have that available at the moment so I will simply state that I think this needs to be done. I am likely to begin work on this over at [[

History of the East–West Schism]] and then bring a summary over here when I'm done. But I can't do it now as real-world obligations preclude my taking on this task at the moment. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

If someone wanted to make a formal complaint about the deliberately provocative attitude of LoveMonkey, inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor, there would be enough evidence on this page alone. I won't. Nor, as I said, do I feel like devoting serious time to this article when I find myself blamed for simply providing a requested citation (which required no study) in addition to the usual burden of having to read through a logorrhoea of complaints against what western Europeans did to his homeland (including even, of all things, the Crimean War, as if that were a cause of the schism this article is about) and, for instance, against the English language for applying the word "Easter" to a Christian celebration, a matter that he would do better to take up with the Orthodox Church in America (see this and this and this) and with Greek Orthodox metropolitans such as this. Esoglou (talk) 20:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Agreed as to sufficiency of evidence and the rambling and often pointless logorrhea. Also agreed that it's not worth the effort to seek sanctions. Far easier to ignore it and carry on with substantive efforts to improve this and other articles. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 23:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Citation request

It appears that LoveMonkey's original citation request was regarding the term "Easter". Esoglou has provided citations although this seems not to be satisfactory to LM. At the end of the day, there seems to be little or no evidence that a dispute about Easter vs. Pascha is at all relevant to the East-West schism and so the citations seem odd and out-of-place in this article. I would be inclined to remove them but, in the current situation, that seems ill-advised.

The more substantive question is whether the Quartodeciman controversy should be mentioned in this article at all. LoveMonkey claims that "there are sources to be found" but implies that he will not provide them. Unless we are willing to accept Voerding as a reliable source, the Quartodeciman text is unsupported and subject to removal. I'm inclined to do that but I am waiting to understand whether LoveMonkey prefers to keep the text or to have it removed. If he would like it kept, then perhaps he can provide us a quote from Yannaras. If he is OK to remove it, then that is easily done.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Post here the policy for removing text from an article. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
That would be WP:V: "Any material that requires a source but does not have one may be removed". EdJohnston (talk) 19:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Let me confirm somethings just so they are posted here.
This article is about the last schism between East and West.
Quartodeciman was a schism between the Eastern Churches and the Western Churches[36]
The Quartodeciman schism has no obvious relation to the East West schism because there is no source that refers to Quartodeciman schism as a schism between Eastern and Western Christianity. Thats because the issue is about the Pope and the authority of the Pope causing a schism not the actual 14th as the name pulls this bigger issue away from.
Thanks to the brilliant editors Eoglou and Richard we are now to believe that no such person as Hippolytus of Rome existed. That no person named Photios I of Constantinople ever mentioned this Hippolytus.[37], [38] I wonder what the term "Emergence of a Monarch-Bishop" might be referring to.[http://www.amazon.com/Hippolytus-Roman-Church-Third-Century/dp/9004102450/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1351020144&sr=1-1&keywords=9004102450]
People have nothing to do but educate these two disruptive editors. Now note that Photios would be enough but then people here editing haven't read Photios or are being ignorant of Eastern Orthodox theologians and their works these two would have known about sources saying these kinds of things. IF THEY KNEW WHAT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT IN THE FIRST PLACE. [39]
But again Esoglou and Richard can come here and be disruptive and post all kinds of ignorant theory and attack other editors and be lazy and waste time and delete content and argue with all kinds of disruptive behavior and make other editors hate wikipedia because admins here will not curtain the crap that they pull.
Here it is specifically, about Pope Victor I Patriarch of Rome...
"But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant, sharply rebuking Victor.
Among them was Irenæus, who, sending letters in the name of the brethren in Gaul over whom he presided, maintained that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be observed only on the Lord’s day. He fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom." Eusebius of Caesarea (Church History, V, xxiv)
The section needs to reflect that its more than something called Quartodeciman it was about the Pope overstepping and being rebuked. The issue being a history of the Pope of Rome not being infallible and not being considered the last word and not being considered senior to the Patriarch of Antioch Irenaeus. Not the word Quartodeciman which misses my original point.
The issue is that in the situation that has gotten labelled here Quartodeciman people can see why the Eastern Church would deny things like the Primacy of Pope and how the Western church did not have the final say by way of things like Papal infallibility or whatever and that a council in the East (not called nor attended by the Patriarch of Rome, Pope mind you) would decide this issue and others and that even other Saints and Patriarchs acted contrary to what the Roman Catholic church would have people believe. I can not fix the crazy section nor how it keeps being made more and more crazy. However some sort of mention of this would be proper to the article. But I won't again hold my breath to count on Esoglou and or Ricky to be educated enough about these things to handle them properly. Please note that some of these sources are Western and appear to be ignorant of the idea that Eastern Christians in the bible and in their culture have no history of calling Pascha, Easter.LoveMonkey (talk) 20:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The Eusebius quote is a primary source. We should find a secondary source that quotes Eusebius in the context of discussing the Great Schism. McGuckin would be great.

Without a secondary source, pointing to an earlier schism and saying, "See! That example of papal overstepping is one of the precursors of the Great Schism" is original research. Philip Voerding points to the Quartodeciman controversy but doesn't say much about it other than to point to it. And we're not so confident about Voerding being a reliable source. Does McGuckin mention the Quartodeciman controversy in the context of discussing the Great Schism? Is it common for Orthodox theologians to mention the Quartodeciman controversy? BTW, I noticed that neither the Quartodeciman controversy nor Eusebius are mentioned in the article on Supremacy of the Roman Pontiff. That article seems like an obvious place to mention this topic. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

More B.S. Eusebius of Caesarea was historian and in quoting Irenaeus if a primary source. What does that make Irenaeus? [40] "We ought to obey God not men." [41] Polycrates of Ephesus... Read the article here on wiki about Polycrates of Ephesus. Let me guess though Ed is AWOL or MIA again and all of this pedantic wrangling Ed Johnston here endorses and will help to enforce. Like I said real ignorant people here fighting to push that ignorance and they get their way with the help of admins here. I am just wasting my time. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
There are more than 1000 admins on Wikipedia. If you wish, you can ask another one to step in and adjudicate. Or you can issue a Request for Comment. Or you can go to the Reliable Source Noticeboard. Stop whining and take steps towards Dispute Resolution if you feel you are unable to reach consensus here. Or just provide a source that is dated after 1054. A source from the 20th or 21st century would be preferable. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 21:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
You are beyond arrogant. Stop screwing up and telling me what to do. Since when is an historian NOT a valid source. Making up the rules and adhering to the ones you like. Go get these people and read them..Your education is not my responsibility. LoveMonkey (talk) 02:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
The Allen Brent book on Hippolytus looked promising at first but, after reading the Customer Review, I am not convinced that it is relevant. There is no direct mention of the Great Schism in the review. This is the essence of original research. Wikipedia editors are not allowed to point to things "A" and "B" that they think are related and then write article text that says "A and B are related." We must find a reliable source that says that. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 21:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
More edit warring. LoveMonkey (talk) 02:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I found another source, a book by Tom Streeter but alas it is also published by AuthorHouse which, according to Wikipedia, is a self-publishing house. Thus, neither the Voerding book nor the Streeter book are qualified as reliable sources. I looked at McGuckin and he does mention the Quartodeciman controversy but his text doesn't really link this controversy to the Great Schism. Despite all the abuse and invective from LoveMonkey charging all sorts of bad intentions and incompetence on my part, I am inclined to believe that the Quartodeciman controversy is considered by at least some Orthodox as an example of early papal overreaching. I hope that some editor will find a reliable source that we can use to support the text in question. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 05:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Here is another source - a book on Papal Primacy by Klaus Schatz, a German Jesuit priest. Schatz does not link the Quartodeciman controversy to the Great Schism but he does point to it as one of the "first attempts on the part of the Roman Church to assume responsibility for the whole Church". He notes that "these first initiatives encountered resistance and ended in failure. Rome did not succeed in maintaining its position against the contrary opinion and praxis of a significant portion of the church.". He concludes his discussion by saying "there was no enduring breach of communion between Rome and the Churches of Asia Minor".

My take on all this is that the Quartodeciman controversy cannot be one of the seeds of the Great Schism because there was too much later ecclesiological development, most notably that the pentarchy doesn't exist yet and doesn't begin to be recognized as such until the 4th century. The Quartodeciman controversy is, however, one of the precursors of papal primacy which is a core issue in the Great Schism.

I think our current text is inadequate and even misleading. The current text reads as follows:

In the centuries immediately before the schism became definitive, a few short schisms between Constantinople and Rome were followed by reconciliations. Even during the period of Early Christianity, part of the East (Western Anatolia) was in disagreement with Pope Victor I over Quartodecimanism, holding that Easter (called Pascha in both Greek[8][9] and Latin)[10] should be celebrated at the full moon, like the Jewish Passover, not on the following Sunday.[11][12]

To a reader who is not well-versed in the history of the Church, this text might be read to suggest that the Quartodecimanism controversy was an early disagreement between Constantinople and Rome. Moreover, "Early Christianity" is a period far removed from "the centuries immediately before the schism became definitive". So, I think we need a rewrite of this paragraph to better communicate the relative chronological positions of the various events being discussed. Also, Schatz mentions the baptism of heretics as another early example of Rome asserting its primacy. In order to better follow the most reliable source that we have at the moment, we should mention both controversies as well as Schatz's assessment that Rome did not succeed in its attempt to use its primacy to impose its opinion on other churches.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

While you may be right, aren't you nonetheless getting into rather deep water, when you link the East-West Schism with what some writers see as early examples of Rome asserting its primacy? There are those who interpret even the first-century Letter of Clement, written to a church in Greece, as an example of Rome asserting its primacy. Esoglou (talk) 20:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
It is clear that Rome's claims of primacy are very much at the root of the East-West schism. The question (to my mind, anyway) is whether the East always objected to all such claims or only started objecting at a later date as those claims became more assertive and insistent. (Kind of like saying "we don't mind that you claim primacy as long as you agree with us")
There are two separate but related questions here: when did Rome start asserting its primacy and when and to what extent did other bishops (especially those in the East) begin objecting to Rome's claims? I don't expect all scholars to agree in answering these questions. Our text should reflect the diversity of opinions on these questions. My problem is that I am not well-versed enough in the field to know what the different answers are and who the main proponents of each answer are. I have been told that Google Books is a poor research tool and I admit that it is. A more defensible approach would be to have the text written by an editor who is well-acquainted with the scholarly views on this topic. Unfortunately, at the moment, all we have is me (an ignoramus) and LoveMonkey who asserts that there are sources but has not been forthcoming in sharing them with us. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 21:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
In order to make a link between the East-West Schism and refusals by eastern bishops of a much earlier date to accept the authority of the Roman church (which of course wasn't the whole of the West), would you not have to show that such refusals were more significant than those by western bishops?
I don't feel just now like studying the question that you are dealing with. It would bring me into yet another conflict with an editor who at one point writes: "Can anyone tell why the Quartodecimanism should be mentioned? Let me guess, no you can't and therefore it would make sense that such non-sense be taken out of the article"; and then later claims that there are mysterious reliable sources that support the mention here of a disagreement between a Western bishop and an Eastern bishop, a disagreement speedily smoothed over.
Should the antecedents be limited to instances of rivalry between Constantinople (alone) and Rome (alone), beginning with the 381 First Council of Constantinople and culminating in the 1054 spat?
Google Books is a poor research tool only in the sense that a library is a poor research tool. It gives you access to many books, but you have to sift them and pay heed only to the authoritative ones. Questia and the like give authoritative sources alone, but only, I have found, a limited number of them on any particular topic and, usually, not the one you want. I still wonder if the other two Questia-like services for which, in view of the picture you and Ed have presented of me, I did not dare apply, would be better than Questia. Esoglou (talk) 07:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

A note on personal names

I'm not quite sure what LoveMonkey intends by using the name "Ricky" to refer to me. It does seem that he uses it mostly when he is attacking me and, in particular, belittling me so I am inclined to surmise that the use of the diminutive is part of an oblique personal attack on me. This technique seems rather petty but, so far, I've just let it slide as there isn't enough time and energy in a day to react to all the crap that he sends my way.

However, on the off chance that his use of the name is not intended to be offensive, I will point out that it is at least odd if not downright rude to use a variant of someone's name when there has been no indication that the variant is normally used by the person and his acquaintances to refer to himself. FWIW, I have gone by "Richard" or "Rich" most of my life and have generally discouraged other variants. My aunt used to call me "Ricky" when I was a child. I used to call my son "Ricky" when he was a child but now that he is a teenager, he discourages it. For now, he prefers "Richie". Some adults go by "Ricky" (e.g. Ricky Martin); that is their prerogative. I do not.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 08:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Richard, Ricky, Richie here has just deleted large chunks of the article is here marginalization people's opinions as "rants" and now can't be called "Ricky". Well there's priority for you. An entire section on the talkpage dedicated to calling him Richie or Ricky. But lets not let the article or the content of articles here on wikipedia and the quality of those article get addressed lets waste time about calling Richard, Ricky or Richie.. I have so many better things to do. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)



Yuh... you are welcome to keep calling me "Ricky" if you like. There's no policy against doing so. I just wanted to let you know that I don't much care for it. Now that you have indicated that you are doing so intentionally, at least I now know that for sure and can take offense or not as I choose. I just didn't want to let it fester as a hidden cause of irritation if you had no intention of offending. Since you now know it bothers me and you choose to continue, we now understand each other and any ill-will that this behavior engenders is intentional and not unwitting or accidental, so let's let this discussion rest. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
And you are welcome to leave my contributions alone and stop hacking up my contributions. 17:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Policy abuse and edit warring

Why did neither Richard nor Esoglou properly source and or represent through their editing here what the Quartodeciman was actually about (hint it was not about the specifics of the theology it was about Papal authority). Notice like I said. Esoglou made the section so unreadable and so unclear that the next step was for Esoglou, Richard and then with the blessing of Ed Johnston remove the very vital part of the history of this event and article. Notice also the editors Richard and Esoglou are still putting in distortion of sources and also Richard removed my good faith contributions TWICE. No word from Ed Johnston no threats on their talkpages. Look at the amount of work someone has to do in order to add maybe a paragraph to this article and notice how these two editors are not done and try again savage and distort and marginalize my contributions. Note that they have become so embolden and brazen in their hubris that they don't acknowledge that they have no idea what the issue was really about nor did they bring any real clarification to the article about what the role of Quartodeciman controversy played in the bigger picture of the schism. Here they are on the talkpage causing more non-sense and acting like they are not being destructive and running off Eastern Orthodox editors with this type of behavior. And where are the administrators? Well if I make a mistake I am more that positive all kinds of admins I have never engaged nor seen or hear of will be here to condemn my contributions. And yet with this much editing and wrangling and warring and removing my contributions of good faith that are sourced nothing. This sucks and is far to time consuming for me. This is not the way the process is supposed to be followed and adhered to. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no history of Augustine's theology being considered theology in the Eastern churches

There is no history of Augustine as a theologian and his theology taught as dogmatic Christian theology in the Eastern Churches. His theology is not taught as Orthodox, general run of the mill Christian theology. Augustine did not attend any Ecumenical councils nor did his mentor. He was not a Greek scholar or even someone whom read, spoke and or could read or write in Greek. His position as being one equal too the Church Father of the Ecumenical councils is not accepted or taught and his theology is not considered Orthodox Christian theology nor is it taught as Orthodox Christian theology that reflects the teachings of the Ecumenical church councils. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Esoglou's request for quotation

Esoglou put a {{quotation needed}} tag on text that I wrote. So now it is my turn to defend text that attempts to paraphrase what a source (Roger Haight) wrote without plagiarizing his work. The article text that I wrote attempts to summarize the paragraph that starts at the bottom of page 83 and continues at the top of page 84. Haight writes "The churches were becoming ever more distant from their origins in space and time. They were growing and with growth came new or false teachings, the sources of controversy and division.". Did I stray to far from Haight's meaning? I confess that I inserted my own understanding of what he wrote but I do not think that I actually added to his meaning but rather I thought I was expanding on what he said so as to avoid using his specific words. I will add the above quote to the citation but I'd like some feedback as to whether the article text accurately captures Haight's meaning. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 21:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh... I just re-read the text that I wrote and realized that it could be read to mean that "The passage of time also moved (all) Christians farther from the original teachings of the apostles giving rise to teachings that were considered heterodox and sowing controversy and divisiveness within churches and between churches." I inserted the word "some" before Christians to make clear that the problem is that "some Christians" were following teachings that were considered heterodox. Does that address the issue? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 21:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Esoglou (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Easter vs. Pascha

Some Orthodox Christians discourage the use of the word Easter, believing that the term has roots in pagan rites of the spring equinox and overtones of fertility. Most English speakers are unaware of the etymological origins of Easter, however, and use it without any sense of pagan connotations, and so Easter is also used by many Orthodox English speakers. [42] LoveMonkey (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The above text is quoted verbatim from the OrthodoxWiki. I note that the lead sentence of the article states "Pascha (Greek: Πάσχα), also called Easter, is the feast of the Resurrection of the Lord." There is not a separate article in the OrthodoxWiki on Easter; rather Easter redirects to Pascha which suggests that these are considered one and the same topic (i.e. it is not asserted that there is a Western holy day called "Easter" which is distinct from the Orthodox holy day called "Pascha"). Thus, we are not talking about two different things but rather two different names for the same thing and whether the appropriate translation for "Pascha" is "Passover" or "Easter". Since the vast majority of English speakers will recognize Passover to be a Jewish holiday, using "Passover" instead of "Easter" would be confusing without significant explanation which would amount to POV-pushing (i.e. the POV would be "yes, we know the vast majority of you don't use these words this way but YOU ARE WRONG and we are teaching you THE RIGHT WAY to use these words"). Wikipedia should not presume to know how language should be used nor should it seek to impose such "right usage" upon the public at large.--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

"I hear occasionally from someone who sometimes accuses the Orthodox Church of being "foreign", and so unsuitable for the British. A few days ago he sent me a card saying "the word in English is Easter". My reply was "the word in Greek (and, therefore, English), is Pascha"." [43] LoveMonkey (talk) 00:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

... which goes to confirm that the Greek for "Easter" is Πάσχα. Esoglou (talk) 07:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
No it doesn't. The article by Fr. Michael Harper is named -IT IS PASCHA NOT EASTER!

"But let the Orthodox stick to the right word, which is "Pascha". Let us use it in our own circles, and discard the pagan word "Easter". We should do this — not to be different, but to be truthful."[44] LoveMonkey (talk) 02:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

LoveMonkey, I don't see why you imagine anybody objects to the Orthodox (more strictly, "some Orthodox Christians") calling the feast "Pascha" or whatever they choose. And, whether you were aware of it or not, your quotation did confirm what I had already produced clear evidence for: that Greeks (of whatever confession) call the feast "Πάσχα" (as the French call it "Pâques", Germans "Ostern", Italians "Pasqua", Portuguese "Páscoa", Spaniards, who apply "Pascua" to other Christian feasts as well, "Pascua de Resurrección", Danes "Påske", Dutch "Pasen", Finns "pääsiäinen" ...). Your quotation did explicitly state: "The word in Greek ... is Pascha."
I presume your silence means you do not object to removal of the claim that the dispute between Victor of Rome and Polycrates of Ephesus about the date for celebrating the feast was a prelude to the East-West schism, as discussed above. Its removal will leave it clear that the East-West schism originated in a Constantinople-Rome dispute, preceded by shorter schisms between those two sees. Esoglou (talk) 09:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Esoglou, for the mention of the more direct etymological linkage to Pascha in European languages other than English and German. I knew much of that but had not thought of it. What is the official language of the Catholic Church? Latin. What is the word for Easter in Latin? I trust it is "Pascha" or something close to it. So, despite the introduction of Eostre into the lay celebration of the feast in some cultures, there is little point in focusing on that as a theological or ecclesiological difference. Truly, it is long past time to put this non-issue to rest. There are enough true issues between East and West that there is no need to manufacture artificial controversies for the sole purpose of heaping baseless accusations against the other side. Next, we will no doubt be hearing complaints about Christmas trees and Santa Claus. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
No the word pascha translates to "passover". The word Easter does not. Again Roman Catholic POV pushing editors here don't have to listen as they have free reign. I will state the obvious. This is a different section and this is not a continuation of what is above.
"We need to realise also that there is no equivalent word for "Easter" in the Greek language, for one simple but important reason, the word is an Anglo-Saxon word for a pagan festival. The word in its original use is entirely pagan. According to the English Church historian Bede, it derives from a pagan spring festival in honour of Eastra or Ostara a Teutonic goddess." [45] LoveMonkey (talk) 18:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
What Greek Christians celebrate in church under the name "Πάσχα" is a Christian feast, even if etymologically the word once signified a Jewish festival. Saying that they celebrate a non-Christian Jewish festival would be maligning them. What English-speaking Christians celebrate in church under the name "Easter" is a Christian feast, even if etymologically the word once signified a non-Christian festival of spring. Saying that they celebrate a non-Christian pagan festival would be is maligning them.
Since the English language is not one of the causes of the East-West schism, discussing the proper English term for the "Christian festival and holiday celebrating the resurrection of Jesus Christ on the third day after his crucifixion at Calvary as described in the New Testament" (as the Wikipedia article Easter calls it) is off topic here. Go and raise it at Talk:Easter. Esoglou (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
What the Eastern Orthodox celebrate is called pascha or passover it's not called Easter. There it is in Greek, Hebrew and English. It's not called Easter nor has the word pascha ever been translated to Easter by the Greeks there is no word for Easter in the Greek language. I just sourced that. This is the type of nonsense that is called obfuscating and has nothing to do with getting the correct perspective needed in this article. At point again are we saying that the Roman Catholic teachings on their Pope have no bearing and or are not a factor in the East West schism. Richard is saying that now too. Talk about revisionism and original research. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Which Apostles called pascha Easter where in the Greek bible is the word Easter?


"But let the Orthodox stick to the right word, which is "Pascha". Let us use it in our own circles, and discard the pagan word "Easter".[46]



Or how Esoglou gets it both ways. The Roman Catholic church can call it Easter and yet almost never refer to it as Pascha but Esoglou can say they call it pascha, when the Vatican calls it Easter. [47]As always Esoglou presumes. And you put words in my mouth. As an POV pusher this is a common tactic of yours. My point above is the same here in this section. The West calls it Easter they do not as common practice call it Pascha. Too confuse the two is edit warring by way of obfuscating as some of Ed Johnston's comments quite clearly indicate that he is confused. Esoglou loves to argue outrageous points in order to frustrate contributors and get them to leave wikipedia. Here's a talkpage archive full of this back and forth between Richard and Esoglou and two other editors here. [48] Not once was either Richard or Esoglou called to task by wikipedia admins here for edit warring. NOT ONCE.
As Esoglou and Richard and the various of their like, seem to use this very same argument when referring to the Roman Catholic church as the Catholic church. But then don't allow other people to use the same rational. And administrators here help them and punish people whom oppose them. It has been said a long time ago that Western Christianity has killed God (God is dead and we the faithful are the ones that killed him, Nietzsche, this is proof of that). And that Western Christianity will fight for that right and to this day wars against the Orthodox. These things that Roman Catholic editors on here do in the name of God harm all Christians. But some are so deceived. [49] LoveMonkey (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Only Roman Catholic concerns are real, anybody else's are rants

This is the official standard set by the example here of Esoglou and Richard and enforced by Ed Johnston. As Esoglou and Richard can claim all sides to an argument and shut out any opposition and Ed enforces it and will not punish either editors if they violate (repeatedly) any edit restrictions established. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

It is a shame that this is true. I admire conviction, but a 'cause' is not the concern of Wikipedia editors. Montalban (talk) 10:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Catholic Encyclopedia

It might be instructive to read what the Catholic Encyclopedia has to say about "Easter". Although the following text does not raise any new substantive points that Esoglou and I have not already made, it goes to show that our arguments have a solid foundation and are not being made "out of thin air".

The English term, according to the Ven. Bede (De temporum ratione, I, v), relates to Estre, a Teutonic goddess of the rising light of day and spring, which deity, however, is otherwise unknown, even in the Edda (Simrock, Mythol., 362); Anglo-Saxon, eâster, eâstron; Old High German, ôstra, ôstrara, ôstrarûn; German, Ostern. April was called easter-monadh. The plural eâstron is used, because the feast lasts seven days. Like the French plural Pâques, it is a translation from the Latin Festa Paschalia, the entire octave of Easter. The Greek term for Easter, pascha, has nothing in common with the verb paschein, "to suffer," although by the later symbolic writers it was connected with it; it is the Aramaic form of the Hebrew pesach (transitus, passover). The Greeks called Easter the pascha anastasimon;Good Friday the pascha staurosimon. The respective terms used by the Latins are Pascha resurrectionis and Pascha crucifixionis. In the Roman and Monastic Breviaries the feast bears the title Dominica Resurrectionis; in the Mozarabic Breviary, In Lætatione Diei Pasch Resurrectionis; in the Ambrosian Breviary, In Die Sancto Paschæ. The Romance languages have adopted the Hebrew-Greek term: Latin,Pascha; Italian, Pasqua; Spanish, Pascua; French, Pâques. Also some Celtic and Teutonic nations use it: Scottish, Pask; Dutch, Paschen; (The correct word in Dutch is actually Pasen) Danish, Paaske; Swedish, Pask; even in the German provinces of the Lower Rhine the people call the feast Paisken not Ostern. The word is, principally in Spain and Italy, identified with the word "solemnity" and extended to other feasts, e.g. Sp., Pascua florida, Palm Sunday; Pascua de Pentecostes, Pentecost; Pascua de la Natividad, Christmas; Pascua de Epifania,Epiphany. In some parts of France also First Communion is called Pâques, whatever time of the year administered.
[Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Easter]

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Pagan influences on Christianity

Easter is from the same Germanic root word that gives us Estrogen (sometimes written Oestrogen). I have run into a number of non-Christians who use "Easter" as a basis for arguing that Christianity simply acquired a lot of pagan conventions. Montalban (talk) 10:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The pagan influence on (Western) Christianity is discussed (lightly) in the article titled Christianity and Paganism. That article could be improved significantly. The treatment of pagan influences on Western Christianity is discussed very lightly and doesn't even mention explicitly Easter, Easter bunnies, or Christmas trees. Interestingly, Christmas trees are a more recent development than I had thought them to be and are not so obviously pagan in origin although there are pagan analogues. Also, I had thought to include Easter eggs in the above list but according to the Wikipedia article on that topic, this is a custom that arose among early Christians in Mesopotamia. I also always thought that Easter was the Christian equivalent to a vernal equinox (spring) festival but the Wikipedia article informs me that it is the Feast of the Annunciation that is the Christian equivalent. We are also told by the Wikipedia article that the nativity of John the Baptist is the Christian equivalent of pagan midsummer festivals. I note that none of this is sourced so I am relying on Wikipedia here and that is not always a sound thing to do.
At the end of the day, however, the question is whether the feast called "Easter" in English is the same feast called "Pascha" in Latin and Greek as well as in a number of Western European languages.
In the U.S., the Orthodox holiday called Pascha in Greek is referred to as the "Orthodox Easter", a fact which will no doubt enrage LoveMonkey. I've never heard anyone object to that equivalence before. Could someone provide a reliable source that asserts that these are two different holidays?
--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Richard, by "Orthodox Easter" do Americans mean rather the feast celebrated on the date given by the Julian calculations, which in some years put it as much as 5 weeks later than the Gregorian calculations? In that case, the Eastern Orthodox in Finland do not celebrate Orthodox Easter! Esoglou (talk) 20:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Very funny. I suspect Orthodox Christians in the U.S. say "Orthodox Easter" because it is more comprehensible than to say "Easter as calculated by the Julian calendar". Being an ignoramus, it took me a while to understand that most Orthodox (except for the Finnish and Estonian Churches and the Old Calendarists) use the Revised Julian calendar except when computing the date of Easter in which case most Orthodox use the Julian calendar. (I hope I got that right. If not, I trust someone will educate me as to where I got it wrong.) --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 08:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Here is Ricky again tell me now how to feel about something. He simply can't just make a statement. My point was that there is within Orthodoxy (as I posted above) a movement to resist calling Passover, Easter. CNN and all kinds of Western media can misrepresent the Orthodox Church to their hearts content and that will not change what the link and Priest said above nor will all of Ricky's nonsense postings. Look the West covered Pussy Riot and how terrible it was for them to go to jail. But you don't see the other things they did BEFORE the final prank they pulled that got them in jail. As the Western media did not tell people in the West that these girls (as Voina) had staged an orgy in public in a museum in broad day light (see Fuck for the heir Puppy Bear!) nor went into a supermarket and stuff a chicken into their whatever (Voina#How_to_Snatch_a_Chicken)....Almost absolutely no one would support them after they found out about what this group of people actually have been doing. It is easier to with hold the complete information from people to make it all black and white and make these people heroes of things they don't even believe in. It is the why to that, Western people should look into. Anyway saying that because the West misrepresents and then pointing it out does not justify engaging in that behavior. As Richard, Ricky here just loves to either show his ignorance and or play on other peoples to justify his POV pushing and covering for Esoglou. Go back and read the link I posted above. It already addressed all of Ricky's comments. For the record this kind of disinformation is common place and a regular almost daily occurrence. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I didn't tell you how to feel; I guessed how you would feel and it appears that I guessed correctly. That said, I have now read Fr. Harper's essay and he does not assert that there are two different holidays but rather that the Western celebration of Easter has been corrupted with chocolate eggs and Bunny rabbits and the like. He further asserts that the Orthodox should eschew the use of the word "Easter" in favor of the word "Pascha". He is welcome to hold his own opinion and to propagate it to the faithful such as will hear his word. However, the English word for the holy day is "Easter" and that is the word that should be used in this article. I rather expect that most Orthodox would consider Easter (corrupted as it is) to be the same holy day as Pascha but, as I've said elsewhere, whether that is true or not is not relevant to this article.
This issue could perhaps be introduced into the article on Easter if appropriate sources are provided. The opinion of one Orthodox priest is not likely to be considered an adequate source.
I note that there is not a separate article on Pascha as an Orthodox holiday as distinguished from Easter. There is an article about Passover (Christian holiday) which I rather doubt is what LoveMonkey is referring to.
As an aside, I wonder if Fr. Harper will next propose that the Orthodox use the Greek word for Christmas instead of the English word "Christmas" since the Western celebration of that holy day has also been corrupted by Christmas trees and all sorts of commercial trappings that have nothing to do with celebrating the birth of Christ. Right language is critical to right thinking and right belief. Nonetheless, I suspect that Fr. Harper and LoveMonkey are tilting at windmills on this one but only time will tell whether the exhortations of Fr. Harper and others of a similar mind will take root and cause a change in linguistic usage.
--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 07:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
But we are supposed to care that you don't like being called Ricky. You don't "feel" like it. Someone queue that audible nightmare of a song from the 70's called Feelings, for Richie-ard here. You don't care that you keep moving the goal posts and that frustrates editors and contributors and from my ample experience here dealing with you (and Esoglou) and have come to my attitude toward you because you are dense and WP:CAN NOT HEAR ME and do not listen to reason. At the end of the day what difference does that make to tell you since WP:YOU CAN'T HEAR ME? As for your "Western word for it as it is used", argument, NOPE, doesn't work the Western word for Pascha is Pass Over not Easter. [50] Again because Richard thinks that, all of the sudden that makes it so, never that the Orthodox source says otherwise. No it's what Richard or Esoglou say (the Orthodox are not entitle to their perspective unless it agrees with Richard and Esoglou's) and they will shot down your sources open an RFC on you and call down the admins. EVEN IF YOU ARE RIGHT. Why it's all up to Richard who is valid or invalid who is to be used and not used and Wikipedia policy is here for him to abuse in whatever way he likes. Never-mind that the section needs to be rewritten to speak the real co-relation of the moment in time of the churches development and how that feeds directly into the Eastern POV on the schism as a whole. I have to sit here and argue for, in order to have the article actually reflect historical truths as the Eastern Christians don't translate Pascha into Easter. If it gets translated into English it gets translated as Pass Over.
As the Eastern Christian don't use the word Easter. As the Eastern Christians say that Polycrates of Ephesus is an example from history in ink that shows where there was no Papal infallibility (between the churches in history) that the Pope was not treated or considered by the whole church to be of the importance that he is now in the Roman Catholic church. And that more that the filioque that the position of the Pope is and will remain unacceptable to the Eastern Christians. And will remain the main thing that keeps the churches separate. As it is obvious to anyone following this that the Roman Catholic church will not atone for any of it's changes and or mistakes. Why if the Pope was to be treated with Primacy would (as important a Saint as they could be) of all people St Irenæus step up and reprimand Pope Victor I? This is before any Ecumenical council, this is long before the existence of Constantine. Why is the point (which is referred to by Eusebius) not being reflected in the article correctly. As Polycrates' letter has been used as proof against the argument that the Churches in Asia Minor accepted the authority of the bishops at Rome. Why is this missing as to play the games of Richard and Esoglou people are to believe that the Role of Pope in the Church of Rome play no part of in the East-West schism. This is the proper way that the Quartodecimanism controversy should be included in the article. Not the hake job incoherent nightmare that the section contains right now. But I have to point this out to editors like Richard and Esoglou who come here hacking and arguing when they are very much ignorant of the subject that they are editing on at least from this perspective I have pointed out. Why are they allowed to do this knd of thing? LoveMonkey (talk) 16:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Movement to NOT use Wikipedia as a forum for advocacy

LoveMonkey wrote "there is within Orthodoxy (as I posted above) a movement to resist calling Passover, Easter ". It would be useful to refer to WP:NOT here. Wikipedia is not the place to advocate new trends even if those trends are justified. Wikipedia should use terms as they are understood in common parlance. Furthermore, this is the English Wikipedia. As unfortunate as the etymology may be, the name of the holy day in English is unquestionably "Easter". It is time to leave it at that. If it is desired to remove the word "Pascha" from the text, I would have no objection to that. English readers are more likely to be confused by mention of "Pascha" than they would be if they simply read "Easter" with no further qualifications. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 00:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I was bold and removed the reference to Pascha for the reasons explained in my above comment and in the edit summary. This is the English Wikipedia; policy is to use the English term unless the foreign language term is more widely known. "Pascha" is not more widely known than "Easter"; hence, we should use "Easter". My apologies. I had not read the all the Talk Page comments carefully enough and I had not read the link to the essay by Fr. Michael Harper. As LoveMonkey has explained, this is a "movement" and Fr. Harper has expounded the rationale behind it. The fact that it is a "movement" suggests that it is not widely adopted as of yet by the Orthodox and certainly not by English-speakers, Catholic, Protestant or non-Christian. Thus, I don't agree with Fr. harper and I do not concede that the proper English translation of "Pascha" is "Pascha"; rather I continue to maintain that the proper English translation of "Pascha" when referring to the Orthodox celebration is "Easter". However, as I've said above, this equivalence is not helpful to the flow of the text in this article and so the best approach is to agree not to draw any distinction or equivalence at this particular point in the article. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 03:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Your removal of the phrase is fine with me. Esoglou (talk) 09:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
If the POV is part of a division between the two parties named in the article, then it is essentially part of the subject of this article. Rather any of us like it or not. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
If you believe that the distinction between "Easter" and "Pascha" is a significant contribution to the continuing schism, I think you need a better source than Father Harper who doesn't even say that it is (although he sort of implies it that it might make some contribution). I haven't heard of this issue being raised as one of the points to be resolved by the Joint Theological Commission (whatever its official name is). Nor have I heard of it being mentioned by the likes of Bishop Kallistos (Ware) or Romanides or Lossky or Yannaras. If you could provide a quote from any of those or a Metropolitan or someone with substantial stature in the Orthodox community, I would be much more receptive to including it in the article. FWIW, there are plenty of Western Christians that consider Christmas and Easter to have pagan roots. A small minority even refuse to celebrate either holiday because of their pagan roots. The vast majority of Western Christians are unlikely to know or care about this issue. Whether that's important or not is a matter of opinion that rests on relative priority. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
I think WP:YOU DON'T HEAR ME. I think that the most neutral and NPOV term one could use is Pascha. And not Easter which is not used in the East. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Contentious editing

How is the edits that Richard made to my contributions to this article today constructive?

  • [51] can Richard please leave my contributions alone? If there are issues with them please post them first here to the talkpage. Is Richards comments that they he made in his edits clearly shows that he can not hear me nor can he understand and therefore until he does I would like to have an administrator here make modification to my contributions because again. Richard on purpose seeks to minimize as much as he can, what the Roman Catholic church here has done and on what magnitude they have done it. And if Ed Johnston will allow to remove and silence, censure it completely. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
In a word, "No". The text in question was written in such atrocious English that it was an embarrassment to leave them in the article in their current state. If you feel that your text is appropriate to Wikipedia's standards of English prose, then I think we need to take this to the next step in dispute resolution which, I believe, is a content RFC. That's not intended as a threat. RFC's are not weapons, they are tools to widen the group of editors looking at an issue. A user RFC asks for comments on a user's conduct and admittedly is often used as a weapon. A content RFC requests comments on article text and is also often used as a weapon but I am not trying to use it as one here. I'm not even objecting to the content (yet). It's just that the text in question doesn't even constitute properly formed English sentences (i.e. with a main subject and a main verb). The verbiage is so garbled that I hesitate to copyedit it as I am not certain of the meaning that you wish to convey. I can guess at about 80% of your intended meaning but I think it is better for you to rewrite the text than for me to attempt it. I said as much in my edit summary and in the commented out text which I left in the article text to facilitate your revision of it. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 08:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

For reference:

I commented out the following text:

As the incidents more that being a matter of custom or dogma or theological matters are said to reflect that the Churches in Asia Minor did not accept the authority of the bishops of Rome. As in the initial part of the conflict c.190AD - 196AD between the disciple of St John the Apostle, St Polycarp along with St Irenaeus and Bishop Polycrates of Ephesus reprimanded Pope Victor I for overstepping his authority and mishandling the matter in general.

and left the following comment with the commented out text:

Commenting out text which lacks the syntactic structure for properly formed sentences in English. In its current form, the text is almost at the point of being incoherent. The intended meaning is not quite clear enough to allow copyediting and thus I leave it to the original author of this text to rewrite this text. Additionally, I note that the following text makes claims that are not supported by the quote from Eusebius and thus would need additional support in order to be included. I'm not saying the claims are false, simply that the claims are not supported by the quoted text.

I will note that, aside from the atrocious writing, there are also problems with sourcing and a "citation needed" tag will probably be forthcoming to request a secondary source for these assertions. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 08:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Beh... my comments above were perhaps a bit intemperate and for that I apologize with my only excuse being that it was 1:40am local time and I was trying to bang out a response to a comment that I had not seen before and only just saw as I was planning to turn in for the night. The grammar in the text in question is not quite as bad as I portrayed it and one can sort of pick out the intended meaning. The larger truth is that I am planning a rewrite of this section and I didn't see the value in working on improving text that was likely to be replaced by new text in the near future. I beg everyone's patience while I continue researching the topics of monepiscopacy and the monarchical bishop. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Is this your excuse for edit warring and removing, remarking out my good faith contributions? The original edits I am speaking you did not do at the time you responded with.. You did not even attempt to discuss what you did. You just went and rather than even try and reword (which I suspect is because you are again ignorant of this content) you just remove it from the article? THATS EDIT WARRING. The fact that you are having to research this topic while you attack me and remove my contributions I would hope people would see as an admission of ignorance on your part. Why are you doing these things when you just admitted that you are not informed? Why Richard now acting like an administrator when his contributions should hold not more weight than anyone else's and that they have to ad her to Wikipolicy more so that to anything else. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


I am having trouble parsing the sentence "The original edits I am speaking you did not do at the time you responded with." Which "original edits" are you talking about?


I confess that after I wrote the comment that I characterized as "intemperate", I went to bed thinking "you know, I think those sentences DID have a main subject and a main verb" and I started to realize that I had criticized your writing with a problem that I had remembered from other sentences that you had written in the past. When you are writing quickly without adequate thought to good writing style, you have a bad habit of writing as if you are speaking to someone and that results in some pretty atrocious writing. I considered whether to get out of bed and correct my error but, given that it was already 2am local time, I decided not to do so. My error in identifying the specific problem with your writing in the sentences that I commented out doesn't change the fact that the writing was so deficient as to fail the (admittedly low) standards of Wikipedia. They certainly stuck out like a sore thumb in this article which has at least an average quality of writing througout. That's why I commented them out. Are you really wanting to defend the quality of writing in those sentences?
Yes, my rationales for editing/removing your contributions range from "deficient English inadequate for Wikipedia standards" to "doesn't fit in this point in the article" to "doesn't fit in this article at all". If I can improve your text, I do so. If I do not think it belongs in a particular section, I move it. If it doesn't fit in the article, I delete it. If it does fit but the English is so weak that I can't figure out how to fix it, I comment it out and make it clear what I have done and why.
I am not "trying to act like an admin". Your edits are not sacrosanct and neither are mine. The "edit page" used to say something along the lines of "You are not willing to have your contributions edited mercilessly, don't contribute." AFAIK, that dictum still stands.
My contributions do not "hold more weight" than yours. I just believe that a consensus of editors would support my view. If you believe I have acted inappropriately, you are welcome to appeal to any of the more than 1000 admins of the English Wikipedia. More properly, you should follow the dispute resolution process which includes third opinions,Requests for Comment and mediation.
Or, you could just look at what I'm trying to tell you and realize that I am trying to improve the article. The article has improved dramatically since the days when there were three sentences that were woefully inadequate to describe the early history of the schism.
There was no single event that marked the breakdown. In the centuries immediately before the schism became definitive, a few short schisms between Constantinople and Rome were followed by reconciliations. Even during the period of Early Christianity, part of the East (Western Anatolia) was in disagreement with Pope Victor I over Quartodecimanism, holding that Easter (called Pascha in both Greek[8][9] and Latin)[10] should be celebrated at the full moon, like the Jewish Passover, not on the following Sunday.[11][12] See Easter controversy for details.
Though it is bold for me to say so, most of the "heavy lifting" in this transformation has been done by me. I wrote the well-sourced section titled "Origins and causes", the intro to the "History" section and the subsection titled "Early Catholicism". Yes, I have had to do quite a bit of research to do that but that's what Wikipedia editing is about. The fact that this critical portion of the article lay in such sad shape for so many months suggests that no one else cared enough to do the research and writing to improve it. Why are you whining about me doing that work?
The massive improvement from a one line discussion of the Quartodeciman controversy to a more-or-less well-written section has been accomplished by yourself, myself and Esoglou. This kind of collaborative editing is exactly how Wikipedia should work with the exception of all the whining, complaining and harsh invective that you seem to specialize in. If you could eschew that and engage in egoless editing, the process would be far more pleasant and enjoyable.
Wikipedia should not be a battleground. You are long overdue for a Wikiquette alert. Just reading through your continuous whining is tiresome. Get a clue already. You are a valuable contributor to Wikipedia and we have jointly accomplished a lot to be proud of in the last 5 years of working together. Why can't you find a way to make this an enjoyable experience instead of an unpleasant one?

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Your edit warring is tiresome and POV pushing costs more time and work that what is and or should be considered acceptable. Look at the amount of conversation I have contributed to the talkpage of this article. It is amazing how you can delete my contributions without conversation on the talkpage argue to remove key historical events from the article that you don't understand and allow Esoglou to distort ancient historians and then claim I need a wiki alert. Who has time for this? LoveMonkey (talk) 16:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Historical ecclesiology

I have spent way over the amount of time that I should have allocated this weekend to editing East-West schism and yet there is much more to do in order to put the Quartodeciman controversy into proper context. I am going to stop for today so that I can attend to other real-world obligations.


The fly in LoveMonkey's ointment is that it's unclear that Victor was a monarchical bishop. In fact, some scholars are even suggesting that his excommunication of the Asian churches was actually a move to assert his position as a monepiscopal bishop (i.e. that the real political context was that he was enforcing his power of the Asian Christians residing in Rome). Monepiscopacy is the concept that there is only one bishop in a diocese and that bishop oversees all the churches within the diocese.


This is why I have spent time building up the historical ecclesiology of the Ignatian tri-partite structure, monepiscopacy and (ultimately) the monarchical bishop. My goal is to document the emergence of monepiscopacy and the monarchical bishop and point to monepiscopacy as defining the ecclesial structure of the Catholic and Orthodox churches. I am still exploring the meaning of the "monarchical bishop". My uninformed understanding is that this term describes not just the Bishop of Rome but also the power of a Catholic bishop within his diocese. What I am unclear on is whether Orthodox bishops are "monarchical bishops" within their diocese. I rather expect that they are. But, if this is true, we cannot cast the Orthodox rejection of "papal primacy" as a rejection of the concept of the "monarchical bishop" but rather a rejection of the concept of a monarch bishop that rules above other bishops who are monarchs within their diocese.


I would appreciate any feedback to further educate me on these topics.


--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

"Monarchical bishop" is a term used for the kind of bishop that is clearly pictured in the letters of Ignatius of Antioch, about a century before the time of Victor. It is argued that, until some time later, Christian churches in other areas were governed not by monarchical bishops but by colleges of equally ranked presbyters/bishops, the two terms being equivalent at the time. By Victor's time, the monarchical bishop was, it seems, standard not only in the geographical area in which Ignatius was active but generally, including Rome. In about 180, Irenaeus takes it for granted that there was a succession of (monarchical) "bishops" or "presiding presbyters" in Rome from the time of Peter and he lists them (as "bishops") in Adversus Haereses, III, 3, 3. (I think, without having checked, that the only area that is seriously argued to have lacked monarchical bishops at that time was Alexandria.) Since then monarchical bishops have been standard in all the churches, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East, and even more modern groups such as Anglicanism. Of course, that does not mean that the monarchical bishops were not and are not organized into provinces headed by a metropolitan, patriarchates headed by a patriarch, etc.
The main source for Victor having excommunicated the Quartodecimans is Eusebius. He clearly pictures Victor as a monarchical bishop and even quotes Irenaeus (in a letter of his, not in Adversus Haereses) as listing Victor's immediate predecessors in the same office, who had taken a more relaxed attitude than Victor towards that minority of Christians who celebrated Easter on full-moon day instead of Sunday.
So I see no point whatever in bringing the question of the monarchical episcopate into this article. The monarchical episcopate is common to East and West, not a matter of dispute. And if you cut Victor out, you cut out the whole of the story of the action by him that Irenaeus, according to Eusebius, considered too drastic.
Does any reliable source say that Victor's action was an antecedent of the East-West schism. Is the idea that it was an antecedent merely an unsourced synthesis by Wikipedia editors? If we are to keep it, I think we do need a reliable source that describes it as such. Even in the second century, the East as a whole condemned the Quartodecimans, without going so far as to excommunicate them. Eusebius mentions councils held in Palestine, Pontus and Osrhoene and the view expressed by the bishop of Corinth and "a great many others". "A unanimous decision", Eusebius says. And in the fourth century the Council of Nicaea, the vast majority of whose participants were from the East, definitively excluded the Quartodeciman practice. Esoglou (talk) 20:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
You have done something towards justifying the mention of the Victor-Polycrates dispute, but not, I think, towards justifying the (in my opinion confusing and quite extraneous) bringing in of the question of the origin of the monarchical episcopate. The stress now put on the pretensions of the bishops of Rome as part of the prehistory will necessitate a compensatory outline of the part played in prehistory by the pretensions of the "ecumenical" patriarchs, a mention of which is at least equally justified. I must get around to this sometime later. The historical problem was the clash between these two, wasn't it? Esoglou (talk) 09:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Wrong. Read Cleenewerck's book it is another example of how this entire schism was started. There is no history of the Patriarch of Rome being a ruler that's what the Emperor was for. Look at what Cleenewerck says about the so called Petrine doctrine let alone the Patrimonium Sancti Petri. As if there is anything like the history of Pope Julius II and the Papal States like Pope Gregory XI leading a war like the War of the Eight Saints or the Avignon Papacy in the East. There is no history in the East of any Patriarch ever becoming so powerful as to head their own country and have wars over that country and or to as a leader actually war on other countries. To suggest otherwise is simply insane. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I do believe that the schism was between the See of Rome and "Constantinople" in the sense of the Ecumenical Patriarch rather than between the See of Rome and "Constantinople" in the sense of the Byzantine Emperor.
There remains the problem of the absence of a logical connection between the schism and the question of the origin of the monarchical episcopate, which Richard wants included. Esoglou (talk) 16:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Lets make a list

I request that Esoglou and Richard post here a list of what books on this subject that they have read. What Eastern Orthodox theological works that they have read (completely). I am going to put this request on Ed Johnston's talkpage as well. I will also list which ever ones I have not already contributed to the article. I think this fair and this is something that needs to be done as Esoglou Richard appear to not be informed on the subject and are editing warring and deleting my contributions and distorting them and putting off important perspectives being put in the article because they don't understand the subject but instead want to fight about it.

LoveMonkey (talk) 13:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

"History" as catch-all

Richard, your broadening the article to questions whose connection to the schism I see as tenuous, such as the origin of the monarchic episcopacy and what you have called "Early Catholicism", has led, perhaps not unforeseeably, to inclusion also under the same heading of subsections on "Orthodox understanding of Catholicity" and "Orthodox rebuttal of Catholic arguments". The italicized words mean that I leave it to people such as you to deal with the inclusion of these as pre-Schism "history". I wish you patience. Esoglou (talk) 16:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Actual experience of God

I think a citation is needed for the unsourced claim that it is the Orthodox perception that Catholic theologians lack the actual experience of God enjoyed by Eastern Orthodox theologians (such as John Romanides?). The citation is needed especially, though not solely, because what is claimed is that this is "the" Orthodox perception, not just "an" Orthodox perception. If the text is not amended, a "citation needed" tag should be added to the paragraph. Esoglou (talk) 07:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Please stay away from Orthodox subject matter that is your editing restrictions. This is just another of your attempts to side step your restrictions and push your POV. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Would you ever be so good as to provide sourcing for this supercilious claim? Esoglou (talk) 16:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Go back to the Eastern Orthodox – Roman Catholic theological differences article and look it up there. You forgetting is your problem.[1] [2][3][4]LoveMonkey (talk) 14:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Also since Esoglou is completely ignorant of it all maybe he should read up on Saint Niketas Stethatos. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, it seems that there is no claim by Romanides to have direct experience of God. Nor is there any such claim by Eastern Orthodox theologians such as Vasily Bolotov, Kallistos Ware, Paul Evodokimov, John Zizioulas, Liveriy Voronov, Vladimir Lossky ... Shall we agree on that? Esoglou (talk) 16:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
No, leave the Orthodox sections of the article alone you have made it quite clear that no amount of evidence or valid sourcing will ever be enough to support a position that you oppose. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Esoglou is ignorant and extremely disrespectful and shows that by how he engages the Eastern Orthodox. Why again should I have to point this out since Esoglou is supposed to know this (what is Orthopraxis about theoria). However I think it is safe that people reading this may not understand what Esoglou is doing here (and has been doing on Wikipedia for a long long time). As Esoglou engaging in these types of arguments and when pointed out with facts or sources that he is wrong.[53] [54] [55] Rather that stopping and letting the other person continue to contribute Esoglou or Lima just goes right on to the next thing he can find to edit war about and continues edit warring. It is a (biblical) tradition when speaking of the vision of God (example St Paul) to speak of the experience as if speaking in 3rd person. It is also as a general rule something you keep to yourself and don't share because having theoria does not bestow a person with privilege or authority per se it is to heal the person as therapeutic first. Anyone wanting a more clear understanding of how someone becomes a Starets (illuminated persons with theoria, that instructs others) they can read about it in people like St Seraphim of Sarov. Or how to achieve Skema.
It is safe to assume that John Romanides for example was called a theologian in Greece by Greeks and that he is a "true" theologian.[5][56] It is safe to say that John Romanides met that criteria by having theoria (which is to be a true theologian as also V Lossky did) and not because he got his theology degree from Harvard. As the Monks on Athos do not honor a University degree over and or see it as equivalent to theoria. There is no College degree in Hesychasm and if such a thing were made it would be against the very nature of what gnosiology is. Esoglou claims to know these things and yet he continues to act in ways that are inappropriate to the traditions he is attacking. He is OK with the Roman Catholic church vilify and or attacking, distorting what is proper or Orthopraxis and respectful in conduct and or behavior in the East as he does not respect or care to learn and understand those traditions as his display here shows today. One does not speak of as Holy a thing as the vision of God as provoked by auto-suggestion or that it is a side show novelty unless of course you are Esoglou. Eoglou appears to want to deny ascetics their asceticism. And this all here is safe to say. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
"The Lord considered the chief good to reside in theoria alone ... the other virtues, although we consider them necessary and useful and good, are to accounted secondary because they are all practiced for the purpose of obtaining this one thing: theoria." St. John Cassian,
For those people reading whom want to know what it is to be cured of the nightmare and emptiness caused by Western Christian theology and want to understand what this is about you should read this book [http://www.amazon.com/Absence-Unknowability-God-Heidegger-Areopagite/dp/0567045323/ref=sr_1_10?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1351618844&sr=1-10]. Anyone whom has read up to page 110 and that page specifically knows that, I have used Christos Yannaras through out my time trying to contribute to various Orthodox articles here on Wikipedia. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos)
    • )Theoria is the vision of the glory of God. Theoria is identified with the vision of the uncreated Light, the uncreated energy of God, with the union of man with God, with man's theosis (see note below). Thus, theoria, vision and theosis are closely connected. Theoria has various degrees. There is illumination, vision of God, and constant vision (for hours, days, weeks, even months). Noetic prayer is the first stage of theoria. Theoretical man is one who is at this stage. In Patristic theology, the theoretical man is characterised as the shepherd of the sheep. [57]
    • )Theosis-Divinisation is the participation in the Uncreated grace of God. Theosis is identified and connected with the theoria (vision) of the Uncreated Light (see note above). It is called theosis in grace because it is attained through the energy, of the divine grace. It is a co-operation of God with man, since God is He Who operates and man is he who co-operates. [58] LoveMonkey (talk) 18:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
That's a lot of words, but it is hard to see what relation they may have to the question. Do you or do you not believe that the Orthodox theologians John Romanides, Vasily Bolotov, Kallistos Ware, Paul Evodokimov, and John Zizioulas (all are described as Orthodox theologians) have or have had actual experience of God? I am not attacking them. Are you? Esoglou (talk) 18:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
WP:YOU CAN'T HEAR ME and this is the same thing you always do, you act like this and don't hear what is being said. If St Paul would not directly speak to the fact that he had theoria 1 Corinthians 2:9 then this tradition is what it is. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm trying to hear you but you don't speak distinctly except when expressing your outright conviction that western theologians (and, it seems, Latin Fathers of the Church) have not had actual experience of God. You are not saying clearly whether it is likewise your opinion that eastern Orthodox theologians have had actual experience of God. Does your mention of Saint Paul mean that you think they have, like him (1 Corinthians 2:9–10, had revealed to them "what no eye has seen", instead of the theoria that is described as something actually seen? Esoglou (talk) 15:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Now, read this verse. 2 Corinthians 12:2 Both are Paul. How is that? LoveMonkey (talk) 15:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Was it not so that Paul was not a disciple of Christ, until after Christ was crucified and resurrected? And gone to heaven? If so Paul never was part of the Christian movement until Christ was already gone from this earth. Is Paul in this not like all whom have come after him in that Paul was not part of Christ's ministry before Christ was crucified and resurrected? Paul is not Jesus nor is Paul the founder of Christianity. Paul is simply a Christian and a most beautiful modeled Christian and human being.
He is a brother to everyone. Is theoria not what made Saul into Paul? Why then does he not say what his disciple the Areopagite later say about being "out of body" or not and taken to the 3rd heaven as something to gain power over people (hint: 2 Corinthians 12:7)? Your supposed to know all about this. As even St Paul to us is not the same St Paul to you. As he makes no such use of faith in the way the Roman Catholic church has taken him and made it backwards to what Paul actual is and did. He has theoria as a God seerer as what is available to the Orthodox now. Thats anyone whom is in good standing and engaging in the ascetic practices of the Orthodox church. That's what made St Symeon the New Theologian and not a Western Theologian. Again that's anyone monk, clergy layperson, not just an elite. ANYONE. That's not what the Roman Catholics teach and this is why nihilism did not prevail against the Orthodox (see for example Father Arseny). As it is proper or Orthodox to remain anonymous and not seek earthly power. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
More words, but no reply. Do you think that John Romanides and the others mentioned have been caught up to the third heaven like Paul? Is it your opinion that they have had actual experience of God? You still refuse to answer. Esoglou (talk) 20:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I have answered you refuse to listen. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
With a yes, a no, or a maybe? Esoglou (talk) 20:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ Franks, Romans, Feudalism, and Doctrine/Empirical theology versus speculative theology, Father John S. Romanides [59] A basic characteristic of the Frankish scholastic method, misled by Augustinian Platonism and Thomistic Aristotelianism, had been its naive confidence in the objective existence of things rationally speculated about. By following Augustine, the Franks substituted the patristic concern for spiritual observation, (which they had found firmly established in Gaul when they first conquered the area) with a fascination for metaphysics. They did not suspect that such speculations had foundations neither in created nor in spiritual reality. No one would today accept as true what is not empirically observable, or at least verifiable by inference, from an attested effect. So it is with patristic theology. Dialectical speculation about God and the Incarnation as such are rejected. Only those things which can be tested by the experience of the grace of God in the heart are to be accepted. "Be not carried about by divers and strange teachings. For it is good that the heart be confirmed by grace," a passage from Hebrews 13.9, quoted by the Fathers to this effect.
  2. ^ The vision of the uncreated light, which offers knowledge of God to man, is sensory and supra-sensory. The bodily eyes are reshaped so they see the uncreated light, "this mysterious light, inaccessible, immaterial, uncreated, deifying, eternal", this "radiance of the Divine Nature, this glory of the divinity, this beauty of the heavenly kingdom" (3,1,22;CWS p.80). Palamas asks: "Do you see that light is inaccessible to senses which are not transformed by the Spirit?" (2,3,22). St. Maximus, whose teaching is cited by St, Gregory, says that the Apostles saw the uncreated Light "by a transformation of the activity of their senses, produced in them by the Spirit" (2.3.22). Orthodox Psychotherapy Section The Knowledge of God according to St. Gregory Palamas by Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos published by Birth of Theotokos Monastery,Greece (January 1, 2005) ISBN 978-960-7070-27-2
  3. ^ As I have indicated, Barlaam insisted that knowledge of God depends not on vision of God but on one's understanding. He said that we can acquire knowledge of God through philosophy, and therefore he considered the prophets and apostles who saw the uncreated light, to be below the philosophers. He called the uncreated light sensory, created, and "inferior to our understanding". However, St. Gregory Palamas, a bearer of the Tradition and a man of revelation, supported the opposite view. In his theology he presented the teaching of the Church that uncreated light, that is, the vision of God, is not simply a symbolic vision, nor sensory and created, nor inferior to understanding, but it is deification. Through deification man is deemed worthy of seeing God. And this deification is not an abstract state, but a union of man with God. That is to say, the man who beholds the uncreated light sees it because he is united with God. He sees it with his inner eyes, and also with his bodily eyes, which, however, have been altered by God's action. Consequently theoria is union with God. And this union is knowledge of God. At this time one is granted knowledge of God, which is above human knowledge and above the senses.[60]
  4. ^ "The ancient Christian exegets of both East and West whom we identify as Fathers of the Church approached the matter from a more holistic point of view. Their writings were shaped by a particular hermeneutical perspective which they characterized by the name theoria. The expression refers to an 'inspired vision' of divine Truth as revealed in the person of Jesus Christ and in the biblical witness to him. That inspired vision - which itself is an essential part of Holy Tradition - enabled the Fathers to perceive depths of meaning in the biblical writings that escape a purely scientific or empirical approach to interpretation" (John Breck, Scripture in Tradition: The Bible and Its Interpretation in the Orthodox Church (St Vladimir's Seminary Press 2001), p. 11).
  5. ^ In Patristic tradition, theologians are the God-seers. Saint Gregory Palamas calls Barlaam [who attempted to bring Western scholastic theology into the Orthodox Church] a "theologian," but he clearly emphasises that intellectual theology differs greatly from the experience of the vision of God. According to Saint Gregory Palamas theologians are the God-seers; those who have followed the "method" of the Church and have attained to perfect faith, to the illumination of the nous and to divinisation (theosis). Theology is the fruit of man's cure and the path which leads to cure and the acquisition of the knowledge of God.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:East–West_Schism/Archive_5&oldid=816885636"