Talk:Filioque/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Perception in neo-Palamite synthesis

Cardinal Walter Kasper wrote in 2003 that Protestant and "authoritative Orthodox theologians, especially those of the neo-Palamitic School," argue that the Filioque affects their "understanding of the Church" since, according to Kasper, the Filioque for them "seems to link the efficiency of the Holy Spirit fully to the person and work of Jesus Christ, leaving no room for the freedom of the Spirit."

This Orthodox and Protestant interpretation of the Filioque "represents the roots of" their perception, according to Kasper, that "the Holy Spirit is [...] chained up to the institutions established by Christ" through the Catholic "submission of":

1. the "charisma to the institution"
2. the "individual freedom to the authority of the Church"
3. "the prophetic to the juridical"
4. "the mysticism to the scholasticism"
5. "the common priesthood to the hierarchical priesthood"
6. "the episcopal collegiality to the Roman primacy"

Kasper wrote that Protestant Churches generally keep the Filioque clause and "affirm [...] that the Spirit is Jesus Christ’s Spirit and is tied to Word and Sacrament. But for them, [...] it is a question of the sovereignty of God’s Word in and above the Church, and with it of the Christian human being’s free will, as against a – real or supposed – unilateral juridical-institutional view of the Church."

The article lacks discussion about these perceptions in an organized systematic way. For example, the article cites and quotes Russian neo-palamite theologian Vladimir Lossky but the theology does not have a separate section to help a reader understand that 20th century perception. The article doesn't group those people of the neo-Palamite school into a coherent section or even link to Palamism. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 02:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Well a good bit of why, is what you posted, is a Roman Catholic mischaracterization. As the Philokalia pre dates Palamis as it does this then so hesychasm pre-dates Palamis so to call the Eastern Orthodox Palamite or neo palamite is indeed a mischaracterization. Also theology is in the East is allot like learning to swim, as it is learned by way of ascetic labor (Orthopraxis) and experience (the theoria of theosis) and not by study or the study and then rationalization of the different theological concepts. This is the essential difference between the scholastic West and the mystical (gnosiological) East. Therefore Eastern Orthodox theology is not systematic. The best thing even close to such a thing would be books like Orthodox Dogmatic Theology: A Concise Exposition by Michael Pomazansk. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@LoveMonkey: I don't think using many primary sources that are not cited in other works is good in an overview. I'm looking at an overviews that agree with these points about 19th and 20th century Orthodox trends such as neo-Palamite and also Sophiology of the people curently found in the article, particularly:

• Demacopoulos, George E.; Papanikolaou, Aristotle, eds. (2013). Orthodox constructions of the West. Orthodox Christianity and contemporary thought. New York: Fordham University Press. ISBN 9780823251926.

particularly this chapter:

• Demacopoulos, George E.; Papanikolaou, Aristotle. "Orthodox naming of the other: a postcolonial approach". In Demacopoulos & Papanikolaou (2013).

about which also addresses other parts of the article. Such as Greek language Christians who also wrote about the role of the Son in the procession of the Holy Spirit.(p4)

While Lossky is the a protagonist "of the contemporary Orthodox theological antipathy to Western philosophy and reason," Demacopoulos & Papanikolaou categorize that, he "cannot be identified with the form of extreme anti-Westernism" of his proponents, "especially John Romanides and Christos Yannaras."(p14)

Lossky divided theology, based on the role of reason, between an Eastern Orthodox internal and apophatic "encounter of mystical union" in a process of theosis and a Western Christian external and cataphatic "philosophically justified" neo-Scholasticism.(p14)

Rationalism in theology is, for Lossky, the error of Western Christianity, both Catholic and Protestant.(p15)

20th century Eastern Orthodox theologians, such as Bulgakov, Florovsky, Staniloae, Ware, and Zizioulas, according to Demacopoulos & Papanikolaou, express a consensus about the Western Christianity. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 18:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

There are problems with these points. One Aristotle Papanikolaou can say whatever he wants and this does not change that he is not say like John Zizioulas or even Romanides and Yannaras as Papanikolaou is not clergy Papanikolaou is not even someone teaching theology in Greece. He's a professor at Fordham. I mean Yannaras teaches the theology in Greece. So Papanikolaou and even David Bentley Hart would not be appropriate. There is allot of projecting and misconstruing in Western sources (like Adrian Fortescue). This is why these articles get tagged as biased. Better to just post each side and their respective voices and let people read the whole of it and decide for themselves. You can use primary sources I understand that Wikipedia would prefer secondary sources but you can use primary ones. WP:RS is something we can talk about. I have sources though that might fit your request but again don't consider them as valid as the Church representatives themselves. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@LoveMonkey: I don't understand. Why wouldn't analyses of groupings of people not be appropriate to use to group the people in the article? Scholars do study and add insight to what these people – already included in this article – wrote. You think scholarship published by academics has WP:RS problems? What do you think is currently biased about this article or the other two filioque forks? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

These are all very good and valid questions I will as an equal contributor try and answer each one. Just understand I am looking mostly here to provide you with sources that you can use and since I have already had a most protracted and fruitless history on this article I am every bit reluctant to help.

Here is a very limited generalization of the conflict as best as I can express my understanding of it..

In the East there is a distinction made between what something does (energy) and what something is in itself per se (essence).

The filioque is based on the idea that God in Father is different than God in essence it is a different distinction and in conflict with the Eastern distinction. As in the East all including the Holy Spirit come from (receive their existence from) God the Father ALONE.

In the East when one says God, they mean God the Father as Father is the same as God in essence. Father is not what is meant in the West by God in essence. The West makes a distinction between God the Father and God in essence. As the West calls to task distinctions but only to further its own distinctions.

In the West God in essence is pure energy (actus purus) where as in the East God is Father and God the Father in essence is incomprehensible.

God the Father is the origin of all things (in essence) and the origin of his hypostases, the uncreated Godman and uncreated Spirit (that which animates life).

To say that Jesus Christs creates the Holy Spirit or commands the Holy Spirit (to be breathed or sent into the world) or any such teaching that would imply that, appears to mean one does not understand theology through experiencing God but rather through reading other peoples works and rationalizing those teachings to speak about something they do not know of first hand. I hope you can see that gnosiology is not an academic pursuit it is an ascetic one and one done by way of not having sources or text but rather practising prayer (hesychasm) as a means to reconcile with God and get to know God.

The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God it was here in existence before Jesus Christ was born, the Spirit that animates life did not die on the Cross nor go into the underworld for 3 days and then come back to life and ascend into heaven. All of these things are implied by the teaching of the filioque and it confuses the teaching of the church on the entire trinity even the Roman Catholic church understands this on some level and has worked to confirm the primacy of God the Father where as the Roman Catholic church has prided itself in the past on the filioque by putting this teaching on armour that was used in battle (see Shield of the Trinity).

Now why the teaching is rejected is that it has caused conflict and death and not because anyone is closed minded or intolerant but because the church is the means to reconciliation to God in this life leading to salvation. These variations of teaching lead to sectarians using war and violence to impose their correct way like say the followers of Islam. This all leads to people not being able to experience God and then that leads to nihilism. As it is not the nature of water to seek vengeance on those that have not learned to swim. It is also that God is merciful and allows that one might experience their life as a means to work out and discover what is good and what is evil and to also learn discover "why" something is good and something is evil. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Now that I have posted the above I will state why I did. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia it is made to reduce all, to "information, data or knowledge" and then post and express that knowledge. The mode by which Wikipedia does this is scholastic. The same problems the East has with scholasticism are the same ones you are expressing as coming across here. In that all of existence can not be reduced to knowledge and then shared by way of language or symbols to "the other". This is limited by the participating parties all have like experience to couple with their knowledge in order to bring about understanding. However I need to get common ground on your goals to try and help you make that happen. Part of that is to state my side of it so as to then give you as best I can what I can, to help. For it is the nature of the world that as long as something is successful then it is considered correct. It is only when it begins to fail does one see that the power (the success of it) as having corruption in it. [1] LoveMonkey (talk) 16:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I have to disagree that "The same problems the East has with scholasticism are the same ones you are expressing as coming across here." Every written language has dictionaries so people can use a common vocabulary about everything – including how to pray (I disagree with the blogpost too). That is the entire point of communication and culturally relevant imagery, metaphor, etc.

To "get common ground on your goals": my goal is to first improve and reduce the volume of references and then to reduce the volume of content and reduce duplication in the three filioque articles.

So, again, what do you think is currently biased about this article or the other two filioque forks?

Also, I still do not understand why wouldn't analyses of groupings of people not be appropriate to use to group the people in the article? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Well this is all more than the lost in translation of it. Again the bias is that scholasticism is the ONLY way to understand one side of it (the Eastern). This kind of thing is what has lead to articles like this one Eastern Orthodox teaching regarding the Filioque LoveMonkey (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Those who say "things are implied by the teaching of the filioque" are, in my opinion, just victims of centuries of religious speculation and political manipulation, e.g. in-group vs out-group, and have read little about the history of that manipulation. Those groups are conditioned to fear the light of reason by xenophobes throughout history, like Romanides and Yannaras, and so they react emotionally for centuries.

Yes, knights had symbols on there shields just like clergy today have engolpions.

To say that in Western Christianity "Jesus Christs creates the Holy Spirit or commands the Holy Spirit" is to spread misinformation. It is not so, read some of the Catholic sources or the many quotes already in the article.

You are misinformed about Actus Purus. Actus Purus is discussed in a book already cited in this article – Balthasar (2005), "'it is in the Holy Spirit, the We in Person, that the Actus Purus attains its plenitude' In him [the Holy Spirit] it reaches 'its ultimate fullness'" (p56).

So "the teaching is rejected is that it has caused conflict and death" – no, rigid thinking caused the conflict not the term filioque.

"As it is not the nature of water to seek vengeance on those that have not learned to swim." The language below is less Western but the message is the same. A book – already cited in the article – quotes John Chrysostom, a Doctor of the Roman Catholic Church: "Strange, isn't it, how we were so drowned in wickedness that we could not be purified? We needed a new birth!" (p56). Ephrem the Syrian, a Doctor of the Roman Catholic Church, wrote: "In them [the waters of baptism], see how the people have life; In them, see how the people perishes: for all that are not baptized, in the waters that give life to all, are dead invisibly" (p56). Cyril of Jerusalem wrote: "it is God's part to plant and to water, so it is yours to bear fruit" (p128). Gregory of Narek, a Doctor of the Roman Catholic Church, lamented: "Treat me like a physician, rather than examining me like a judge. [...] In battles of the mind, he is always defeated by details. [...] like the useless servant I buried the honorable gifts received [...] If I am put to trial by water, I will drown" (here).

Knowledge is good and its opposite is not, a "standard for valid epistemology" about faith is introspection and reason – e.g. most Orthodox are unaware of how the Catechism of the Catholic Church says why the Logos became incarnate:

The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature": "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God." "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God." "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods." –n.460

It is in the Body of Christ that the fullness of humanity is revealed. In a way, we are elevated above our biological instincts and passions. We are the icons of God. These are the words of four great theologians: Peter, Irenaeus, Athanasius, and Aquinas; you will notice that not one Western Father and no one between Nicaea and Aquinas is in this statement. The first verse is from 2 Peter 1:4 and the last verse is from Aquinas. Scholasticism is not your enemy. 2 Peter 1:5 points out "For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, virtue with knowledge," according to the Apostle Peter in the 1st-century. Or you words, that God "allows that one might experience their life as a means to work out and discover what is good and what is evil and to also learn discover 'why' something is good and something is evil". And in the words of John Paul II: "Let us express our desire for the divine life offered in Christ in the [... words of] Gregory of Narek [...]: 'It is not for his gifts, but for the Giver that I always long [...] It is not rest that I seek, but the face of the One who gives rest that I implore'." (here). John Paul II in that speech quoted from Veritatis splendor: "Sharing in the Eucharist, [...] is the culmination of our assimilation to Christ, [...]"; and quoted from Cyril of Alexandria: "Christ forms us in his image so that the features of his divine nature will shine in us through sanctification, justice and a good life in conformity with virtue."

But the above language is not encyclopedic and almost unreadable and practically off-topic – it should be found by following the links and reading the sources – I would never add content in that way since and it should not be found in the article about filioque and not in the article about the history of the filioque. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Your comment "Those groups are conditioned to fear the light of reason by xenophobes throughout history, like Romanides and Yannaras, and so they react emotionally for centuries." Means that you are uninformed and biased and you should not be editing the content of this article. One does not obtain salvation through reason. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

This comment is inserted out of chronological order – It is not a bias but an observation. "The impact of the fall of Constantinople on the Greek psyche is of utmost importance as it conditioned the Greeks against reunion with the west"[2]. There is scholarship about the sociology, and there is scholarship about Romanides and Yannaras. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

From this comment "You are misinformed about Actus Purus. Actus Purus is discussed in a book already cited in this article – Balthasar (2005), "'it is in the Holy Spirit, the We in Person, that the Actus Purus attains its plenitude' In him [the Holy Spirit] it reaches 'its ultimate fullness'" (p56)."

I now understand you are here to promote ecumenism. I also understand your dated perspective on Aristotelian scholarship. So by this statement I can glean that you are not really up to date on where scholasticism has went on this subject (as Balthasar died in 1988). As my comment about actus purus most certainly is not my own. As I have pointed out before on wiki Professor David Bradshaw wrote a book about and held a conference to debate that very point you claim the Greek Orthodox have wrong. Bradshaw was not refuted. His book that states what I posted and the Eastern Orthodox have said on the teaching of Actus purus is indeed (by Bradshaw's scholarship) a validate interpretation of that teaching by Aquinas [3]. Since you insist on the scholastic standard as such then ok. Then by your own standard you must admit you are not completely informed. I will again discuss this book however I wonder if because people like Bradshaw indeed hold to the theology of Aristotelian metaphysics being not Greek Orthodox Christian theology if you will ad hominem attack him like you did Romanides and Yannaras. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the Bradshaw suggestion, but I'm reading works found in the article and browsing other works about how to reduce the choppiness of the article – I will focus on what is already in the article. There is scholarship that discusses both Romanides and Yannaras, it is not my ad hominem, have you thought about how to group the people based on Orthodox trends? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@BoBoMisiu:, what LoveMonkey has been saying about Orthodox theology all along is right on target, and to the extent that western scholarship is saying otherwise is the extent to which that scholarship has Orthodox theology wrong. In addition, one sometimes finds that western scholars refuse to admit that any kind of scholarship can exist unless it is patterned upon the western model. It's nothing more than a kind of cultural (or religious) snobbery, similar to the attitudes of the British in 19th c. India towards those cultures. The east has always had a fully functioning valid model of scholarship, but it is different from the west. The Orthodox Church has not only used that model, but it has also differed from the western church as regards various points of how one comes to know theology. These two things comprise what amounts to a paradigm shift in approach, and it's not hard to see why there is so much misunderstanding. Two points here: first, eastern scholarship counts as scholarship here on WP, just as western scholarship does; second, the western definition of theology applies to western churches, but the eastern one to the eastern churches. One big problem with filioque has always been "precedit" (language differences between Latin and Greek) just to begin with. And that difficulty only multiplies when east and west get to talking about the theological impacts of those language differences. I wouldn't ask you to omit whatever accepted western scholastic sources say here, and I don't think LoveMonkey was doing so either. However, you must understand that Romanides and Yannaras stand as accepted eastern scholastic sources, despite whatever western critics might say, and you are not permitted to apply a western bias in deciding which sources stay in the article any more than an eastern bias would be acceptable. Your comments containing words like xenophobes, rigid thinking, and attributing eastern viewpoints to they react emotionally for centuries are simply illustrations of western misinterpretations, whether they come from you or from western scholars. It should be no surprise that there remains a lot of antagonism between Catholic and Orthodox over filioque, and that cannot be allowed to dominate either the article or the talk page. I still think contrasting the views in the article best awaits good descriptions of each view in its own terms. I also think that those viewpoint descriptions are going to be much more valuable as information points for the reader than coverage of criticisms or disagreements, because point/counterpoint does a lot more to generate emotionalism and degrade neutrality. Evensteven (talk) 16:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

@Evensteven: I have no doubt that "LoveMonkey has been saying about Orthodox theology all along is right on target". But I also know that there is no single Orthodox opinion about the term, filioque, or the doctrine of double procession in the 20th and 21st century. Secularization, the internet, and improving machine translation are a "paradigm shift" that guarantee more people will be informed about the actual translation problems and other facts; they will eventually make their own conclusions about the term filioque, and the doctrine of double procession, and about how the facts were shaped for centuries. They will eventually distance themselves from the rigid thinking of extreme elements and they will share their opinions about the extreme elements with their children. It is just a matter of time in a world where anyone can check disinformation for facts on there cell phone.

There is scholarship about Romanides and Yannaras. My comments are well grounded, e.g. Yannaras is analyzed: "despite Yannaras's own denial of anti-Westernism, his approach is ultimately one that polarizes and thus obstructs encounter and dialogue", i.e. he acts like a xenophobe. These types of claims are according to Vasilios Makrides, writing in 2014, "in fact a compensation mechanism" and those "claims of absolute certainty and superiority are critically viewed in today's tolerant, pluralistic, and relativistic social context and have no real chance to be taken seriously into account."

A quick way to verify the veracity of Romanides's fringe ideas is for you to add a few sentences referencing Romanides to the Australia and New Zealand Wikipedia articles about how they should really be called Franco-Romania and see how long it takes before it is removed. Another quick way is to add a few sentences referencing Romanides to a medical article about how the interaction between the blood and spinal fluid affects behavior and see how long it takes before it is removed. Then argue for his opinions and against western bias on those talk pages, you will see that what I think is reasonable to think about Romanides. Then try the same on a foreign language Wikipedia. I will guess that Romanides's fringe ideas will be removed there also.

I think the article includes lots of 19th, 20th, and 21st century synthesis about the term and about the doctrine by Orthodox authors. I think it could be better grouped into, e.g. the neo-Palamite and neo-Photian opinions (or some other way). Another problem regrouping will solve is that duplicate content within the article is fragmented and not chronological.

• What is biased about the current article?
• What are specific points of contention about the article that can be addressed?
• How would you improve content about "the theological impacts of those language differences"?

I want to WP:REFACTOR/regroup the Romanides and Yannaras discussions into separate sections and get a wider opinion about them since Romanides is found in other articles also. Evensteven, is that OK with you? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, if you don't want to take my point, fine. That doesn't make me wrong. Evensteven (talk) 02:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Historical insertion of the term monon in opposition to filioque

I was curious about why the term only appears in the article so many times.

"Some scholars have denied that the word mónon was introduced into Eastern versions of the creed, but the evidence in support of the opposite conclusion is substantial," according to John Basil, who cites multiple sources wrote that "in clear contradiction to its own position," some Orthodox versions of the creed added the term only (μόνον, mónon) "in opposition to the filioque."

The sources that Basil cited are not available online; I cannot find more about this. Basil did not include enough basic information, i.e. who, where, or when context, to add it to the article as a footnote.

References

–BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Filioque. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130411015820/http://www.vatican.va:80/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.blackwellreference.com/subscriber/tocnode.html?id=g9781405185394_chunk_g978140518539410_ss1-10

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Filioque. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atrium/8410/filioque.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.anglicancommunion.org/resources/document-library/lambeth-conference/1978/resolution-35-anglican-orthodox-theological-dialogue
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.anglicancommunion.org/resources/document-library/lambeth-conference/1988/resolution-6-anglican-orthodox-relations
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716095849/http://www.tyndalehouse.com/TynBul/Library/TynBull_1983_34_04_Bray_FilioqueInHistory.pdf to http://www.tyndalehouse.com/TynBul/Library/TynBull_1983_34_04_Bray_FilioqueInHistory.pdf
• Replaced archive link https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/2003filioque.html with https://web.archive.org/web/20100806122533/https://www.scoba.us:80/resources/orthodox-catholic/2003filioque.html on http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/2003filioque.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/stylianopoulos_filioque.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

The "translation" about "pneumatomachi"

The edit I had done and BoBoMisiu has reverted was a trial to do a real translation of the latin sentence. The current version is no translation, but a nonsense. Yes, one can argue about who were the "pneumatomachi" named, but they surely were not those. But that is not the main problem; cut off from the Symbol of the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son simply means something quite different than Spiritus sancti ex Filio processionem ex symbolo absciderunt, and sive is not and, but or. --Mmh (talk) 20:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mmh: I agree with you, the translation is bad. I'm guessing I added the {{Whose translation}}. I translate it as "just as the Pneumatomachi and theomachi, cut [from] the Creed [the] procession [of the] holy spirit from [the] son". The problem is that this is a controversial subject – e.g. I think pneumatomachi does mean the pneumatomachi heretics, but I cannon substantiate that. Why do you prefer not to use the terms pneumatomachi and theomachi? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 01:10, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I fully agree to use the terms pneumatomachi and theomachi (in these consistent forms, not once -chi and once -chists), but—if only possible—without the link to that (already long time non-existent) sect. My main objection were not the terms pneumatomachi and theomachi, but the structure and meaning of the "translated" sentence in general. --Mmh (talk) 21:27, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mmh: the sects were extinct but the heresies are referenced. How about if both terms are changed to -machi suffix and change the ... ex symbolo absciderunt phrase while leaving the {{Whose translation}} tag until some future editor finds a reliable translation to cite. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 22:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok. --Mmh (talk) 22:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mmh: you see my translation, change it to a compromise translation if you think it would more descriptive. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@BoBoMisiu: What about: "as pneumatomachi and theomachi, they have cut from the Creed the procession of the holy Spirit from the Son"? It would be a little more exact, methinks. --Mmh (talk) 23:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mmh: I agree, its better. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@BoBoMisiu: Ok, thanks.  Done --Mmh (talk) 10:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Parenthetical note

Hello:

The following passage from the section on the Procession of the Holy Spirit appears in parentheses, and is unclear, and in part ungrammatical. Can anyone sort it out please?

"(But this is no documentary evidence of this hypothesis. The earliest manuscript of the Symbol is the 9th century. Prior to that, there is not the symbol itself, none of the Christian writers, or even quotes from it.)"

~~vancouveriensis —Preceding undated comment added 00:20, 04 October 2016 (UTC)

@Vancouveriensis: that was added a few years ago. I edited the grammer. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 21:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)