Talk:Filioque/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Any objection to my editing a subsection not under an EOC heading?

Since there were objections from two editors (LM and T b), on the grounds that I was editing Eastern Orthodox material, to my editing the section on the New Testament (which was then immediately after, not part of, the section headed "Eastern Orthodoxy"), I think it is prudent to ask beforehand whether they have grounds for objecting to my editing the subsection that is now headed "Theodoret's statement against Cyril", a subsection of "Theological contention", not of "Eastern Orthodoxy". I see that that subsection one-sidedly plays down, ignores or perhaps even distorts Cyril's teaching. I think it would be best to avoid having an Administrator again ask them to justify their objections. Esoglou (talk) 20:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth I object. Based on past experience

Montalban (talk) 09:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

On what actionable grounds? Esoglou (talk) 09:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Based on past experience Montalban (talk) 10:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I concur, because it's a breach of the editing restriction 'Esoglou will not make article edits or talk page comments regarding Eastern Orthodox teaching or practice'. The name of the section is irrelevant; you were banned from making edits on this topic.--Taiwan boi (talk) 14:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Montalban's objection obviously wouldn't get him very far with any Administrator he appealed to. Esoglou (talk) 15:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

As for Taiwan boi's claim that Cyril of Alexandria, whom the Roman Catholic Church looks on as a Doctor of the Church (one of only 33), is to be considered a preserve of the Eastern Orthodox Church's teaching and practice, I can't see this strange claim gaining any more credit than did his previous equally curious claim that the New Testament is a preserve of the Eastern Orthodox Church's teaching and practice. Esoglou (talk) 15:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Although I suspect Esoglou is right in principle, I think arguing the point is a waste of time.

At my suggestion and with the agreement of all involved, the edit restriction was changed some time ago to allow Esoglou and LoveMonkey to discuss their proposed edits. The purpose in prohibiting them from editing text regarding the other religion's beliefs is to keep them from edit warring which has been a serious problem in the past. However, it was felt that constructive discussion would help the project rather than detract from it.

Regardless of whether or not Esoglou's proposed edit would violate the edit restriction, I would encourage him to just present the proposed edit here on the Talk Page so we can all review it and discuss any issues.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Richard. I was not and am not planning to argue the point. I would just like to see if any even vaguely reasonable case could be made against, instead of the silence that follows an Administrator's request for evidence. So I am awaiting the response of the editor who every now and again runs to an Administrator to make the usual complaint, often followed by the other, who presents himself as a neutral observer. The one who goes first is my counterpart in this matter and I am happy to think that I never had the slightest urge to complain when he edits information about pre-schism Church writers, as he has been doing even on this article, sometimes in conflict with what Montalban says. When I get around to writing a revision of the subsection on Theodoret and Cyril, I will then present it either in the article itself or, just perhaps, on the Talk page - although why on earth the views of Th. and C. should be considered to concern Eastern Orthodox teaching rather than Roman Catholic teaching is, I suppose, incomprehensible except to people who have a similar view even of the New Testament :-) Esoglou (talk) 20:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Catholic viewpoint

The section on the ECFs is, according to one editor not a 'Catholic' seciton. This despite the fact it lead with this statement

Anthony Edward Siecienski identifies Hilary of Poitiers, the “Athanasius of the West”, and Augustine of Hippo as "the chief patristic source(s) for the Latin teaching on the filioque."

The LATIN TEACHING ON THE FILIOQUE. NOT JUST a support for the phrase "Father and Son".

It's so obvious I wonder why one editor would deny it's there.

This Catholic article by stealth is not in accordance with Wiki policy. Montalban (talk) 04:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. All the sentence says is that the Latin teaching on the filioque is based primarily on Hilary and Augustine. Now, we know that the Orthodox feel that Augustine and Thomas Aquinas are "where the Catholic Church went wrong" so it's not surprising to find Augustine at the source of one of the major controversies between the Catholic and Orthodox churches. If you feel that this section is a "Catholic" section, then perhaps it is because the section is composed primarily of quotes which are used to support the filioque. If this section were expanded to include Orthodox interpretations of why these quotes do not necessarily support the filioque, then the section would become more NPOV. It will take some effort but the sentence doesn't need to be changed or removed. It's just that much more needs to be written (and eventually most of the quotes will need to be removed or pushed into the references). --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 06:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Yet, I agree with your sentence in that the Latin teaching is based on Hilary and Augustine, but that opening sentence does not convey that meaning in that it doesn't convey that these same evidences also support another viewpoint.

For a novice reading this they would only see that the filioque as taught by the Latins is based on these evidences NOT that these evidence can be interpreted in a totally different way.

You get it when you say If you feel that this section is a "Catholic" section, then perhaps it is because the section is composed primarily of quotes which are used to support the filioque. That is correct, the article is written so as to show that these evidences support the filioque. Not that they can be used to support any other position.

I will try this yet another way.

The article has evidences that can be used to point to both positions. However the article only says that these evidences point to one position... the Catholic (Latin) one. That is misleading. It says so expressly that the Latin position is backed by these evidences - yes, it is based on these evidences, but these evidences also can be used to back another position. Not saying that they point to another position shows that they only point to one position - the Catholic.

A reader of this article would not otherwise know that these evidences can and are used by another point of view. All they read is that the filioque is backed by these sources. Full stop. That is, they only read a Catholic POV.

Furthermore

I don't need to address the Orthodox viewpoint in the article. Only that the evidences can be used by either case - and I've done this. It is not my intent to establish a comprehensive understanding of the Orthodox view. Only that the same evidences can be used to point to another position. Montalban (talk) 09:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Montalban wrote: "The article has evidences that can be used to point to both positions. However the article only says that these evidences point to one position.“

Alright, already. Enough blah-de-blah. So fix it and be done with it. Why waste so much time arguing this point. No one is objecting to you fixing it.

As for the rest of your comment, you may not feel the need to "address the Orthodox viewpoint in the article" but WP:NPOV requires that the article do so. There is no such thing as a "Catholic" article. In fact, I am not convinced that it is always useful to have a "Catholic" section and an "Orthodox" section rather than having a single integrated discussion presenting both sides. There is a relevant essay at WP:CRITICISM.

If no one else feels like doing presenting the Orthodox view, then I will get around to it eventually. However, I am not well qualified to do so and thus you are leaving the task in the hands of someone less qualified to do so.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Heh... my apologies... I thought Montalban removed the assertion from Siecienski when, in fact, what happened was that Esoglou moved it to the end of the section. I apologize to Montalban for thinking ill of him although the fact remains that his text is unsourced and I urge him to find a secondary source to support the assertions made in his two sentence intro to the section. As for Esoglou's moving the Siecienski text to the end, I do not think this is an improvement and would seek to move it back to the beginning of the section

Both Montalban and Esoglou have been engaging in quotefarming and this does not lead to readable text. We should seek to summarize what the quotes say and then provide the quotes in the references if they are truly needed. Even then, we should only put quotes in the references when absolutely necessary. Excessive use of quotation in the references leads to unreadable references. We should only put quotes in the references when the reader is likely to say, "Really? I don't believe that. Prove it to me with a direct quote from the source" or if the source says something truly remarkable. Otherwise, it's just beating down the reader with quote after quote, most of which are not that important. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, once again. I just noticed that the quotes in the "Church Fathers" section have been pushed into the references and thus my soapboxing about "quotefarming" is no longer applicable. I assume that it was Esoglou who did this. Thank you. The article text is much improved now. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 00:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Richard, what makes you think that, in spite of LoveMonkey's prolonged work on this article, the Eastern Orthodox Church is not represented in it? It gives views of Photius, Mark of Ephesus, Romanides, Zizioulas, and the 2003 joint statement, which are more authoritative indications of the Orthodox view than any construction that you or, probably, any other Wikipedia editor could put together. Esoglou (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Esoglou, what I wrote was sloppy because it confused the existence or non-existence of the "Orthodox point-of-view" in the section titled "Church Fathers" with the existence of the "Orthodox point-of-view" in the article as a whole. Montalban was complaining that the section titled "Church Fathers" suggested that the writings of the ECFs clearly supported the Catholic view of the filioque and, by failing to mention the Orthodox view, implied that anyone reading the ECFs would readily conclude that the ECFs supported the filioque. I invited him to remedy the problem and he did so but with unsourced text which cannot stand in its current state. The task at hand is to go find sourced text that asserts that the ECFs are interpreted by both Catholics and Orthodox in a way that is consistent with their position on the filioque. This should not be hard. I imagine we should be able to find a suitable quote if we look at Schaff, Siecienski among others. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

From a Catholic web-site

"Several Church fathers argued that the meaning of the filioque clause was no different from the meaning of the succinct teaching, "Father through the Son."

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/FILIOQUE.HTM

I don't want to go into a quote -v- quote format. Although I could offer such... Tertullian I believe that the Spirit proceeds not otherwise than from the Father through the Son" (Against Praxeas 4:1 [A.D. 216]).

Basil The Great "Through the Son, who is one, he [the Holy Spirit] is joined to the Father, one who is one, and by himself completes the Blessed Trinity" (The Holy Spirit 18:45 [A.D. 375])

And so under the first head is shown what unholy views they hold about the Divine Trinity: they affirm that the person of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost is one and the same, as if the same God were named now Father, now Son, and now Holy Ghost: and as if He who begot were not one, He who was begotten, another, and He who proceeded from both, yet another; but an undivided unity must be understood, spoken of under three names, indeed, but not consisting of three persons. This species of blasphemy they borrowed from Sabellius, whose followers were rightly called Patripassians also: because if the Son is identical with the Father, the Son’s cross is the Father’s passion (patris-passio): and the Father took on Himself all that the Son took in the form of a slave, and in obedience to the Father. Which without doubt is contrary to the catholic faith, which acknowledges the Trinity of the Godhead to be of one essence (ὁμοούσιον) in such a way that it believes the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost indivisible without confusion, eternal without time, equal without difference: because it is not the same person but the same essence which fills the Unity in Trinity.

Leo the Great Letter XV. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.ii.iv.xv.html Montalban (talk) 03:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Since "some Eastern Orthodox insist that to equate 'through the Son' with 'from the Son' is a departure from the true faith" (Filioque), I think you should take care, Montalban, about quoting with approval the view that "several Church fathers argued that the meaning of the filioque clause was no different from the meaning of the succinct teaching, 'Father through the Son'". See also Catechism of the Catholic Church, 248. Esoglou (talk) 08:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

For the life of me I still don't know what your objection is. You keep writing this about the Orthodox as if it's a revelation, but then you keep repeating it again - like I've made some astounding admission when it's Orthodox teaching that I've written

Montalban (talk) 11:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

It is another Wikipedia editor, less active now than before, who, I fear, might object. I have no objection to Montalban's opinion that in this context there is really no contradiction between "and the Son" and "through the Son". Indeed, all the better, the more widely his view is shared. Esoglou (talk) 14:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

That's not what I said. I said that the term "and the Son" as used by the ECFs can be used for those who believe in the Latin idea, and also the Orthodox idea.

On another day I might suspect that my words are being deliberately misinterpreted.

Montalban (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Ontology is about being. The Nicene Creed is ontological. Again the example that Jesus Christ was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary, and was made man. Means that the Holy Spirit as the spirit of the Father is given voice through the Son, Jesus Christ. Neither the Spirit nor the Son have the primacy (source of origin of all existence) of the Father.

To defend the filioque means that the original theology has not been understood by way of experiencing it. And people are thinking and not speaking from having experience. True theology gives one experience it is not something that "seems to make sense" it is something that cause people to see the light. TWO VERY DIFFERENT THINGS and one is no truth at all but a lie that men tell one another that leads to perdition for all whom by it persecute from their belief in that lie.

This means the Jesus and the Holy Spirit are the hands of God (the Father) and neither comes before the other nor does God as his spirit does he stop animating or vivifying existence. God the Father has two hands himself as angel or man (the Christ) and himself as spirit. God is father the uncreated essence of the Father is manifest through his two hands -his Son and his Spirit. There is no linear sequence to the uncreated hypostases that manifest created existence (if there was we would then be speaking of modalism and or it's pagan origin which is called middle platonism and then neoplatonism).

Montalban is right and has been right as what quotes are given as a justification for something that is not in the bible (i.e. the filioque) these examples are about the ontological definitions of God as is being stated in the Creed. This shows that the West was not that in touch with what was actually being done in the churchs in the East that their beliefs came from. As there is a difference between economy(inter-relation) ontology (origin) and activity (energeia). These things can not and can not be defined on paper or from a class or school book. As one can not learn how to swim from reading about it in a book. Or as it is said in the East, one can not learn gnosis from gnosis. This issue is about the West claiming supramacy when they have absolutely ZERO justification for such a thing and are exploited saints whom came before the attempted enforcement of the filique and acceptance of the filioque as all the early heresy was "no big deal" to the heretics. BUT WHAT THEIR HERESIES DID WAS CUT OFF COMMUNICATION BETWEEN GOD AND MAN AND REPLACE THAT WITH PUFFED UP HUMAN KNOWLEDGE. LoveMonkey (talk) 01:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the quotes is that they are out of context of the thoughts of the ECF - that's why they can be used to prove a number of positions.

I showed in discussion herein that some ECF say specifically from the Father and THROUGH the Son… which can be termed from the Father and the Son in other quotes but does not mean the double procession as used in the West.

However I accept that the RCC have a position, even if flawed.

What's unacceptable is that their position was stated here, and then each Orthodox point gets another Catholic statement again to 'contextualise' (read; Add Catholic POV).

Montalban (talk) 04:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Mostly I have to say what appears to be getting implied, which is, what Montalban is calling 'contextualise' is really Esoglou WP:OR. I have been pointing out this very thing for years. LoveMonkey (talk) 05:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Catholic teaching

One editor partially quoted the RCC's catechism. He missed this part...

248 ...but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P17.HTM

It is this qualifier that makes the Catholic 'acceptance' of 'through the Son' misleading because the Catechism here notes that both the Father and the Son together are the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds, and this is the doctrine of the double procession which is foreign to Orthodox teaching.

Montalban (talk) 11:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Montalban, the sentence that you refer to says that "the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as 'the principle without principle', is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that, as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds" - the single principle of the one procession. Yes, that's the teaching. And the same CCC 248 says there is no incompatibility between saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son and saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son - except, of course, for someone who adds to the expressions an incompatibility-seeking rigidity. Esoglou (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

That's not what it's saying. It's saying that the Son, as the Father is a principle cause for the Holy Spirit! Check the lead in with the son. Montalban (talk) 21:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Let us each be content with our own interpretation and let the other be content with his. Esoglou (talk) 07:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The statement in the article...

The position that having the creed say "the Holy Spirit which proceeds from the Father and the Son", does not mean that the Holy Spirit now has two origins, is not the position the West took at the Council of Florence. Where the Roman Catholic side explicitly stated that the Holy Spirit has its cause of existence from the Father and the Son

(apart from being another Catholic apologetic inserted into an Orthodox section)

is a contradiction. It states that the HS does not have two origins, but then the cause of the HS is from both the Father and the Son.

Montalban (talk) 23:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Tag it and if the author doesn't reply in a reasonable time, remove it. (The syntax clearly indicates who the author was.) Esoglou (talk) 07:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Citation request

I had added the statement The writings of the Church fathers, announcing that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son do not necessarily lend their support to either the Catholic position or the Orthodox one. The statement that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son can be used to support either position; that the Spirit comes from the Father and through the Son, or from Father and Son as principle cause.

An editor asked for a citation.

I removed a citation request because Catholic editors have already provided the references such as Hilary of Poitiers where it has Siecienski notes ...

Further I noted elsewhere herein the Talk section of a few quotes of ECF that could support another position. Montalban (talk) 23:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Should you not copy the references given elsewhere to the place where they are needed? I think Richard's request for a reliable-source citation in support of the claim you make here on - as far as a reader can judge - on your own authority alone, something that you know is not allowed in Wikipedia. And while supplying the required citation, please also correct the evident spelling error. Esoglou (talk) 07:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying your reference of Siecienski is not reliable?

I suggest, yet again that you re-read what it is you're responding to! :-) Montalban (talk) 08:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

For others: The sentence appears in the article...

Anthony E. Siecienski asserts that it is important to recognize that "the New Testament does not explicitly address the procession of the Holy Spirit as later theology would understand the doctrine."

It is implicitly accepted by Catholic editors though they haven't given a citation (I've now added a citation). It says in effect what I said later on in my lead in to the Holy Fathers section, that the evidence can be used for more than one interpretation.

HOWEVER, given it's me that wrote this, it gets objections from the usual editors who seek citations, clarifications etc., of everything I write. SO although they accept this from Siecienski, they want a citation.

Strange indeed. Stranger still because in the text it has Tertulian doing exactly that. It's not questioned there either. Maybe because I didn't add it?

Montalban (talk) 08:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no access to Siecienski's book and so cannot help you. So it's up to you yourself to add whatever statement in the book it is that you think supports your claim that "The writings of the Church fathers, announcing that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son do not necessarily lend their support to either the Catholic position or the Orthodox one. The statement that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son can be used to support either position; that the Spirit comes from the Father and through the Son, or from Father and Son as principle sic cause." The quotation from Siecienski that you give here is about the New Testament, not about the writings of the Church Fathers. So Richard still has every right to request a citation for this two-sentence claim about the writings of the Church Fathers. Indeed, every Wikipedia editor has the duty to ensure that the contents of this encyclopedia correspond to what is found in published reliable sources, and so we all have not only a right but a duty to ensure that you indicate a published reliable source in support of your two-sentence claim about the writings of the Church Fathers. That means that it is my duty, as much as anybody else's to request you publicly to indicate such an inline source - it is no good saying on Talk, not in the article itself, that the two-sentence claim is stated on some unspecified page of Siecienski's book. Quote Siecienski's words about the writings of the Church Fathers or at least indicate the page, and I am confident that Richard then be good enough to enter the citation in the article on your behalf. Esoglou (talk) 19:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Esoglou wrote: "I am confident that Richard then be good enough to enter the citation in the article on your (Montalban's) behalf." Even more than that, it was I that expanded the Church Fathers section to include Siecienski's analysis of various church fathers to show which ones were considered more solidly interpretable as support for the filioque and which ones were less clearly so. My contributions in this regard were limited by the fact that not all of Siecienski's chapter on "The Latin Fathers" was included in the Google Books preview and his entire chapter on "The Greek Fathers" was excluded. I am on the verge of purchasing this book because I find it very readable and exactly on the topic of this important topic. I'm also considering purchasing Schaff's "Historical excursus". I'm tired of having to plead "lack of access to sources".

Anyway, back to the discussion before us, the problem as I see it is that one might read Siecienski and come to the conclusion that Montalban came to or one might come to a different conclusion (depending, in part, on whether one has a Catholic POV or an Orthodox one). In the beginning of his chapter on "The Latin Fathers", Siecienski never says exactly what Montalban wrote. If he even came close, I would have added that citation to Montalban's text already. But, as I said, I don't have all of the "Latin Fathers" chapter or any of the "Greek Fathers" chapter available to me so I don't know for sure that Siecienski doesn't say something along those lines.

Until I or someone else can read all of Siecienski's book, we have to seek another source for Montalban's assertion. Ideally, it would be someone like Siecienski, Schaff, or Bokenkotter. But, it would be OK to have an Orthodox author such as Meyendorff, Romanides, Lossky or Bishop Kallistos (Ware). It is NOT OK to leave the assertion uncited even if one can wave one's hand in the general direction of Siecienski and say, "Well, you know he more or less implies that across several pages of the chapter on the Latin fathers.

Just to give you an idea of Wikipedia's standards for referencing, I will share with you my experience from working on an article on Jud Süß (1940 film). This article has over 80 separate citations with multiple references to several of those citations resulting in about 100 references. It has been classified as a good article. However, in the next step towards featured article status, a peer reviewer commented that there were still "a number of uncited statements in the prose". In reviewing the handful of examples provided by the reviewer, I found that a couple were easily referenced, another was based on text copied from the German Wikipedia and it turned out the specific people mentioned in that text could not be supported by anything I could find via Google search and yet another one turned out to be a bit of dodgy original research based on my own impression of what I had read but that could not be supported by an actual quote from any of the sources after I reread the sources. Here is a link to the actual (preliminary but incomplete) peer review: [1]. Note that a peer review is a preparatory step prior to an article becoming a featured article candidate. During an actual featured article candidacy, an article would be subject to even closer scrutiny. Brian Boulton's comments constitute just a quick "here's what I found after taking a quick look at your article."

This article on the filioque is rated "B-class". One of the criteria in getting it to "good article" status is making sure the assertions are well-referenced. I know that Montalban thinks that the assertion he wrote is true and I myself suspect it probably is. However, being true is not sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia. Support from a reliable source is also required.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations, Richard, on the results of your hard work on the Jud Süß film, a model for me and for others. Esoglou (talk) 20:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I really would encourage you guys to respond to what I write. Most of what I write otherwise becomes me having to re-state what I said in another way for either the purposes of helping with comprehension, or because you've missed my point. I don't know which case has arisen here, but here is another one. Pseudo-Richard said One of the criteria in getting it to "good article" status is making sure the assertions are well-referenced. I know that Montalban thinks that the assertion he wrote is true and I myself suspect it probably is. However, being true is not sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia. Support from a reliable source is also required.

I already noted that my assertion here is simply a repeat of (although re-worded) the same assertion given elsewhere in the document and supported by Siecienski who notes that the quote he gives doesn't support the modern western interpretation

When I removed the citation request I even drew your attention to where he says it. I wrote…

I removed a citation request because Catholic editors have already provided the references such as Hilary of Poitiers where it has Siecienski notes ...

You're both asking for citations of something that is not contentious because it's already stated. The only reason I added the statement in is because it's relevant to that particular section, on Church Fathers.

I pointed out to Esoglou that he accepts this author (as he's offered no criticism of that author) Montalban (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

If you have "this author" who says what you have put in the article, just type into the article a citation to where "this author" says it. Citations are supposed to be in the article, not on the Talk page. Esoglou (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

It's in the article Esoglou. Read what I wrote.

If someone writes "ECFs support a number of things" [1] (has a reference) and then later says "The writings of the ECFs can support a number of things" you ask for it to be sourced again, simply because you want everything I say sourced. Montalban (talk) 23:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Catholic Apologetics

The whole article is rife with Catholic POV - once again another Wiki article has been edited into a Catholic apologetics site.

Not only is the Catholic cause cited earlier, but when Orthodox objections are entered, there is Catholic counter-argument to this... such as here...

In the judgment of these Orthodox, the Roman Catholic Church is in fact teaching as a matter of Roman Catholic dogma that the Holy Spirit derives his origin and being (equally) from both the Father and the Son, making the Filioque a double procession.[79][80] This being the very thing that Maximus the Confessor was stating in his work from the 7th century that would be wrong and that the West was not doing.[81][82][83] Montalban (talk) 23:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

An example of achieving balance by citing opposing interpretations: "When reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance". Use it on any other statements that you find contradicted by reputable sources. Esoglou (talk) 07:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I understand Esoglou that you want to balance every non-Catholic point with a Catholic one.

I understand that for you only an article featuring Catholic argument, or counter-argument in turn countered by further Catholic argument is balanced

Montalban (talk) 08:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia, I presume you know, is not for arguing. It is not a forum. It is for information available in reliable sources. So, as already said, if you think the information that one source contains is contradicted by that given in another, then add what that other source says, citing it. Esoglou (talk) 18:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually Esoglou, it's for more than that. Reliable sources is not itself sufficient, not the way you structure an article to read as Catholic POV. If one only offered one perspective on this article, it wouldn't matter how reliable your sources are, it would still be un-balanced. I suggest you have a look at this for the spirit of Wiki requires we work to have balanced articles. Not Catholic Q & A Montalban (talk) 21:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Citation doesn't support the position

Footnote 81 is placed there by an editor (whoever it was) who I think misses the point that the citation is making

The contention is that St Maximos' acceptance of the filioque was provisional and in no way like the RCC now maintains (which is what the citation states), it misses the point that the Franks introduced a different notion and that this is the one that the West accepted.

Rominades is in fact saying that – he's defending St Maximos NOT the filioque as the Latin church uses. Montalban (talk) 23:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Put a {{Failed verification|date = ...}} tag on it and, if the editor who inserted it does not defend it within a reasonable time, remove it. Esoglou (talk) 07:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Propose moving first three sections into "Historical Overview"

It seems to me that the "Historical Overview" should start with the "New Testament" section, followed by the "Earliest use" followed by "Church fathers". I would also propose that the entire "Historical Overview" be moved ahead of "Current positions" since the "current positions" are the endpoint of the historical development. However, since this is a radical restructuring, I figured I'd propose the change here first before making it. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support Esoglou (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

One needs to know that the evidence of some Church Fathers as presented can support either position. Montalban (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Added reference due to flippant requests

I've added a reference due to flippant requests for one from two editors. Anthony E. Siecienski is already in the article giving several statements to this effect.

At footnote 9 he makes a general appraisal of the differences between ECF evidences and what people use that for. At footnote 31 he gives a specific example. However when I said it in the lead in to the section two editors demanded that it be referenced yet again. They demanded a reliable source. I mentioned that they already accept this source.

Every time I am happy to oblige. Montalban (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I added one from Yves Congar too, about the interpretation of the evidences... I did this because apparently reading it in the article, attributed to Siecienski is not enough ?????

Montalban (talk) 23:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Congar is certainly a superior source to Siecienski. I have my doubts about the Congar quote since it doesn't quite provide the specific context in which he is making his remark but since the book title clearly indicates that he is talking about the Holy Spirit in general, I'm willing to assume good faith for now.

As for the Siecienski quote, the problem is that it is taken from the chapter on the "New Testament", not the chapter on the "Latin Fathers". If it had been as easy as that, I would have done it myself a long time ago. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the portion of the "Latin Fathers" chapter that is available via Google Books Preview that states what you wrote. Now, if I thought what you wrote was false, I would be hammering you harder on this point but since we can see that what you wrote is what Siecienski meant even though he didn't write it explicitly (at least not as far as we can tell without reading the rest of the book), it's OK to leave the text in there for now. I would be inclined to remove the reference though since it fails verification.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 05:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Misrepresenting the Catholic position

The Catholic position misrpresented (they believe in the double procession - as first cause)

Montalban (talk) 03:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Many failed verifications

I found about a half dozen in just one small section. I don't think this is well researched Montalban (talk) 11:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Montalban's evaluation of these statements that have been in the article in essentially the same form since 9 June 2010. Esoglou (talk) 12:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Inapproprite icon/image/graphic

The image by Rublev, titled "The Holy Trinity", in the context of this page, gives the sense of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The icon is "a" holy trinity of angels, not The Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost. The image is, apparently, also known as "Angels at Mamre" and shows the three Angels being hosted by Abraham at Mamre. See:http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Andrej_Rubl%C3%ABv_001.jpg and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Angelsatmamre-trinity-rublev-1410.jpg 67.166.53.234 (talk) 02:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC) Court

Why is that inappropriate? The Trinity was often depicted/represented as three angels.

Montalban (talk) 02:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Interpolation into the Nicene Creed

I reverted LoveMonkey's restoration of text that Esoglou had apparently deleted earlier (based on LM's edit summary). My rationale for this reversion is twofold. First, the text is a POV rant and, if it were to be restored anywhere in Wikipedia, it needs to be rewritten in a more encyclopedic tone. Secondly, even if it were in an encyclopedic tone, it doesn't belong in that particular spot in the article. The section in question, "Interpolation into the Nicene Creed", is a subsection of the section titled "Recent attempts at reconciliation". The Interpolation happened a long time ago and any treatment of that interpolation should have been presented earlier in the article, not in any section with the word "recent' in the section title. In reading what remains of the subsection " Interpolation into the Nicene Creed", I have to say that I am lost as to what the point of the section is relative to the overall section topic of "Recent attempts at reconciliation". I think some significant work is needed to get the " Interpolation into the Nicene Creed" section back onto the topic of the section. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 05:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The rant removed was also a violation of LoveMonkey's undertaking to refrain from making edits about Roman Catholic teaching or practice. Esoglou (talk) 11:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

So much for good faith. More blanket deleting and labeling things that these two edit warring Roman Catholic POV pushing editors don't like a rant. Its sourced. Rather than reword or address Richard and Esoglou delete and attack. Esoglou has already repeatedly violated his edit restrictions,[2], [3], [4],[5], [6], [7] etc etc etc where as what I posted is not a violation. There's nothing in the restrictions [8] that say I can't post the Eastern Orthodox perspective on why the Orthodox see the Roman Catholics as again again again and again moving the goal posts whenever the Orthodox make a point. (However this current edit is no such thing). Remember the restrictions under Esoglou's name.

• Esoglou will not make article edits or talk page comments regarding Eastern Orthodox teaching or practice.[9]

Esoglou's edit [10] violates that. As Esoglou is not supposed to be calling Eastern Orthodox sourced position ANYTHING LET ALONE RANTS. Note my sourcing is not Orthodox (Anthony Edward Siecienski) nor about Roman Catholic teaching or Roman Catholic practice it states actual events (not theological positions or practice) that occurred in history that reflect that the Roman Catholic church forced repeatedly the Eastern Orthodox to recite the filioque, also the source is one that Richard has endorsed while wiki hounding me.[11] This is not about policy or NPOV or rants this is about Roman Catholic editors not liking what the source says about their church forcing another group to do. As that undermines their POV pushing edit warring and put their whitewash POV that proceeds it, in context to ACTUAL HISTORICAL EVENTS not statements about theology or Roman Catholic practice. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

After 3 reverts of blanket deletion but no rewrites, or moving of the content to other parts of the article and over response to my comments on the talkpage here. I compromised and removed what was not sourced from the section and restored the sourced material alone. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

LoveMonkey, how can you say that this edit concerning a text that begins: "However this might be considered a modern abnegation [sic] of the position as held by the Roman Catholic church in the past", the edit that you refer to above and that I cited earlier, is a violation of the restriction "Esoglou will not make article edits or talk page comments regarding Eastern Orthodox teaching or practice"? And how can you not see that in inserting that same text you were violating the restriction "LoveMonkey will not make article edits or talk page comments regarding Roman Catholic teaching or practice"? If I too were vindictive, I would have reported this violation to an administrator, along with the other edit "concerning Roman Catholic teaching or practice" that you made on the same day. Do you want me to report it? If you insist, I will. Esoglou (talk) 22:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring

I confess to edit-warring with LoveMonkey although, obviously, it takes two to edit war and, as it happens, LoveMonkey has drawn a block because,as he has obviously forgotten, it's always bad for one person to edit-war against two other editors because the solo editor will run afoul of the WP:3RR rule first. That wasn't really my intent although I was aware of the possibility. I was just feeling ornery and abandoned my usual commitment to observe WP:1RR. In recognition of the "both sides equally guilty" principle, I will refrain from editing this article until LoveMonkey's block has been lifted, thus leaving LM's last set of edits in place rather than reverting them once again. That way, I hope to avoid the impression of taking advantage of his absence during his block. Besides which, I suspect a further edit by me within 24 hours might be construed as violating the 3RR rule so I will stay clear of the "bright line" just in case.

That said, I have tried to communicate both here and via edit summaries that my primary issue is not with what LoveMonkey's text says but with where he wants to put it. It does not help to go all the way back to what happened at the Council of Florence when discussing recent developments (presumably within the last half a century to last century).

Moreover, LoveMonkey's text was a poorly-written rambling rant about injuries inflicted over 600 years ago. I am not at all opposed to providing an NPOV presentation of Orthodox objections to the Filioque and to any attempts to reconcile the two churches. However, such presentation must avoid the appearance of being WP:OR and WP:SYNTH which is what LoveMonkey's text smacked of.

When LoveMonkey returns, I hope he will join in a more collegial and collaborative style that will address these issues.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Call for collegiality and collaboration

The section "Recent attempts at reconciliation" covers both Orthodox and Catholic views, and even those views are not necessarily held by all Orthodox or all Catholics. I think it would be better if LoveMonkey and Esoglou would just behave more collegially and make it unnecessary to have this edit restriction at all. Esoglou, I urge you to treat LoveMonkey's block as if it were a page protection. Please do not edit the article text until his block expires. There is, after all, no deadline and the text in question isn't wrong per se, it's just soapboxing and soapboxing in the wrong place, to boot. Let us restrict ourselves to discussing on the Talk Page what the issues are with LM's text for now and then be prepared to edit the article to address those issues after his block expires in about eighteen hours. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 23:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you have not noticed that I have not even once touched LoveMonkey's present text. What you have written below perhaps suggests that you have indeed not noticed it. If I had wanted to edit LoveMonkey's present text, I would have done so last night. So there is no danger that I will edit it before the end of his block, of which I would have known nothing, if you hadn't told me. When it ends, perhaps he will explain his ridiculous charge that when, after warning him, I removed his previous text, which was an argument claiming that Roman Catholic teaching had been reversed (an alleged "abnegation" of Roman Catholic teaching), I was violating a restriction regarding Eastern Orthodox teaching or practice, and also explain how he can possibly imagine that, when he inserted that argument of his own making (not an explicit reporting of what some Eastern Orthodox theologian said), he was not violating the restriction placed on himself against making edits about Roman Catholic teaching or practice. Esoglou (talk) 07:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I had assumed that you knew of LoveMonkey's block. My apologies if that caused me to judge your comment more harshly as a result. I had read it with a sense that you were kicking a man when he was down. In particular, the words "Do you want me to report it? If you insist, I will." sounded confrontational as did the text that preceded it.

LoveMonkey was blocked for reporting me as engaging in edit-warring. The investigation revealed that he had violated WP:3RR and I technically had not crossed that line yet. (Serendipitously, I was in a rush to get out the door to go to church and so I did not have time to engage in any further edit-warring yesterday morning. Were it not for that, it is possible that I would have gone one extra step and wound up drawing a block myself and wound up sitting in the penalty box right next to LoveMonkey. God works in mysterious ways...)

In truth, I find LoveMonkey's aggressiveness and strident comments very aggravating and it makes my blood boil at times. What goes through my mind at times is much nastier than what flows out my fingertips onto the keyboard. However, I generally choose to ignore his invective as going toe-to-toe with him is just a huge waste of time and energy. Life is too short.

As for LoveMonkey's text which is currently in the article, I intend to review it and work it into shape. 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.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 01:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Recent theological perspectives

I created the section "Recent theological perspectives" from "Recent attempts at reconciliation" because, at the time, I thought they were different things. Perhaps the only difference between the two sections is that "Recent theological perspectives" discusses independent statements by individual theologians whereas "Recent attempts at reconciliation" discusses a more formal, coordinated statement by delegates from both churches. The "Recent theological perspectives" section was a mish-mash of points with no clear logical flow of points. I've tried to remedy that by re-organizing the text. I'm still a bit at a loss as to where to put the text about Maximus the Confessor. It seems to me that discussion of his writings should probably go earlier in the "Recent theological perspectives" section.

I'd like to hear what other editors think before I proceed with further reorganization of this section.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 03:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't the information on non-recent Maximus be put with the earlier (main?) mention of him (under "First Eastern opposition")? Esoglou (talk) 12:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I did consider that but, since the section was titled "Importance of Saint Maximus in Ecumenical Relations", I thought I had better take a more conservative approach and leave it in the "Recent theological perspectives" section pending further discussion here. I agree that Maximus is not recent; however, the text of this section focuses on what theologians have written recently about what Maximus said. I am not familiar enough with this topic to determine if Maximus is indeed a focal point of recent theological debate on the Filioque. Even if we keep this section, I am not comfortable with the current section title because the text doesn't actually make the assertion (i.e. that Maximus is important in the theological debate, let alone "ecumenical relations"). At the moment, all we know is that a number of important theologians have quoted Maximus but we don't know if he is just one of many Church fathers who have been cited or if he is the single most important father to be cited. (I suspect that he is, in fact, very important to the current debate but I am taking the Wikipedia "show me with sources that say it explicitly" approach here) To make this assertion in a section heading or in the article text, we need a source (e.g. Siecienski) who actually makes the assertion that recent theological debate has focused on Maximus as providing the basis on which to find a mutually agreeable understanding of the Filioque. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Update: Siecienski wrote that "Among the hundreds of figures involved in the filioque debates throughout the centuries, Maximus the Confessor enjoys a privileged position." That still doesn't quite tie Maximus to the recent theological debate but it's pretty close. It at least explains why Maximus is cited by so many current theologians. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no doubt that Maximus as an Easterner who defended the Western Filioque belief and who is looked on as a saint by both sides enjoys a privileged position. I said "the Western Filioque belief", not "the insertion of Filioque in the Creed", which had not yet occurred in Rome; but the belief was universal in the West, as Maximus recognized. Esoglou (talk) 20:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

How is this relevant?

The article text in the "Inclusion in the Nicene Creed" section includes this text:

The elucidations that the Armenian Apostolic Church adds to the Nicene Creed are much more numerous than the two added by the Latin Church. Another change made to the text of the Nicene Creed by both the Latins and the Greeks is to use the singular "I believe" in place of the plural "we believe", while all the Churches of Oriental Orthodoxy, not only the Armenian, but also the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria,[225] the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church,[226] the Malankara Orthodox Church,[227] and the Syrian Orthodox Church,[228]have on the contrary preserved the "we believe" of the original text.

How is this relevant to the Filioque? It seems to discuss other "elucidations to the Nicene Creed" and changes such as "I believe" instead of "we believe". Sounds like OR to me. And irrelevant OR at that. I propose to delete this text unless someone can explain why it is important to keep in this article. It might be useful to have in the article on the Nicene Creed but I can't see why we need it in this article.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It shows that: a) the Western church is not the only church to make additions to the Creed; b) that even the Eastern Orthodox Church itself does not treat the text of the Creed as untouchable, but makes a couple of (slight) adjustments to it (from plural to singular), adjustments that not all ancient Christian churches accept.

That it may be original research I do not question. Esoglou (talk) 21:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It's all Greek to me

The article text includes this sentence: " For this reason, the Roman Catholic Church has refused the addition of καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ to the formula ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον of the Nicene Creed in the Churches, even of Latin rite, which use it in Greek with the Greek verb "έκπορεύεσθαι"."

Can someone please translate the Greek for me? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

καὶ (and) τοῦ (the) Υἱοῦ (Son), with τοῦ Υἱοῦ being the genitive case of ὁ Υἱός, = Filioque, with Filio being the ablative case of Filius. ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον is explained in the opening lines of the article, with ἐκπορευόμενον being the present participle of the verb whose present infinitive is έκπορεύεσθαι. Verbs in Latin and Greek are referred to by the form of the present infinitive (as in German, which you know) or sometimes by the first person singular of the present indicative, which in this case would be ἐκπορεύομαι Esoglou (talk) 20:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Eastern Orthodox teaching regarding the Filioque

I have significantly trimmed the "Eastern Orthodox" section of the "Current positions of various churches" section. My rationale for this is that the section was waaay too long and created an imbalance because that section was at least twice the length of the section on the Catholic Church. Moreover, it repeated material that was covered or should have been covered in the "History" section which is itself too long given the existence of History of the Filioque controversy. Over time, the "History" section in this article should be reduced to a summary of History of the Filioque controversy. However, being an inclusionist and also cognizant of the fact that there are Orthodox editors who feel it important to exhaustively present the entire history of Eastern Orthodox theological doctrine, I have created a separate article on Eastern Orthodox teaching regarding the Filioque which preserves the entire "Eastern Orthodox" section of the "Current positions of various churches" section before I trimmed it. Over time, this article should be edited so that it provides only a summary of Eastern Orthodox teaching regarding the Filioque . My initial effort at trimming takes a first step in this direction but I expect additional work can be done to make the "Eastern Orthodox" section even more concise than it is now.

I recognize that Esoglou's edit restriction bars him from editing Eastern Orthodox teaching regarding the Filioque. However, the restriction does not bar him from commenting on the Talk Page. I would urge him to watch that article and engage in discussions on the Talk Page in a collegial and collaborative manner.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

"Roman Catholic" subsection in "Current positions of various churches" section

I have completely reorganized this section, commenting out a couple of paragraphs that seemed to be more historical than directly relevant to the "current position" of the Catholic Church. Of course, all history is relevant to the current position but, in the same vein as my trimming of the Eastern Orthodox section, I think we have to draw the line somewhere lest we repeat the whole history of the filioque every time we discuss the current position. I also felt that the "Roman Catholic" subsection was a bit of a mish-mash and tried to re-order the points being made in a more logical flow.

I would appreciate if another editor would review this section to see if the end-result has accurately presented the current Roman Catholic position on the filioque.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

First Eastern opposition

The section titled "First Eastern opposition" seems to be indicating Monothelite Patriarch Paul II of Constantinople as the "first Eastern opposition" to the filioque. This source, however, suggests that the first true opposition to the filioque arose in the early ninth century. How should we resolve this? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 09:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Distinguishing meanings very often show that apparent contradictions are not really contradictions at all. The opposition expressed at the time of the Monothelite problem was against the doctrine of Filioque, traditional in the West (and to some extent in Alexandria), as Maximus pointed out, but was not against the insertion of the expression Filioque into the Creed. The first opposition that we know of to the insertion was by the Eastern monks in Jerusalem whose protest led to the Western request to the Pope to give the insertion papal sanction. This, I think, is the "first true opposition" that you speak of. The book you quote could even be interpreted differently: it goes on to say that "the real watershed" was later in the ninth century, at the time of Photius. Esoglou (talk) 16:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

These distinctions will have to be made clear in the text, especially in the section headings. I'm thinking that a better section heading might be "Defense against Monothelite criticism", thus deferring to the text any discussion of what the "first" opposition was. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

What's unclear, in that respect, about the "First Eastern opposition"? It says nothing about the Creed. And Bulgakov etc. do say it was the first case of an Eastern objection. Perhaps what you find confusing is the really off-topic talk about Monothelitism. I am revising it to concentrate on the subject matter of this article. If you consider this acceptable, I may find time later to add more sources. Esoglou (talk) 21:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Photian controversy

The text in the "Photian controversy" section includes this sentence: " At least three councils (867, 869, 879) where held in Constantinople over the deposition of Ignatius by Emperor Michael III and the his replacement by Photius." Something seems to be missing in the phrase "and the his replacement by Photius" but I can't figure out what was intended. Can anybody help? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 09:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Lossky and Halleux

Moving this here from my Talk Page

Do you have access to the Lacoste work? I agree that what was stated about Lossky seems quite unlikely, but the source given for that seems to be the same as that given for what is said about Halleux, which has been allowed to remain. The less stable Internet source for the extract from Lacoste is no longer available. Esoglou (talk) 10:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not have access to the Lacoste source. I removed Lossky's from the text because it seemed highly unlikely. I don't know anything about Halleux so I left his name there. I've now commented out the entire sentence. My impression is that the sentence is actually correct if the names of Lossky and Halleux are left out. I don't have time to research this further this morning but I'll try to come back and look into this more deeply in the next few days. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Church Fathers

The article currently contains this text:

These writings can be used to support either the Latin idea of the procession of the Holy Spirit, or the Orthodox idea. The writings of the Church fathers, announcing that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son do not necessarily lend their support to either the Catholic position or the Orthodox one. The statement that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son can be used to support either position; that the Spirit comes from the Father and through the Son, or from Father and Son as principle cause.

The original reference was to page 17 in Siecienski which was incorrect because that is the first page of his chapter on the New Testament. A better reference would be to page 34 which is the first page of the chapter on the Greek Fathers. However, the article text seems to say something slightly different from what Siecienski wrote on page 34:

As with biblical material, it would be inaccurate to claim that the Greek Patristic corpus explicitly addressed the procession of the Spirit from the Son (positively or negatively) as later theology would understand it. The pneumatological concerns of the Greek fathers (e.g. establishing the full divinity of the Holy Spirit) did not include a detailed exploration of how the Son was (or was not) involved in the hypostatic coming-into-being of the third person of the Trinity. For that reason, the claim, made both by Greeks and Latins throughout the centuries, that the Eastern fathers explicitly advocated or condemned the filioque, cannot be sustained by the evidence we possess.

And yet, the writings of the Greek fathers do contain important Trinitarian principles, later used by both East and West in their respective theologies of the procession. Particularly important in this regard, were the anti-Eunomian writings of the Cappadocian fathers (which expressed a hesitancy about confusing economy with theology), the Council of Constantinople's creedal affirmation that the Spirit proceeded fromt the Father, and the anti-Sabellian polemic (which made the protection of each person's unique hypostatic properties, especially the Father's role as one cause within the godhead, a special concern for the East).

Yet alongside these traditional themes there was also in the Greek Fathers, particularly in the works of Gregory of Nyssa and Cyril of Alexandria, an effort to establish the eternal relationship between the Son and the Spirit , recognizing that the persons of the Trinity, while distinct, cannot be separated. For this reason, there appears in the fathers an increasing awareness that both the mission of the Spirit and his eternal "flowing forth" from the Father take place "through the Son". While not equivalent to the belief that the Spirit eternally "proceeds" from the Son, this teaching remained an important part of Eastern trinitarian theology for centuries to come.

The current article text is a broad, sweeping assertion that sweeps the nuances discussed by reliable sources under the rug. It might be more accurate to say that the Greek Fathers, taken in the aggregate, do not clearly support one side or the other because the issue of procession hadn't really arisen yet. Thus, later theologians had to look back at the Greek Patristic writings and infer what the Greek Fathers would have supported. Thus, some of the writings of individual Greek Fathers can be interpreted for the filioque, others against the filioque, and some can be interpreted both for and against the filioque.

Siecienski's chapter on the Latin Fathers is not available via Google Books so it looks like I'll have to wait until I purchase the book to proceed on that topic.

Comments? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

What did the Fathers say? Some (perhaps all) that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father. Some (Latins and Alexandrians) that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father and the Son. Some (to a small extent in the West but more in the Cappadocian-tradition East and also the Alexandrian-tradition East) that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father through the Son. None of the ancient Fathers (none before Photius?) that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father alone, without involvement of the Son.

What they said can be objectively stated.

What they meant is disputed. Treatment of this question would properly require weighing views on what each Father intended by each phrase he used: a reference to intra-Trinitarian relationships, or to relationships with Christians or human beings in general, or to both intra-Trinitarian and extra-Trinitarian relationships together? Esoglou (talk) 18:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree and yet what you wrote is basically analyzing primary sources and thus risks being characterized as OR. It would be better to cite secondary sources such as Siecienski and McGuckin who do this analysis. IMO, the quote that I provided from Siecienski above is quite good but it's too long. I plan to work a summary of what Siecienski wrote into the article text. It doesn't contradict what's there now; it just amplifies it in a way that makes it clearer that the issue of the "procession of the Holy Spirit" was not yet an issue foremost in the writings of the Greek Fathers. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Siecienski devotes a page or more on each of the following Greek Fathers: Origen, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Didymus the Blind, Athanasius, Basil the Great and Gregory of Nazianzus. (he probably discusses at least a few more fathers as the preview ends at page 40 and the chapter on the Greek Fathers continues to page 50) AFAICT, he does do the weighing of what each father said that you suggest is required. Obviously, no one source has a lockhold on the truth but what's needed is a non-partisan survey of what has been written on the subject and Siecienski appears to have written the most comprehensive study of the field from (AFAICT) an unbiased perspective. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I am not suggesting that we weigh views of our own on what the individual Fathers meant by one phrase or another. Interpreting the statements of the Fathers, instead of just reporting what they said, would indeed be original research. I am only saying that, if we were to deal "properly" with what the statements meant, we'd have to weigh the view of Siecienski against other views. Of course we could give Siecienski's view alone, either just indicating that it is Siecinski's view or perhaps also saying that it is, if we can source the statement (for otherwise, even this would be original research), "the most comprehensive study of the field" (at least the general field, whatever about monographs on an individual Father) and that it is described by some authority as non-partisan and unbiased. If the Fathers, whether Latins or Greeks or Syriacs, had discerned that the matter was one about which there would be discussion, they wouldn't have been content with merely making what were little more than passing remarks in relation to it. Esoglou (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Is there still an NPOV dispute?

This article is flagged as WP:POV, but it's unclear from the talk page (or from recent archives) whether the dispute is still ongoing or has been resolved. Marking an article with an NPOV dispute is supposed to be a "temporary measure" (as per WP:NPOV_dispute#What_is_an_NPOV_dispute?), but this one has been marked for more than a year.

If there is still a dispute going on, it would be nice to mark the specific section(s) as opposed to the entire article. PascalLeroy (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

As I remember it, the editor who added the tag never explained it. Esoglou (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Writing Style

Skimming this article, I noticed that it uses quite a bit of jargon, and needs to be brought down a level to simpler, more accessible language.

Envsgirl (talk) 01:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Envsgirl

Lead

After a quick, not so profound, glance at the archives, I did not find anything about what I'll discuss here. If it has been discussed, I apologize before hand.
Currently, the lead reads "Filioque is a phrase found in the form of Nicene Creed in use in the Latin Church." I am wondering about the use of "Latin Church" (as wikilinked to the Latin Roman Church) as opposed to "Western churches", many of which historically came from the Latin Church. Isn't the phrase exclusive of non-"Roman Latin Churches" (i.e. Anglicans (I know about the mandate, which doesn't clarify the theology), Protestants, Old Catholics, etc.)?
Also, I don't know if by Western churches, it is clear that Western rite Orthodoxy is excluded. What do y'all think? Latin Roman Catholics are not the only ones to theologically support the filioque. Could the phrasing be changed? Am I over reading the phrase? Thanks in advance.--Coquidragon (talk) 22:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Good catch. "Latin Church" is too narrow a description. Most Protestant denominations use the Filioque as well. The Anglican Communion has stated its intent to remove the Filioque from the Nicene Creed in the next revision of its Book of Common Prayer but has not yet done so. Do you have a better wording to propose? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 01:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe "Filioque is a phrase found in the form of Nicene Creed in use in most of the Western Christian churches?"--Coquidragon (talk) 01:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Kallistos Ware's opinion

The article doesn't take into account that Kallistos Ware accepts the west's view of the filioque ONLY if couched in the terms of early Fathers such as Augustus (A History of Christian Doctrine Scholars' Editions in Theology p110)

At the bottom of that page he states a difference in position between a filioque as understood by Augustine and a filioque as accepted at the Council of Florence

This distinction that HE makes is not bourne out by the Wiki article

AND thus the article as a whole is unbalanced for whilst it has sections on Orthodox who don't support the filioque AND has those who are supposedly not against it, it doesn't show any divisions in belief within the Roman Catholic church... which Ware notes (p112)

Is the filioque Catholic dogma?

Montalban (talk) 16:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

"Loose and unguarded language"

An editor at IP 173.79.41.44 has inserted in the article the following comment, which I am moving here:

In Gregory's Life of Saint Benedict (Vita Benedicti), written in 593, the Pope states that everyone agrees ("constat") that the The Spirit, the Paraclete proceeds always from the Father and the Son ("Paraclitus Spiritus ex Patre semper procedat et Filio"). In the recent Sources Chrétiennes edition of Jacque Fontaine this is in Chapter 38, paragraph 4 (Dialogues 2.38.4). Perhaps Siecienski treats this text; if not, the phrase "loose and unguarded language" has no place in this treatment of Gregory's thought on the Filioque.

The phrase "loose and unguarded language", quoted by Siecienski on page 70, did not refer to any denial by Gregory the Great that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The phrase mentioned by 173.79.41.44 is quoted by Siecienski himself in the form: "cum enim constet quia Paracletus Spiritus a Patre simper [sic] procedat et Filio" (since it is clear that the Paraclete Spirit always proceeds also from the Son). Siecienski adds that a Greek translation of the same text reads instead: "ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς προέρχεται καὶ ἐν τῷ Υἱῷ διαμένει", a statement that the Spirit "proceeds" (not the same verb as in the Nicene Creed, but instead the verb that Maximus the Confessor used to translate Latin procedere, when he approved its use with regard to the Spirit proceeding from the Son) "from the Father and abides in the Son". This translation - a translation, not what Gregory himself wrote - became the basis, Siecienski says, of the later Byzantine assertion that Gregory did not support the double procession.

Siecienski in no way questions the fact that the Latin Fathers said the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as the Father. But he speaks instead of a question that is not dealt with in any depth in the Wikipedia article, namely the interpretation of the phrase "from the Father and the Son". Siecienski says that in the Fathers this phrase did not necessarily carry with it all the notions about cause or principle, single or twofold, that later theologians found in it or attached to it. It is at that level, not that of the use of the phrase "and from the Son" that Siecienski speaks of different Western and Byzantine positions. I don't think we have either the need or the capability of going into that question on Wikipedia, and any attempt will only confuse and mislead. Not even the Latin version of the Nicene Creed goes into that question. What we can say is that the Latin Fathers and some of those in the East - as Maximus agreed - did speak of the Holy Spirit as proceeding (procedere, προϊέναι) from the Father and the Son. Even the presentation now in the Wikipedia article 173.79.41.44 found misleading, and not without reason. I must get around to remedying the obscurity caused by seeming to present Siecienski as doubting that the Latin Fathers spoke of the Holy Spirit as proceeding from the Father and the Son. They did say that. And that is all that the Latin version of the Nicene Creed says. Of course, the Fathers also spoke of the Holy Spirit as proceeding from the Father, but never as proceeding from the Father alone. Esoglou (talk) 08:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Why this articles is pro Roman Catholic POV.

• What's missing.
  

This article does not explain that the Roman Catholic church has a very violent history of trying to force the filioque to be added into the Creed and accepted permanently and recited in the Nicene Creed by both East and West, UNIVERSALLY, catholicos. That means that all Christians no matter their language or culture would be forced whenever reciting the creed to have to recite the filioque as a permanent part of the creed or accept it as correct teaching and dogma. It is a rather new phenomenon for the Roman Catholic church to not call the Eastern Orthodox heretics for NOT using or accepting the filioque.
The Roman Catholic stance has been they made modifications to the creed outside of an Ecumenical council (with the East) and are justified and can do that PERIOD. It is a relatively new thing for the Roman Catholic church to not push that the Creed both East and West have the filioque and that only the Western Roman Catholic churches have to recite it. The Eastern Catholics are coming to the realization that they are not understood by the Roman Catholic church by in large and that them embracing only the first 7 ecumenical councils as truly Ecumenical is simply not a view held by the Roman Catholic faithful by and large. There are other ugly things coming out that do not bode well for the Unite but that is outside of this article's scope. LoveMonkey (talk) 03:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm very open to discussing these points in the article as long as it is done in a balanced and encyclopedic way. I agree that the recent efforts at unity and amity date back only about half a century and that before that there were centuries of animosity. Unfortunately, I am in the 99% of Catholics that know very little about this. Wikipedia, and particularly you and to a lesser extent Montalban, have started my education in this regard but I recognize that I remain mostly uneducated on this topic. Would you like to take a stab at addressing these issues or would you prefer to leave some notes here on the Talk Page for others such as myself to edit and then insert into the article? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:27, 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. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Heresy or theologoumenon

I refrain from personally responding within the article to the citation request for the statement that not all Orthodox insist on a declaration by the West that Filioque is heretical. So would someone else please respond to it by citing this statement about a "view also held by many Orthodox at the present time"? Or this statement that "some Orthodox theologians, while affirming that the doctrine of the filioque is unacceptable for the Orthodox church, at the same time, having in mind the position of Prof. Bolotov (1854-1900) and his followers, regard the filioque as a 'theologoumenon' in the West"? Or this statement by John Zizioulas? Or something similar? Esoglou (talk) 10:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I took a quick look at it and I think I will try to respond to the citation request but it looks like I'll need to invest a bit of time into the task and I'm short on time at the moment. If you can ask someone else to help, please do so. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I suppose any one of the sources I mentioned would be a reliable source for the statement that not all Orthodox insist on a declaration by the West that Filioque is heretical. Or indeed any of the other sources that are already mentioned within the article in the section "Orthodox theologians who do not condemn the Filioque". One should be enough. Esoglou (talk) 19:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Why the article is biased and misinformation

There is missing from this article (as I have pointed out time and time again in the past) a very simple and clear explanation of why the Eastern Orthodox DO NOT ACCEPT the filioque. It could be put in the lede it's so short. The inclusion is something that was not done by council first. It was something done in the Western Church accepted in the Western Church and then by way of authority (Papacy) and war it was unilaterally done and then forced on the East. Note it was forced in degrees where first the East was to allow it because of "problems" with the Latin language and then it became genuine by way of scripture even though anyone that has read the history behind the Pneumatomachi and know that the wording of the part of the Nicene Creed that mentions the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father was worded by Gregory of Nyssa (whom was very much in the know about what putting in the phrase "from the Son" would do to his theology). We are lead to believe that because of the vagueness and hesitancy of statement in some of the early Fathers, the pro filioque were able to justify and propagate their views. But this argument from silence is at first an argument and then a fallacy. In as such it means that the sides that disagree has done so of their own accord. So now which side is showing fidelity and which is imposing? Or that the filioque is implying a participation of the Human Nature of the Son in the procession of the Holy Spirit (i.e. ditheism).LoveMonkey (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

More examples of out right bias

Has anyone noticed how Roman Catholic theologians and Protestant theologians are used to depict and represent the Eastern Orthodox side in this article? Why? Could it be that people dominating this article are only one sided and biased? If I posted an article and started out that article by having one side depicting and interpreting and conveying both sides of the issue THAT WOULD BE BIAS. Why does the section about the Orthodox start out with the name of a ROMAN CATHOLIC theologian (William La Due) and why is this Roman Catholic historian being the person that represents and depicts the Eastern Orthodox perspective? Why is William La Due defining the positions and perspective of the Eastern Orthodox right off the bat when he is a ROMAN CATHOLIC apologist.[12] Why is this person so qualified as to depict to the readers coming to this article and be informed what a perspective that they do not subscribe to -is? LoveMonkey (talk) 15:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Editing restrictions

LoveMonkey, please look up WP:RESTRICT and recall that it was on your insistence that it contains the clause, "Esoglou may add information about Roman Catholic commentary (positive or negative) on Eastern Orthodox teaching/practice. However, any such commentary must be clearly attributed, in the body of the article, to the specific individual or document making it. Moreover, any such commentary must be clearly identified as opinion, rather than as factual information about the nature of EO teaching/practice or its compatibility/incompatibility with RC teaching/practice". My latest edit did attribute the commentary to Western writers, did it not? Your deletion of it was therefore based on a false pretext. Esoglou (talk) 19:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

General edit

The many edits made in the last few days have necessitated a general edit. Here are explanations of some points.

Love Monkey. I have had to question the sourcedness of several statements about Photius that you have inserted and that you seem to have falsely attributed to Siecienski, who, for instance, was not so silly as to assign to the time of Photius papal acceptance of use of "Filioque", which did not occur until 1014, or to say that Photius referred to the opinion of Pope Nicholas III, who became pope only in 1277! Your undoing of your deletion of your own comment, within a section on Orthodox theologians, about Bulgakov being condemned as a heretic by "the Orthodox Church" (more concretely the ROCOR) for his sophiology, not all his teaching, called for an annotation that Bulgakov is generally reckoned an Orthodox theologian. And the information on opinion about the view prevailed among modern Eastern Orthodox theologians belongs under "Eastern Orthodox Church", not under "Recent attempts at reconciliation", which concerns attempts at reconciliation by churches, not by theologians.

Wlbw68. (Мир всем.) I appreciate the trouble you have gone to in providing links to texts of the acts of councils. I have had to make the opening definition neutral and English-grammatical and to return also to the usual description of the Creed in question as the Nicene Creed, leaving until later the indication that this name, though in common use, is somewhat inaccurate. Your insertion of a section on the Cappadocian Fathers necessitated corresponding sections on the Alexandrian Fathers and the Latin Fathers, all of whom belong to the one same Church. Your phrase "The Greek word «ἐκπορευόμενον» corresponds to the Latin word «procedit»" was open to misunderstanding: you of course meant that, where the Greek text uses ἐκπορευόμενον, the Latin uses procedit, but the reader might think you were saying that the two words have the same meaning and, as you know, this unfortunately is not true. The acclamation of the bishops at Chalcedon was not about either creed (both of which had been read), but about the definition adopted by the council, as the text states: "After the reading of the definition ..." (I have replaced the ungrammatical translation of that passage by a published English translation.) I have restored the sourced information about the Council of Ephesus, which somehow got deleted, and placed it in chronological order (as you know very well, the Council of Ephesus predated that of Chalcedon). I see now that I have not yet dealt with the inaccurate translation in the paragraph that begins "Eastern opposition to the Filioque strengthened ..." I have no time left to deal with that immediately. I have already corrected the definition of the Council of Florence: the phrase "τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἐκ πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ ἐκπορεύεσθα" seems to be from the earlier part where each side clarified what they meant by their traditional expressions. Thanks for your intervention. Esoglou (talk) 10:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply by LoveMonkey

Why did you make edits without consensus? LoveMonkey 15:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

---

Esoglou wrote

---

Love Monkey. I have had to question the sourcedness of several statements about Photius that you have inserted and that you seem to have falsely attributed to Siecienski,

---

LoveMonkey reply

Esoglou's interpretation is the only one that counts. Esoglou knows Vladimir Lossky, John Romanides etc because Esoglou has read the Orthodox theologians (even current ones like John Behr) and can as Esoglou, properly depict them in controversial articles like this one even use outdated statistics and research to say that acceptance of Western Christian theology is just two camps (wow with Esoglou its so easy so black and white) is on the rise in the East and that Eastern Christians are warming up to things like ignoring their own councils and history saints and leaders. According to Esoglou Eastern Christians look to the way the Roman Catholic church is doing in Europe and America and are just foaming at the mouth jealous. Please. LoveMonkey 16:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

---

Esoglou wrote

---

who, for instance, was not so silly as to assign to the time of Photius papal acceptance of use of "Filioque", which did not occur until 1014,

---

LoveMonkey reply

Wow post here Esoglou what you read that Photius says about the Patriarch of Rome post here what Esoglou knows Photius said. Please please pretty please. Please Esoglou post EVERYTHING Photius says about the Pope of Rome.

---

Esoglou wrote

---

or to say that Photius referred to the opinion of Pope Nicholas III, who became pope only in 1277!

---

LoveMonkey reply

Heres the line before

---

The argument was taken a crucial step further in 867 by the affirmation in the East that the Holy Spirit proceeds not merely "from the Father" but "from the Father alone". Here is what I posted..

Which was put forth by Patriarch Photios I of Constantinople in his work against the filioque named "Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit". In this work Photius argues that the West has began to force it's theological opinions (including Papal supremacy) onto the Eastern churches without council as those opinions were not held in the ancient churches already. Where as the filioque as opinion was tolerated and rationalized before Photius by simply attributing the double procession of the Holy Spirit as being a by product of issues translating the Creed from the Greek language to Latin. Now however the Western Roman Catholic church sought to establish the change to the Creed as Universal church dogma both taught in the West and now also in the East. This was in essence an attempt to modify the Nicene Creed and church dogma not by council, but instead by the Western opinion of Papal Supremacy.

If Esoglou thinks I was unclear in the statements I posted or that he wants all of them attributed to Photius it would be far more ethical for him to one discuss it on the talkpage 1st and actually wait at least more than a couple hours but rather maybe days for other very busy volunteers here to respond. And two for Esoglou to read, actually READ ORTHODOX LITERATURE and speak to that rather than deny and attack that position. LoveMonkey 16:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

---

Esoglou wrote

---

Your undoing of your deletion of your own comment, within a section on Orthodox theologians, about Bulgakov being condemned as a heretic by "the Orthodox Church" (more concretely the ROCOR) for his sophiology, not all his teaching, called for an annotation that Bulgakov is generally reckoned an Orthodox theologian.

---

LoveMonkey reply

More of the same old Esoglou, only Esoglou knows, only Esoglou's opinion is right. Well NO. Esoglou's assumptions are wrong Esoglou has again bet and he is just plain WRONG.[13], [14] Esoglou doesn't know anything about Bulgakov other than what he can find from a google search. Esoglou can't show how Bulgakov's Holy Spirit theology (Bulgakov calls Sophiology) is taught at any Orthodox theology school or in any Orthodox theology curriculum As ORTHODOX. But Esoglou will imply that he can. Esoglou has never read Bulgakov and doesn't even own a single book written by Bulgakov. But again Esoglou can be wrong over and over and over again. Bulgakov's book the Comfortor is about the filioque the theology of the Holy Spirit AND HOW IT RELATES TO HIS SOPHIOLOGICAL THEOLOGY (chapter 4). Esoglou as a good Christian can just speak from ignorance and can be wrong and have not the slightest sense of remorse or guilt for spreading ignorance and distortion about Eastern Orthodoxy, next Esoglou will resort to the Roman Catholic collective ad hominem that Eastern Orthodox are anti-Western. Of course that's anti-Western in the same way the Native Americans are in seeing the West as imperialistic aggressors but hey lets leave that second half out to make it look like people are that way for no good reason. As Bulgakov's theology on the Holy Spirit (sophiology) would be considered heretical in the Roman Catholic church, no where is RC theology saying the Holy Spirit is a being called Sophia. LoveMonkey 16:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

---

Esoglou wrote

---

And the information on opinion about the view prevailed among modern Eastern Orthodox theologians belongs under "Eastern Orthodox Church", not under "Recent attempts at reconciliation", which concerns attempts at reconciliation by churches, not by theologians.

---

LoveMonkey reply

NO. Karl Barth and Yves Congar ARE NOT ORTHODOX AND BOTH ARE DEAD. AND BOTH BEEN DEAD FOR DECADES.[15] Their input is not current is not from the Orthodox perspective and is not accepted by the Orthodox. If you must insist it be in the article put it some place other than the Orthodox section of the article. LoveMonkey 17:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Love Monkey, I am undoing your unreasonable revert: Wlbw68 and I are authorized to edit this article in the same way as you are, without having to go through special procedures that you believe do not bind yourself. You must have utterly misunderstood WP:RESTRICT. Read it again and follow it. You were told recently to find sources for "the stuff that (Esoglou) tagged (and that) did look like LM's personal opinion". Attributing to Siecienski 1) what Siecienski did not say, and 2) what is arrant nonsense (making Photius write of what did not happen until centuries after his death!) is not providing sources. Reverting the questioning of that falsehood and that nonsense is not providing sources. I have not violated WP:RESTRICT, but you have: for instance by this personal comment of your own on Roman Catholicism. If I were out to get you as much as you seem to be out to get me, you might have had to face a protest. But not everyone has the attitude that you show in your attacks on me and in your reactions to remarks about the contradiction between your evident activity and your insistent declaration that you have in fact retired and your habit of tagging substantive edits as minor and another editor's attempt to make peace with you.

I notice that you have somehow forgotten to include your mention of Pope Nicholas III (1277-1280) in your report here of what you wrote in the article of what "was put forth by Patriarch Photios I of Constantinople in his (865!) work against the filioque", but you still have repeated your claim that "in this work Photius argues that the West has began to force it's theological opinions (including Papal supremacy) onto the Eastern churches without council as those opinions weren't held in the ancient churches already". Don't you know that at the time of Photius the popes were still refusing to authorize inclusion of the Filioque in recitation of the Creed? You have not yet provided reliable sources to back up your notions of Photius's amazing prophetic abilities. The writing of his that you refer to also does not contain any allusion to those future events, but you might object to that as a primary source.

Nobody said that Barth and Congar are Eastern Orthodox, but the subject on which they are quoted is Eastern Orthodox theologians. To be quoted in the article on the Syrian civil war, President Obama does not have to be Syrian! Esoglou (talk) 17:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Nope. Esoglou you should not be editing Orthodox sections on this article you are not correct and you are pushing a Roman Catholic POV. LoveMonkey 22:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Why is Esoglou allowed to do this kind of ignorant nonsense? Here the statement I based some of my contributions upon...

This completely compromises one of the most significant aspects of the heresy in question. Although not brought forth within the historical analysis of the subject document, Church History teaches us that, since St. Photios' time, the gradual introduction of the Filioque and the insistence of the Latins on this heresy was directly intertwined with their will (one could say 1,400-year dream) of subduing Orthodoxy via the Pope's primacy. It is a great error to separate the primacy and Filioque issues. The official insertion of the Filioque was by papal decree. It is impossible to separate them, and in trying to do so is to attempt to force the Orthodox to accept it in seemingly-acceptable pieces. One cannot possibly resolve one without the other. Once again, this is a gigantic setback for the Orthodox cause and the Orthodox position.

Is it that Esoglou has a bias a POV that makes him edit war articles here to the point of making then repetitious and unreadable. If Esoglou has no POV why is he citation tagging abusing my contributions over and over again? Are people to believe that what I contributed is simply my opinion? People who actually know about the subject? Even alittle Esoglou is supposed to know this source for this statement aren't you Esoglou. Please post Esoglou the source here. Since according to you and Ed Johnston its strictly my opinion. Lets start there.[16] LoveMonkey 02:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The only source you attribute to your claims about what "was put forth by Patriarch Photios I of Constantinople in his work against the filioque ... of Pope Nicholas III" is Siecienski's book, in some cases without indicating what part of the book. Nowhere in the book can be found the words "This completely compromises ... Orthodox cause and the Orthodox position". You still have given in the article no valid source for "the stuff that (Esoglou) tagged (and that) did look like LM's personal opinion". Esoglou (talk) 11:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)