Talk:Theological differences between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

Recent deletions by LoveMonkey

I haven't read all of the text that LoveMonkey deleted regarding transubstantiation. I assume that this was text inserted by Esoglou. I would urge both LM and Esoglou to discuss the need for that text here. For now, I will assume good faith and presume that the deletion does, in fact, shorten the article without losing anything valuable. --Richard S (talk) 19:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


Views of certain Orthodox theologians on Roman Catholic teaching on Hell

The following text was inserted by LoveMonkey

The [[Orthodox Church of America]] teaches that God is both Heaven and Hell, and that both are in the presence of God.<ref>For those who love the Lord, His Presence will be infinite joy, paradise and eternal life. For those who hate the Lord, the same Presence will be infinite torture, hell and eternal death. The reality for both the saved and the damned will be exactly the same when Christ "comes in glory, and all angels with Him," so that "God may be all in all." (I Corinthians 15-28) Those who have God as their "all" within this life will finally have divine fulfillment and life. For those whose "all" is themselves and this world, the "all" of God will be their torture, their punishment and their death. And theirs will be "weeping and gnashing of teeth." (Matthew 8:21, et al.)</ref>


LM's edit summary said "re-inserted passage from OCA website that was confirmed by Verifiability board here on Wiki". First of all, if the passage was taken from the OCA website, we should be careful not to infringe on any copyrights. Secondly, the Biblical references are primary sources and we should be using secondary sources (e.g. the OCA website). The reference should be to the OCA website with URL and the text that is currently in the reference should be provided as a quote.


--Richard S (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The OCA is a WP:RS for the OCA. The statement "The Orthodox Church of America teaches that God is both Heaven and Hell, and that both are in the presence of God." can legitimately be referenced by a quotation from the OCA website to that effect.--Taiwan boi (talk) 11:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Please read the whole thing. [1] LoveMonkey (talk) 01:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


Nah, sorry but theology at this deep level makes my head hurt. The point is that the article text says "The Orthodox Church of America teaches that God is both Heaven and Hell, and that both are in the presence of God" but we have no proof that this is really the teaching of the OCA. The citation appears to be to the Bible (I Corinthians 15-28) and (Matthew 8:21, et al.) but because the Bible is being used as a primary source, this is not a reliable source. Why not? Because we are relying on the work of a Wikipedia editor that the OCA teaches this AND that they rely on those specific Bible passages AND that this is their interpretation of those Bible passages. The following sentences are adequately referenced to secondary sources: "Metropolitan Hierotheos" and "John S. Romanides". Those are reliable sources and presumably the citations are verifiable. The first sentence in the paragraph does not cite a reliable source. I'm sure you can find a reliable source for the sentence (probably Romanides). You should not link the Bible passages to the sentence unless you can find a secondary source that makes this linkage. Without a citation to such a secondary source, the linkage of the Bible passages to the assertion of what the OCA teaches looks like original research. (NB: I'm not saying it IS original research, I'm just saying it LOOKS LIKE original research. This is not meant as an attack. I'm just trying to improve the article. --Richard S (talk) 03:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
????? For the sake of the project and Christian Brotherhood please at least try to read it. I added the link from the OCA website that the passage is copied and pasted from in the sourcing. What can I say? Whenever this was brought up on the verifiability notice board the OCA website was stated to be a valid source for the Orthodox position. I'll try and take down the noticeboard link and post it here.
To sobornost, to facing the truth and to reconciliation. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
By reading it. It will show up that Esoglou and his buddies are edit warring. Look how they removed the content of the article and the Orthodox position outlined in it from the filioque article. Other Orthodox see what they are doing and it is understood that people like Esoglou will not allow what people actually believe and tell each other in the East about the truth behind this mess to be told in the West. This is how it has been done for over a thousand years now. As if it could have gone on this long any other way. I mean Esoglou's text or WP:OR try to blame us and say that it is simply stupidity on the Orthodox that perpetuate the schism. Any reasons given are to be silenced as we are not equal. Has not the Pope called the Patriarchs of the East "sons" rather than "brothers". LoveMonkey (talk) 21:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

This article has been eviscerated by Roman Catholic editors

This article has been eviscerated by Roman Catholic editors it is obvious to anyone whom takes the time to read the archives of this article's talkpage that what is said and held to be differences as taught by the Eastern Orthodox on issues such as hell has been distorted in this article, as have sections in the article about Augustine and various other theological differences. Sections of this article are not readable and have un-needed information in them (like the Eucharist section of the article). That appears to be an attempt of obfuscate the actual meaning of the article and its intent. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It is helpful to assume good faith. Contrary to the allegation above, the intent of recent deletions has been to remove "unnecessary detail" since this article is about two to three times the length of a "long" Wikipedia article. If the information is not directly pertinent to "differences", it should be discussed in the main article on that topic. The next step after deleting excessive detail is to try to summarize the text. A good goal would be to cut this article down to 150kb. Just getting it to 200kb would be a good first step. --Richard S (talk) 19:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
OK wheres Richard when it comes to my attempts at removing "unnecessary detail"? LoveMonkey (talk) 13:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Please don't do your own one-sided eviscerating without providing objective reasons. Esoglou (talk) 14:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


I would actually like Esoglou to stop trying to insert information on the Eastern Orthodox Church (his denomination's competitor), and to only insert information on the RCC; it's clear you're not remotely neutral on the subject. I would like LoveMonkey to likewise add only information on the EOC, though I'm pretty sure he only does this anyway. The article is far too long at present, and Esoglou's insistence on 6,000+ word additions are not helping to reduce the size.--Taiwan boi (talk) 14:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


Deletion of sourced, pertinent and balancing information

This deletion is the second done within a single hour of information about a declaration by the number one congregation of the Roman Curia regarding the Eastern Orthodox Churches, information that is therefore both important and pertinent in the section on "Catholic views of differences". Not only is it important and pertinent in its own right, it is also needed for clarifying a misleading news item which the same editor wants included.


Can this editor's action be justified or even excused? Esoglou (talk) 21:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The editor in question posted a news item and described it in the briefest details. You added an unreferenced WP:OR POV editorial piece expressing your own opinion. If you have a WP:RS which addresses the news item in question, please provide it.--Taiwan boi (talk) 12:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Better now? (Even the first version was totally sourced.) Esoglou (talk) 16:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
The first version wasn't sourced; it wasn't a comment by a WP:RS on the news item in question. It was merely your opinion on the news item in question.--Taiwan boi (talk) 01:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Exactly Taiwan why is Esoglou personally explaining for the RCC or the Orthodox what the Pope said. Why does Esolgou have to respond at all? Let what the Pope says stand on its own merits. LoveMonkey (talk) 05:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


Article is tooooooooo long

It should be to cut down to 10% of its current size. There are enough wikilinks to that give enough additional information. This article should give a simple basic outline of theological differences, instead of the book report we have here.Someone65 (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this. The page has become a de facto argument between an RCC editor and an EOC editor. It's made worse by the RCC editor (Esoglou), deliberately inserting views he thinks the EOC holds, which does not help the situation at all.--Taiwan boi (talk) 14:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I am trying to get the article down in size and Esoglou just restores the deleted content. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


Deletions without objective reasons

An editor has executed a wide revert without giving reasons. Would he give reasons for at least part of his revert. Why did he revert the correction by which a statement by a news agency was put into the mouth of an Eastern metropolitan? Why did he revert the removal of a repetition of the same phrase? Why did he remove a statement by the metropolitan now in charge of the external relations of the Moscow patriarchate agreeing with the distinction made in the document of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on the distinction between Christian communities that are Churches and those (Protestant) that are not? And so on. Esoglou (talk) 14:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Esoglou please take your argument with the Eastern Orthodox Church elsewhere. This article is not the place for your inter-denominational doctrinal wranglings. A couple of the editors here are trying to reduce the size of the article to something reasonable, and your massive slabs of text do not advance this cause.--Taiwan boi (talk) 14:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Curious remark, in view of the relative size of the additions made in support of supposed doctrinal wranglings as compared with indications that, like Metropolitan Hilarion, show that "the Orthodox and the Catholic Churches have only some differences in theology and models of church order. ... However, the differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism are not fundamental." Curious remark, made by someone who has deleted this statement by the Moscow Patriarchate department for external church relations. Curious remark, made by someone who adds to the article passages giving wrangling interpretations of an article in the 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia and a book on the Hell Pizza chain. Esoglou (talk) 15:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I did not add anything which was "wrangling interpretations", still less did I contribute to the kind of doctrinal wrangling in which you and LoveMonkey have indulged. What's most curious is your own rejection of Catholic WP:RS, and your attempts either to suppress them or editorialize them misleadingly. You certainly should not be contributing anything to the EOC position because you do not have a record of representing them accurately. Before your next edit, ask yourself "What can I remove from this article so that it is reduced in size?", then do so.--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
It would not be right for me too to answer that question by deleting other people's edits without giving any objective reason. Esoglou (talk) 16:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I am not asking you to do so. I am asking you to consider what you can remove of the huge slabs of unnecessary detail you've posted here.--Taiwan boi (talk) 16:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I should not have spoken of the use of the "Hell Pizza" quotation and the interpretation of an old article in a way that sounded personal. I apologize. Esoglou (talk) 16:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
This is nonsense, the reverts Esoglou is trying to include are completely unnecessary information in an article where Esoglou has complained SO much about off topic and unnecessary content ESOGLOU KEEPS RESTORING this content. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Misuse, abuse of citation requests

This passage from the article.

Cassian endeavored[citation needed] in his thirteenth[failed verification] chapter of Conferences section eleven[failed verification] to demonstrate from Biblical examples that God frequently[citation needed] awaits the good impulses of the natural will, before coming to its assistance with His supernatural grace.[citation needed] While the grace often preceded the will, as in the case of Matthew and Peter, he said, on the other hand the will frequently[citation needed] preceded the grace, as in the case of Zacchæus and the Good Thief on the Cross.[1] Cassian points out that people still have moral freedom and one has the option to choose to follow God. Colm Luibhéid says that, according to Cassian, there are cases where the soul makes the first little turn,[2] while Augustine Casiday says that, in Cassian's view, any sparks of goodwill that may exist, not directly caused by God, are totally inadequate and only direct divine intervention ensures spiritual progress.[3] and Lauren Pristas says that "for Cassian, salvation is, from beginning to end, the effect of God's grace."[4]


Is heavy peppered with citation requests. I would like to know how short of quoting Cassian (which can be done) that Cassian as a source of the statement can not be used as Esoglou has claimed with all of the citation requests that Cassian isn't saying in the source, passage given what he is being posted as saying. This is a perfect example of Esoglou insisting that his interpretation of things is the only valid one. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

You will fail to find in what Cassian wrote a statement of what his intention was. You will fail to find in what Cassian wrote in chapter 13 the citation that you claim is in that chapter. You will fail to find in what Cassian wrote the word "frequently" used in this regard ... When what needs to be corrected is brought to a wise man's attention, he corrects it. A monkey threw a coconut at a sage. The sage took the coconut, drank the milk, ate the pulp, and made a cup of the shell. Esoglou (talk) 19:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
You have made post after post after post in this article claiming to speak for various peoples intentions -including the Pope- why is it that when one statement which is not from a Monkey but rather my take on what John Sanidopoulos wrote on his Orthodox Christian blog about Cassian. [2], [3] But you go ahead and show your edit warring since only Esoglou understands and has the authority to tell us Orthodox what we believe. BTW spare me your monkey wisdom which appears to me to be a poor attempt at a left handed comment about my editorial name. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
ALSO THE SOURCE GIVEN USES THE WORD ENDEAVOR. I would hope that other editors would look into Esoglou's behavior which is becoming more and more disruptive. As anyone whom reads the source I used and also John Sanidopoulos' blog will see that none of this is my opinion nor is it something I have invented as original research it is the content of the topic when it is actually discussed between East and West and not some edit warring POV position RCC priest's opinion here on Wikipedia. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't know whether your chosen name was (unconsciously) part of the reason why my statement about a wise man reaction when finding mistakes brought to my mind that picture from a book by Anthony D'Mello. Maybe it was. Esoglou (talk) 19:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
So you admit at making a personal attack? LoveMonkey (talk) 20:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh, please... drink the milk and eat the pulp already... soyez sage. --Richard S (talk) 09:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


Issues with Augustine

It might be valid to have an article here on Wikipedia dedicated to issues with Augustine East and West. I say this because things very often common and or taken for granted in a conversation about him between Eastern Orthodox Christians but completely missing from Western Christianity's understanding of him and this article are some very key credibility issues.

  • 1. Augustine never read any of the Fathers that are considered Anti-Nicene.
  • 2. Augustine could not read nor speak Greek.
  • 3. When Augustine is spoken of as being referred to in a council in the East this is not without controversy in the East.[4]
  • 4. Also in the case Photius, Augustine's theology is to be rejected and not used to justify any potential stance against the Eastern Church. [5]
  • 5. Much of what is a cause of discern is covered by both Romanides and Azoul but also Michael Pomazansky.[6],[7].
  • 6. Augustine has no direct contact with or corresponce with any of the Eastern fathers. The closest to this Augustine came was St John Cassian and Augustine opposed Cassian.
  • 7. Augustine's theology was no influence on the East and when it was translated in the 13th century it was rejected. There are more examples.

LoveMonkey (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Romanides

How is it that this passage adds to the clarity of the subject of this article? Esgolou restored a completely unnecessary sentence AGAIN. [8] This passage does nothing to clarify what the theological issues are between the churches. Nothing. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

By saying that the West remained Neoplatonic until the time of Occam and Luther, and so past the time of the Hesychast controversy, Romanides contradicted Fortescue, who is cited in the same paragraph as saying that it was in the East that Neoplatonism prevailed. Balance. Open contradiction. Esoglou (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
As I have pointed out time and time again Romandies does not say that the West stay either Platonic nor Aristotelian Romanides stated that the West embraced both perspectives. Also it is completely unnecessary and creates no balance at all. Its confusing, it Esoglou poisoning the well with his opinion, its Esoglou obfuscating and then trying to justify disruptive editing. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Then it is Romanides who is confusing. Did he or did he not say that the West remained Neoplatonic until the time of Occam and Luther? Fortescue says that at the time of the hesychast controversy the West was Aristotelean and for that very reason could not accept the Eastern Neoplatonic idea. So there is an open contradiction between the two views, one that is certainly worth noting. Esoglou (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Already stated Esoglou's confusing. And Esoglou is obviously confused and should not be doing what Esoglou is doing. That is clear enough. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


More proof of edit warring

I removed a whole set of things inserted by Esoglou into statements sourced by Eastern Orthodox theologians. [9] Esoglou's edits if they were done anonymously would have obviously been considered VANDALISM [10]. As what additions Esoglou made simply do not make sense when you attempt to read the statements outloud after the additions. How can anyone look at what Esoglou added or inserted into this section (and I just removed for a second time) and tell me that these edits improve the article? [[11]] LoveMonkey (talk) 20:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I am prepared to make corrections when specific mistakes are pointed out to me. Now would LoveMonkey explain why he thinks there was nothing that needed correction, when I pointed out in the edit that he calls vandalism, the following points:
  1. "philosophical discourse (dialect)" - dialectic, not dialect
  2. "in the West, man received from Adam total depravity" - this is an article on RCC-EOC differences; saying "the West" holds the doctrine of total depravity suggests falsely that the RCC holds that doctrine, when in fact it explicitly rejects it; "Calvinism" should be used, not "the West"
  3. In the context of theological differences, saying that the East considers faith more important than reason in working out your salvation suggests that the RCC holds the opposite view. That calls for mention of the fact, the verifiable fact, that the RCC holds the same view.
  4. In the same context, saying that for the East it is God that satisfies the human heart suggests that the RCC holds the opposite view. That calls for mention of the fact, the verifiable fact, that the RCC holds the same view.
  5. Saying that the RCC denies "via its dogma" that man can know God directly in this life calls for the correction that this is not a matter of dogma for the RCC
  6. Using "cognition" as a Latin word calls for correction to the real Latin word cognitio
  7. The statement that "it is in conflict" is a POV expression: all that can be said in Wikipedia is that certain people say that is is in conflict
  8. The unsourced personal affirmations that to say one can know God in his essence means that "one can be God" and "have the consciousness of the uncreated God" clearly need verification and asking for a citation is more than justified.

So why should these be considered vandalism, instead of suggestions and requests for improvements? Esoglou (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Because you're not cooperating, you're simply introducing material to support a POV and you are consistently refusing to confine your edits to information concerning your denomination.--Taiwan boi (talk) 02:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Please be serious. The edits in questions were largely obvious corrections: dialect/dialectic, the West/Calvinism, cognition/cognitio ... Pointing out errors was cooperation; failure to point them out would be lack of cooperation. And what is that about not confining edits to "my" denomination, when the brief additions were precisely about the Western view? Esoglou (talk) 09:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Supposed statement from someone in the Orthodox church in the introduction of the article

I removed a very large statement from the introduction to the article that was made by someone I could not verify as an Eastern Orthodox authority. I also could not verify that the passage that Esoglou posted and then translated was on the website Esoglou linked to. I have removed this and I find it highly suspect to say the least. [12] I have not linked to articles from the Eastern Orthodox that are in Greek nor in Russian. And I do not think that Greeks would agree with how Esoglou treats their theologians nor your theological opinions. Though they would find them consistent with previous Roman Catholics whom show no respect for our differences and deny and repress the expression of those opinions. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It would seem obvious that the Church of Greece, which printed the study by Professor Nicolaidis in its official bulletin. is a better judge of who is an Eastern Orthodox authority than LoveMonkey. Esoglou (talk) 20:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
It would seem that there are official channels and sources to make such statements. None of which is what you posted. As a pattern of behavor and matter of evidence in this article Esoglou consistently attacks, deletes and rewords official sources for both the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic (just go through the archives and look at Esoglou's shameless deleting and covering up of the hatred the Catholic Encyclopedia declares). But you go ahead and post the link to the article on the talkpage here and we'll see if the comment of one person whom is not even in or part of interfaith dialog can now be taken to make such a statement for the entire Orthodox church even when it contradicts other higher ranking persons. And I want to know how you think you can justify that what you posted is a statement reflected by the Church of Greece as the source does not boast of no such authority. But Esoglou now raised his hand and knighted this guy so what this guy says is more valid then Romanides for example. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Esoglou went and reverted the removal. It is not considered a valid source as how Esoglou is translating it is not a valid representative for the Orthodox church but one who is hostile to it's theologians. How is that when I posted that the link does not work [13] that Esoglou does a big dance around about how he can vouch for what it supposedly says all as justification to Esoglou edit warring. LoveMonkey (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
As a Greek Orthodox Christian I would ask other editors whom feel comfortable with Greek to look into Esoglou's Greek translations. As they could just as easily be from an online translator and we should not using sources in other languages when there is plenty of information for this article already in English. Again I am as an Orthodox Christian suspicious of Esoglou's Greek translations and I do not consider my Greek strong enough to even try to use it here on Wikipedia. LoveMonkey (talk) 21:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
The official bulletin of the Church of Greece is considered a valid source - except, it seems, by one Wikipedia editor. Esoglou (talk) 21:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I've asked you before to stop adding material on the OEC since it's clear you are not doing so in good faith. I will simply delete any further edits you make in this regard. You are perpetuating the edit warring which some of us here are trying to solve.--Taiwan boi (talk) 02:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. Esoglou wants to obfuscate and argue over the meaning of words. While butchering the Orthodox position in the article. Anyone reading the article after Esoglou's various chop jobs would be given the impression that the whole thing is just the Orthodox churchs' fault and the schism and the perpetuation of the division (History_of_Christian_theology#Before_the_Carolingian_Empire) has nothing to do with the mass murder (the crusades against the Orthodox like the Battle on the Ice, Venetian–Genoese Wars, William II of Sicily sacking of Thessalonica, etc, etc, etc,), massive corruption and economic turmoil (i.e. the Venetians), theft (thats more than the sacking of Constantinople and the destruction of the University of Constantinople), war atrocities (like the Crimean War), forced conversions (time of troubles and recently Ustashe), property disputes (Moldova, Cyprus etc. etc. etc.) fabricated text to undermine Orthodoxy and history in general (Libri Carolini, Pseudo-Isidore, Donation of Constantine etc. etc. etc.), hatred of mysticism, hatred of the Eastern Empire (i.e. jealousy, envy) political and religious double-crosses (i.e. like if the Orthodox sign off on the council of Florence meant Constantinople would get military aid to fight Islam, like the Crimean Wars, Kosovo etc. etc. etc.). I could go on and on and on and on. According to Esoglou these are all make up silly things that don't matter and the East should just stop being petty and get over it. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Radical edit needed

This article is being used to argue the respective merits of the OEC and RCC positions. In reality it should identify differences simply by directing people to the relevant Wiki articles on the OEC and the RCC views on various issues. I will make an edit to show what I mean.--Taiwan boi (talk) 02:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I applaud your even-handed edit, and I agree with your general idea. Esoglou (talk) 06:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Great, if you applaud my edit please stop sabotaging my efforts by adding more unnecessary information to the article.--Taiwan boi (talk) 06:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I have now moved a considerable amount of material from the article, into the individual articles addressed by various sections. See the history here. This has resulted in some broken references, and I'll let you two sort them out to give you something better to do than edit warring. If you want help, just ask.--Taiwan boi (talk) 07:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I am confident that Richard also agrees with your general idea, as I do. I disagree with your excision of an important authoritatively-sourced item on the question whether in essence the theological differences gave rise to the schism or whether it was rather the schism that gave rise to searching out and stressing theological differences so as to "justify the schism and make it definitive". But I will let that question lie until we learn the reaction of the editor responsible for most of what you have removed. If the treatment of that question too (which I do not consider unnecessary) should be solved "simply by directing people to the relevant Wiki articles on the OEC and the RCC views", would you consider moving it to the East-West Schism article, instead of deleting it entirely from Wikipedia? Or, if you do not wish to move it yourself, would you consider it legitimate for me to move it there? Esoglou (talk) 08:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
It can go in both, though a more detailed treatment needs to be here. That means more still needs to be trimmed from this article.--Taiwan boi (talk) 09:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I haven't reviewed the specific edits so I reserve final judgment but, as Esoglou says, I am in favor of anything that cuts this article's ridiculously long text down to size. That said, I do think it is important to consider "the question whether in essence the theological differences gave rise to the schism or whether it was rather the schism that gave rise to searching out and stressing theological differences so as to "justify the schism and make it definitive". Can someone provide the relevant diff so I can read it without having to plow through the edit history? If the text is as Esoglou describes it, it probably belongs here and in East-West Schism although conciseness is a virtue to be striven for, especially in this article. --Richard S (talk) 08:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Here is the diff. Esoglou (talk) 08:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Taiwan boi has indicated that he approves insertion of the quotation from the Church of Greece publication both here (where it is better to wait a bit) and in East-West Schism. Does Richard think that it should be inserted in one or both? Esoglou (talk) 09:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
OK... thanks for the diff. I think this is important to have in the article. My personal view is that the schism was caused by economic, cultural, political, ecclesiological AND theological differences but it is unclear how much theological differences contributed to the final split (which didn't happen in any one year anyway). Now that globalization and geopolitics have changed the economic, cultural and political issues, we are left with the ecclesiological and theological issues which may now seem more prominent issues but we run the risk of retrojecting today's issues on the world of 1054. Let us not conflate "theology with history".
On the other hand, we do need to be careful to understand that the Patriarchs don't have the same authority over their congregations as the Pope does over the Catholic Church. (At least that's what I understood LM and Cody to have said.) Patriarchs have been criticized for their ecumenical efforts towards the Catholic Church. A patriarch or a metropolitan can say that there are no "fundamental differences" but theologians such as Romanides and Lossky can disagree. After 1054, there were a number of efforts made by patriarchs to reunite East and West but the "rank and file" rejected those efforts. An accurate depiction of the Orthodox Church's position in 1054 and the years ensuing as well as in the present must therefore reflect these nuances. --Richard S (talk) 17:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
There is a history of the theological differences even before what Photius wrote about them in his On the mystagogy of the Holy Spirit. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Quotation of Hilarion Alfeyev

Only now have I noticed that another very apposite item has been removed:
Archbishop Hilarion Alfeyev of Volokolamsk, chairman of the Moscow Patriarchate department for external church relations, has stated: "The Orthodox and the Catholic Churches have only some differences in theology and models of church order. Thus, we do not recognize the supreme authority of the Pope of Rome over other Churches. However, the differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism are not fundamental."<ref>[http://www.mospat.ru/en/2009/12/14/news10180/ Moscow Patriarchate 14 December 2009]</ref>
Surely this authoritative evaluation of EOC-RCC theological differences should not be excised from the article. Esoglou (talk) 10:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, the what of the who? Unless he's the Patriarch, I don't care what he says. His view is clearly fringe to say the least.--Taiwan boi (talk) 10:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
@Taiwan boi - Excuse me, how do we know that his view is "clearly fringe"? LM and Cody have asserted that if any bishop of the Orthodox Church were to state something unacceptable, he would be "dumped on" (my words) quickly and harshly. Do we have the pronouncements of any archbishop, metropolitan or patriarch contradicting what Archbishop Alfeyev wrote? We know that Romanides and Lossky criticize the theology of the Catholic Church harshly. Do the Orthodox accept the authority of Romanides and Lossky over that of Archbishop Hilarion Alfeyev? --Richard S (talk) 17:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
@Taiwan boi - I respectfully disagree. The article treats statements by Roman Catholic officials lower than the Pope (whom some look on as Patriarch of the West) as authoritative, and LoveMonkey quoted Hilarion several times in passages of the article that, together with the quotations from him, have now been moved elsewhere. And it is difficult to see how certain Eastern Orthodox writers who are repeatedly quoted in the article, even in its reduced form, are less fringe than Archbishop Hilarion Alfeyev. You might as well say that statements by Hilary Clinton are clearly fringe, because she isn't President. Esoglou (talk) 11:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
You can disagree all you like, but until this guy is the official theological decision maker for the OEC, his personal view on this position is completely irrelevant. Why do you think churches like the OEC and yours have these people? Because they can say X, Y, and Z, and your church can happily deny that their statements have any validity, if necessary (like your church's total confusion over hell; today it's a place, tomorrow it isn't, next week it's a place again, you just can't get it settled). I will remind you yet again to stop adding information concerning the OEC, and to add only information concerning your own team. In any case, having read the article in question I find that yet again you are completely misrepresenting it. You have a habit of quoting out of context, and cannot be trusted to represent accurately the views of those with whom you disagree.--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
your comments on this page indicate a different understanding of the authority of the patriarchs in stating the "official position of the Orthodox Church". As I understand what LM and Cody have said, the Patriarchs do not have the authoritative supremacy over their congregations that the Pope has over his congregation. The Orthodox bishops are more collegial than the Catholic bishops are. I'm busy this morning and I suspect I will get this wrong if I try to go into detail without choosing my words more carefully than I have time for. The point is: accepting only a declaration by an Orthodox patriarch as an authoritative declaration of what the Orthodox church believes is a Catholic view of how things are done within a church. The Orthodox Church doesn't work in such a top-down authoritarian way. --Richard S (talk) 17:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
@Taiwan boi - Shall we agree to disagree? But may I first respectfully point out that I was not "adding information concerning the EOC": I was only reporting an appraisal of theological differences between EOC and RCC as expressed by the official of the Moscow Patriarchate charged with EOC-RCC relations, and that, except when official sanctions are imposed on certain individuals, Wikipedia does not exclude anyone on grounds of religious or other opinion from making sourced relevant edits to any sector of its articles. Another preliminary remark is that I find it quite incomprehensible how you can have read Hilarion Alfayev's declarations to Der Spiegel and come to the conclusion that the short quotation I gave from it was "completely misrepresenting it".
Leaving that aside and coming to your appraisal of Hilarion Alfeyev, who is the author of an EOC catechism, and whom you refer to as "this guy", shall we simply agree that we differ in our view of him. I think he is at least as much an authority on differences real or alleged between EOC and RCC theology as most if not all of M.C. Steenberg, Michael Azkoul, John S. Romanides, Anita Strezova, Hierotheos Vlachos, Vladimir Lossky, Nikolai Lossky, John Breck, Igumen Chariton of Valamo, Kallistos Ware, John Meyendorff, Archbishop Chrysostomos, Archimandrite George, Alexander Golitzin, Andrew Louth, Photius Coutsoukis, George C. Papademetriou, Rafael Karelin, George Metallinos, Michael Pomazansky, Georges Florovsky, Christos Yannaras, Theodore Pulcini, Nikolai Berdayev, Bishop Alexander of Buenos Aires, all of whom are quoted in the article, even as now reduced. You, on the other hand, think that Hilarion Alfayev should not be added to their company. Let us leave it at that. Esoglou (talk) 16:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Esoglou has repeatedly misquoted and misused and distorted what all of these theologians including Alfayev have said. So rather than saying if they are authorities or not it is probably better to request that Esoglou not use them. As Esoglou simply CAN NOT add them to the article without mis-interpreting them. I guarantee anyone on here that Esoglou has not read a single book by any of the Orthodox he has just posted. And as a matter of fact it is Esoglou's edit warring on this article that is his first time exposure to any of them. If other wise then Esoglou has some major defects in his perception skills. Esoglou does not know the works of any of the theologians he just named. As a matter of fact allot of my own personal library of books are not posted on Google books and I have added them to article of my own violation Esoglou has not done any such thing AT ALL. Esoglou does not own any works by these Orthodox theologians nor has he ever read them. Esoglou google searches.LoveMonkey (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

LM, shall we two also agree to disagree? You think that my quotation of Hilarion Alfayev's words about the non-fundamental character of EOC-RCC theological differences distorts what he says. I think it does not. You think I have no right to quote what a high official of the Moscow Patriarchate says. I think I have. Shall we leave it at that? Esoglou (talk) 17:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I have stated my position which you again ignored and showed that you simply will not respect. You did this by posting the comment you just did. As I have stated already regardless of what authority they have Esoglou can not be trusted to post them. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
As is obvious, we disagree, whether or not we agree to disagree. Esoglou (talk) 19:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

And whats even more obvious is your crusade to have your POV as the content of these various articles even by engaging in unethical distortion of Orthodox authorities and theologians. Esoglou won't ever acknowledge the pages of archives showing over and over again who Esoglou distorts and misrepresents and how it takes pages and pages and tons of ones personal time to try and explain to this very dense individual how misinformed and incorrect they consistently misrepresent the Orthodox. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Requested citations

I wrote the following two sentences for the lead:


However, a number of Orthodox theologians consider these differences to be far more significant, deep-rooted and irreconcilable. These theologians argue that the Catholic Church has been irretrievably tainted by Arianism, Augustinian theology and Scholasticism and cannot be reconciled with Orthodox theology unless these errors are rooted out and abandoned.


Someone has tagged this text with requests for citations. I confess that I wrote the text based on my understanding of quotations from Romanides and Lossky that were provided by LoveMonkey. I am not well-acquainted with their writings. I just read some of the stuff that LoveMonkey has presented and the text above captures my understanding of their position. I would think that LoveMonkey could provide the relevant citations to support the above assertions.


Note that I wrote "a number of Orthodox theologians". We have previously discussed on this talk page the difference between what it means when "a number of Catholic theologians" say something and what it means when "a number of Orthodox theologians" say something. When "a number of Catholic theologians" say something and they don't get whacked by the Roman Curia (CDF, I think), it just means that they are not so far out of line as to be in danger of heresy. It doesn't mean that the Catholic Church teaches the specific doctrines put forth by the theologians. LoveMonkey and Cody777777 assert that when Romanides or Lossky say something, we can pretty much assume that this is the teaching of the Orthodox Church. Well, being a Catholic, this is a bit hard for me to swallow but, being fairly ignorant about how things work in the Orthodox Church, I can only assume good faith and trust LM and Cody when they tell me this.


If I have not accurately captured the position of theologians such as Romanides and Lossky, I trust LoveMonkey would correct what I wrote and hopefully provide the requisite citations.


--Richard S (talk) 08:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

(This is the diff of the insertion of the citation requests ("cn") in the lead. Esoglou (talk) 10:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC))
Richard I provided you the link above and asked you to read it.[14] It clarifies what is more appropriate as to what the Greek (Romanides)[15] and the Slav (Lossky) consider "Orthodox". What holds the church of the East in unity (sobornost or katholicos) is our theology (gnosiology or mysticism).[16] I.e. people try it and it benefits (therapeutic) them (not all but most). This has been explained and if you would take the time to read and be informed about what is the proper way to say this then I would not have added the citation requests. As it is a cornerstone to the Eastern Orthodox position against Roman Catholicism that the "Orthodox" theology was in the West until it was corrupted for political purposes by the Franks, Germans. This is what is taught in the church (and that includes seminary). You don't have to listen even when I asked really really nicely. Now do you? LoveMonkey (talk) 15:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
i.e. "A basic characteristic of the Frankish scholastic method, mislead by Augustinian Platonism and Thomistic Aristotelianism, had been its naive confidence in the objective existence of things rationally speculated about. By following Augustine, the Franks substituted the patristic concern for spiritual observation, (which they had found firmly established in Gaul when they first conquered the area) with a fascination for metaphysics. They did not suspect that such speculations had foundations neither in created nor in spiritual reality." John Romanides [17]
Even Tomáš Špidlík acknowledges this [18] and Esoglou is completely clueless and has no idea what he is talking about or editing in relation to Eastern Orthodoxy he is making terribly ignorant mistakes and if he has a degree he should get his money back.. As well Esoglou's Greek is completely suspect. This book by Špidlík is actually WRONG about it but allot closer to it then Esoglou as Špidlík can't tell the difference between theoria and gnosis but as a Byzantine Catholic at least he understands that Orthodoxy is based on whatever he can try to call "theoria" or "gnosis" which is different then Esoglou who isn't even on the same continent as what is being said and with his ignorance is butchering this actual point. You know there is in the East the idea that Roman Catholic once they see that there is gnosis are ashamed of God and try and attack it. Look at what happened here where User:Paulmnguyen called the point, one of a potential mental illness. Man that's just great that Moses and St Paul where mentally ill cause they saw (theoria) the same uncreated light and remembered it (gnosis). LoveMonkey (talk) 16:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

POV Whitewashing and removal of sources critical of Roman Catholic position

This article has been white washed by Roman Catholic POV pushing editors whom are editwarring in order to remove positions expressed that show the history of this type may put them in a bad light. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Hell - the concept of eternal punishment

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

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

Palamism

I found this quote from Christopher Livanos quite interesting:

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

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

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

Differences of perspective and emphasis

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

Anthony Dragani on Adrian Fortescue

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


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

Editing restrictions

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

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

My edits where grammar and other such edits. You reverted because you are here to edit war. How is it that Esoglou is yet again modifying statements from Eastern Orthodox sources? Each edit Esoglou made was to statements from Eastern Orthodox sources.[19] Then Esoglou goes and posts on administrator Ed Hubbards personal page complaining [20] even though it was Esoglou who violated the terms of the restrictions. Look at Esoglou's comments here on the article talkpage. After Esoglou violates the restrictions he tries to blame ME for his violations. LoveMonkey (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Esoglou you are going to get into a world of hurt by blatantly breaching your editing restrictions in this way, especially so soon after the restrictions were enforced. Do not edit this material, even if you think it's wrong and even if you think LM has failed to uphold the restriction. Bringing perceived breaches of the agreement to Ed's attention is the right thing to do; "correcting" them yourself is not. For the record I see no breach by LM here.--Taiwan boi (talk) 03:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
While I was already fully aware that I was not to make any changes of my own to LoveMonkey's accounts of "Eastern Orthodox pictures of Roman Catholic theology" and took care not to make any such changes, I have now learned that LoveMonkey himself may at will add phrases or remove them from his accounts, without thereby violating his agreed obligation to ensure that what information he adds about "Eastern Orthodox commentary (positive or negative) on Roman Catholic teaching/practice must be clearly attributed, in the body of the article, to the specific individual or document making it and must be clearly identified as opinion, rather than as factual information about the nature of RC teaching/practice or its compatibility/incompatibility with EO teaching/practice". Esoglou (talk) 10:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Taiwan boi. Esoglou, it strikes me as incomprehensible that you would edit that section so soon after the restrictions were put in place.
I actually agree with Esoglou that LM's addition of the word "anthropomorphic" was problematic, even if it's supported by one of the existing sources. In my opinion, when Esoglou or LM starts adding material (even individual words) about RC/EO commentary on EO/RC teachings, the editing restrictions should kick in, and they should be required to attribute the sentences that they are editing to a specific document or person in the body of the article. However, I have no interest in sparking another fight, so I'll just drop it for now. LM, for your own sake, I hope that you consider attributing sentences in the section "Eastern Orthodox pictures of Roman Catholic theology" to specific documents or individuals whenever you edit them, even if you are only editing already-existing sentences. This will make it less likely that you'll run afoul of the editing restrictions.
At any rate, Esoglou, you technically should not even be discussing this material on the talk page (if I'm reading the editing restrictions correctly), let alone editing it. If you think LM is doing something wrong, just alert Ed; don't intervene yourself. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I have thus learned from Phatius a second thing of which I was regrettably unaware: that returning the text to its previous state after what I (sincerely but, I have since been told, mistakenly) thought was a violation of the agreement on the part of LoveMonkey, while making no change of mine to that previous state, was a violation by me of the same agreement. I accept his judgement. This is in addition to what I already learned from Ed (although Phatius seems to have cast doubt on it now): that LoveMonkey is free to add words like "anthropomorphic" (and later to complete the phrase by adding also "in contrast to theanthropic") to his accounts of Western theology. I already accepted Ed's judgement. I apologize for my failure to understand the situation properly, and I will make no further comment on the matter on this page. Esoglou (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
                • I'm confused********************************************************************************************************

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

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

Please can someone explain.

[21], in specific [22]. LoveMonkey (talk) 03:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Excessive quotations removed

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

Requested move 30 June 2016

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

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


– Threefold rationale:

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

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

  • Very Strong Oppose: The argument for removing "Roman" on the basis of WP:CONCISE is a red herring. In this article it is appropriate, logical and necessary that "Roman Catholic" is used as both the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church claim to be the original Catholic Church. Therefore we should not favour one claim over another. Afterwriting (talk) 23:11, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Ever heard of WP:COMMONNAME? Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 23:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
How is the WP:CONCISE/WP:COMMONNAME argument "something that distracts attention from the real issue"? Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 23:37, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
The only time it ever comes close to being necessary is when differentiating between Catholic, Old Catholic, sedevacantist Catholic, and independent Catholic. Otherwise WP:COMMONNAME dictates that the Catholic–E. Orthodox distinction is plenty. I recommend Meta:Natural point of view. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 23:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
  • Support. I would have supported the renaming. Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

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

Requested move 27 April 2017

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

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

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

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

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

  1. ^ Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Conferences of John Cassian, Part II/Conference XIII/Chapter 11 s:Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Conferences of John Cassian, Part II/Conference XIII/Chapter 11
  2. ^ Conferences By John Cassian, Colm Luibhéid
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Casiday was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference Pristas was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Theological_differences_between_the_Catholic_Church_and_the_Eastern_Orthodox_Church/Archive_9&oldid=1137247713"