Talk:Divinization (Christian)/Archive 2

Lead does not adequately explain what Theosis is
I came to this article to learn what the term theosis refers to. Unfortunately, the lead makes no sense to me and I still have no concept of what theosis means. I'm sure this is mostly due to my own ignorance, but perhaps the wording in the lead could be made more accessible. Particularly, these passages are unclear to me: As you can probably tell, I have little background in religion, but it seems that this article should be written in a way that is understandable to anyone. According to WP:MTAA: "Articles in Wikipedia should be accessible to the widest possible audience. For most articles, this means accessible to a general audience." Thanks for listening to my complaints! Let me know if I can help in any way. Kaldari (talk) 00:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "...salvation from unholiness by participation in the life of God." What does "participation in the life of God" mean? For that matter what does "life of God" mean?
 * "the holy life of God, given in Jesus Christ to the believer through the Holy Spirit, is expressed beginning in the struggles of this life". Almost nothing in this sentence is understandable to me. How is life given "in Jesus Christ" and "through the Holy Spirit"? How can a person receive life? What does it mean to "express" the "holy life of God"? What does "this life" refer to? "the life of God" or life on earth generally?


 * Kaldari, thank you for your comment. I have edited the lead by deleting some of the lingo common in Christian theology. Does it make more sense to you? It should be reviewed and edited by other editors. I am not yet comfortable with the introduction because it does not yet really summarize the article. Thanks again for your comments. -- Storm  Rider  15:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Transfiguration of Enoch
We need to try and tell the difference between theosis and the apocryphal transfiguration of Enoch. In the Book of Enoch, when Enoch returns to Earth, he tells his children that although they see him as the earthly, human Enoch, there is likewise an angelic Enoch (Metatron) that has stood in the Lord’s Presence. ADM (talk) 13:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ADM, is there an allegation that Enoch's post mortal existence was the same as theosis? This is a nuance of which I am unfamiliar. Assuming that some groups describe it as such, we could describe what Theosis is not and include this state. -- Storm  Rider  17:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Enoch's reputed attainment of Immortality is as one facet of his godliness; accepting that, we may come to regard the absorption of Enoch as indicative of his particular Theotic Union, in the sense of sacred Yoga praxis. The stages of Theosis are particularly given as purification, illumination and consequent saintly/holy union: are these not similar to or the same as the praxes of the yogis in their vegetarianisms, fastings, water purifications, meditations, engagements to enlightenments and consequent greater Self Realizations? The literary transfiguration of Enoch (by Jesuit missionaries) to his Chinese "incarnation" as Emperor Fu Xi is almost amusing in those regards: another potent indication that Theosis is probably transcultural, and certainly as praxis/process may transcend any particular sect's, earthly church's, hemisphere's, or indeed, planet's, monopolistic claim of possession either in praxes or descriptions of theological results. In the "Ockham's razor" of such situations, it would seem that if the subject has attained physical immortality, a simple conclusion is that such demonstrates a facet of Theosis in fact or at least practice. And even more simply, who among those non-Theotic are/could be fit to estimate whether Enoch, Fu Xi, Gautama or even Jesus are, or are not one, proximate, or wholly with Godliness? 71.51.72.141 (talk) 14:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Dictionary entry?
Isn't this article really for the dictionary, as it's a definition of a word with examples? Spanglej (talk) 20:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As the reputed result of holy practices with organic and inorganic stages, Theosis as concept implies, comprises enough of topics to warrant an encyclopedic entry. Heavens, if Halitosis warrants its own Wiki entry -- certainly some concept so potentially more pleasantly fragrant as Theosis surely warrants the similar status for study. 71.51.72.141 (talk) 14:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Mormonism and theosis Again
Frankly the mormon idea of Exaltation is totally diffrent than traditional ideas of Theosis or Deification. DOes it really belong here? other than to say some see similarities in the idea?

And frankly, the LDS DO believe, or at least LDS leaders have taught, that God was once a man who became God, and as children of God, humanity may progress into Godhood, literally, and yes that includes what you would normally think of when you think God. True, LDS like to downplay it, most outsiders balk at the idea.

GOnna put references over at Exaltation (Mormonism) - probably in the discussioin for now.

ANyway - any thoughts on yanking that section from here, and just leaving a "See ALso:"?

One other thing that concerns me about the LDS entry is the language. It strikes me as a bit vague, and very reminiscent of LDS church promotional material. That does strike me as a bit biased. ANy thoughts?

Alienburrito (talk) 13:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)alienburrito


 * First, who says that they are totally different? I think you will find numerous quotations from the LDS side that they are not different and the patristic fathers are often quoted to support their position. Conversely, you will certainly find many Orthodox statements that they are not similar and they are different. Does one get to have precedence over the other? That is anathema to NPOV.
 * What is without question is that both concepts are about man becoming God. St. Athanasius stated simply, "God became man so that man might become God"; on the surface this sounds exactly like LDS doctrine. There are differences, real differences, in how theosis is taught by today's theologians and there certainly is a difference in the way East and West taught the concept in antiquity. Our job is to explain the concept and allow readers to judge for themselves.
 * IMHO, the LDS concept and Orthodox position are different, but the concept being taught has a high degree of similarity. I reject completely any attempt to sanitize the article in order to show a single POV.
 * The nature of God does not have a place in this article. That topic is covered in multiple other articles. God becoming man and then returning is God is not a novel concept in orthodox Christianity. After all, it is the foundation upon which orthodox Christianity has built itself...God become man. Are you now trying to say that this concept is extraordinarily unique because LDS say it? Seems a little humorous to me; what is worse is it has a distinct anti-Mormon flavor to it. This is beginning to sound like the beginning a long tirade on a soap box. It is time to put the axe down.
 * As an aside, it is good to see you return to editing here, Alien. Welcome back. -- Storm  Rider  19:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not really interested if this article mentions something about the mormon exaltation or not, but Saint Athanasius never said something like "God was once a man who became God", he was an Orthodox theologian and he believed that God was uncreated and eternal (without beginning, without end). The citation of Saint Athanasius could be read as "God became man so that man might become (an icon/image of) God" (but not a god himself) and this is an orthodox position, while the mormon exaltation says that humans will become gods. So the orthodox concept of deification is different from the mormon exaltation. As I said, it's not my concern if the article mentions or not the mormon exaltation, I'm mainly saying that the concept in which Saint Athanasius believes is different from the mormon exaltation (in the orthodox deification humans become icons/images of God, in the mormon exaltation they become gods). Cody7777777 (talk) 20:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Cody, I was just quoting the article. If he did not say the statement I quotes, then it should be corrected in the article. I have not checked the reference given in the article to confirm accuracy. I am pretty familiar with a number of the Patristic Fathers and their statements regarding Theosis. I think you will find that your interpretation of their words is but one position and not the only way of describing Theosis.
 * More importantly, I have clearly stated that it is the purpose of this article to clearly define the differing concepts among the groups that believe in theosis. Rather than attempt to censor articles, we just report the facts and let readers make up their own minds. I don't see a conflict between the two of us on this point. -- Storm  Rider  20:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I know this is OOOOLD, but i thought i should comment anyway. Cody is correct. Nothing in eastern Christianity says anything remotely like "as Man is God Once Was...", or anything similar to what Smith said in the King Follet Sermon. My understanding of theosis in eastern traditions is that it is, among other things, the constant awareness of God's presence, and possibly includes being made holy by God's influence and pretense and grace - on its surface anyway a far cry from statements made by LDS prophets and official church publications. The idea that Man can continue to be married and continue to have children in the afterlife, much as God is and does, seems to be unique to the LDS. Perhaps the Eastern Christian ideas on this hint that the church in the first century believed such things, but for the life of me I can find no actual evidence of such things.


 * That being said, the current wording here in this article, for the LDS beliefs, is pretty good. I might argue over a turn of a phrase here and there, but overall I like it pretty well the way it is. ALthough I do wonder, maybe even the little that is in this article about the LDS is more than should be here. Alienburrito (talk) 01:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

"Methodists and Wesleyans"
probably sounds like I'm nitpicking but the phrase "Methodists and Wesleyans" makes it sound like they're separate things, which they're not, they're the same thing. I suppose it could be said that Methodists are a subset of the Wesleyan tradition - a few of the churches in the Wesleyan tradition dont use the name Methodist....there's The Wesleyan Church, and the Church of the Nazarene...possibly others taht I dont know about,...but the majority do use the term Methodist - United Methodist Church, Free Methodist Church, Evangelical Methodist Church, Primitive Methodist Church...etc...Im thinking it should be chakged to "Wesleyans (Methodists)" or soemthing similar

Alienburrito (talk) 05:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Why the refutation before telling what theosis is?
Why does this article begin with "Rejection of theosis as taught by the Eastern Orthodox Church"? If it is about Theosis, this whole section should be a sub-section of a "Criticism" section, and not the first thing anyone sees when they look up "Theosis". Shadowmane (talk) 15:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Removal from intro the Roman Catholic claim on theosis
The Roman Catholic Church does not teach to all the members of its church the three stages of salvation called theosis. Quoting a saint whom made a very general overview of a part of the very large theological tradition does not mean that St Symeon the New Theologian and his teachings are taught to all of the members of the Roman Catholic Church. However in the Eastern Orthodox Church every member is responsible for and to learn them.LoveMonkey (talk) 03:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Love, is it a lack of emphasis or a fact that they don't teach theosis when individuals go through the inquiry class or the convert instruction class? I had always understood that the Eastern Orthodox Church had a strong emphasis on holiness and thus Theosis; whereas the Catholic Church seems to have lost a strong emphasis of this doctrine, but the teaching could still be found.-- Storm  Rider  07:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No no they can not teach Theosis if they are, then they are teaching something else and calling it theosis. They lost Theosis when they embraced Augustine. They talk out of both sides of their mouth (Aquinas versus Duns Scotus). According to them Theosis is Semipelagianism and as it is tied to Pelagiansim to the Roman Catholic church it is condemned as heresy at the Council of Orange 529. They reject Synergism and they don't even know what any of this is. Look at the synergy article Calvin did not teach synergy he taught another term and another meaning and yet there it is as if that is the actual teaching. People have no respect for other cultures they come in and hi-jack Greek terms and teachings and make them over into whatever suits their whim. I think the world of you StormRider and please don't be mad at my directness or harshness I mean you no disrespect at all. As being too hospitable might lead to a less-ing of the, of the importants at hand (of this issue).LoveMonkey (talk) 04:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense; the Roman Catholic Church teaches Theosis just as the Eastern churches do, although they generally use different terminology (except the Eastern Catholics). It's perfectly accurate to mention its primary presence in the Roman Catholic faith too. 71.200.153.143 (talk) 00:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The only nonsense here is putting into a Greek Orthodox theology article a "oh me too" "oh me too". The Roman Catholic church condemns mysticism and then turns around and claims to teach it. Please. The Roman Catholic church prides itself on its purported rationalism. Like almost ever thing else they then claim they are for mysticism, well the mysticism of Theosis by the Roman Catholic is condemned. The Roman Catholic church has referred to it "auto-suggestion", "semipelgianism". Barlaam referred to it as blasphemy. If the Roman Catholics want to make a claim for "deification" they can do that on that article. How can some group claim to accept the apophatic teaching of the essence of God and then also make statements condemning it? Now that's nonsense. . This article from the Catholic Encyclopedia is riddled with hateful disinformation. Claiming hesychasm is a system or that we are self disillusional in our cheap made up mysticism. Implying we see God the Father as the demiurge. So much for Ex nihilo! Now lets not forget that article and that website (the Catholic Encyclopedia) is a voice for the Roman Catholic church it is an authority rather then some anonymous poster on Wikipedia. It was confirmed and setted as such by the councils of Palamas and Barlaam. Read the articles for yourself and tell me how wrong they all are...LoveMonkey (talk) 04:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Again for clarification. In the Greek church the Greek word for the teaching is Theosis. In the Western church the Latin word is Divinization. The West does not teach the same thing that the Greek church calls by the Greek name theosis. The concept of divinization that the Roman Catholic church teaches is called by the Latin word Divination. If there is no article for this Roman Catholic teaching I would say that one could start one based off of the ambiguous page already in place. It is bad enough that the word Catholic is Greek and the Roman Catholic are telling us in the Greek church that they now own that word. It would be nice if the Greek could at least somewhat be able to use its own words and have its own definition for those words and not have cultures whom already have words in place for like and cross study applications come in and insist upon taking them away.LoveMonkey (talk) 05:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I apologize for being dim-witted, but is your concern that the Catholic Church, in this article, does not clarify their vocabularly and that they use Theosis to desribe their beliefs?
 * You seem to be striking at more than just this topic in your discussion above by focusing more on your concern that Catholics are co-opting Eastern Orthodoxy. This is obviously a personal concern, which can be understood, but does not belong in and should not influence this article. Neutrality is paramount for each of us. Do you have references that support what you are presenting? That would be the better way approach your concerns. -- Storm  Rider  17:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, people certainly have a lot of personal agendas here. Lovemonkey offers no evidence that the Catholic Church condemned Theosis/deification; in fact, it's right in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and numourous writings of Catholic saints. Nor did the Catholic Church condemn all forms of mysticism. After reading this, I think several people on this page have a hidden pro-Eastern Orthodox agenda and want to claim Theosis is solely Eastern Orthodox, when it clearly is not. Personal opinions and feelings have no place in Wikipedia. Resolver-Aphelion (talk) 05:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Resolver-Aphelion is right. I have added sample citations of books that show that the concept is common in the Roman Catholic Church.  Usually the Latin-derived term "divinization" is used rather than the Greek-derived word "theosis", but some of the citations indicate clearly that they are two words for the same reality.  Esoglou (talk) 18:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

No, the Roman Catholic church condemns Hesychasm and the teachings of hesychasm are toward theosis. By the Roman Catholic church labeling Palamas and the heyschast teachings of hesychasm heresy they are condemning the end results of that practice which is called theosis. There is plenty of confusion by Roman Catholic Christians as to why they are told hesychasm is bad bad bad and then right from the same organization the Eastern Catholics get to be Roman Catholic and yet are heretics. Also the last removal of the Roman Catholic church editors here trying real hard to now act like the Orthodox where never called heretics and their teachings where never called heretical by the Roman Catholic church looks very ignorant of that past.

People have memories they remember what is done to them "in the name of God". Sorry but that history is in ink. Roman Catholic confusion and contradiction are not my problem. Modern Roman Catholic theologians can say whatever fancy fits their current agenda that will not change the dogma or the decisions of the Roman Catholic councils nor the violence. Nor the statements and or history made in ink. Esoglou and his completely wrong interruptions of Orthodoxy on various Orthodox articles already well attests to this confusion. The Roman Catholic editors here can pound their proud chests and decry all about how wonderful their church has taught theosis but anyone can go to google and type "hesychasm" and get the Catholic Encyclopedia's article on the subject and read for themselves the hateful things the Roman Catholic church says about the Eastern Orthodox.

I think it is completely within reason to start to quote from this last article called the "Greek Church" which is put up online as the official article about what the Roman Catholic church teaches about the Orthodox and has for over a thousand years. But some how this article does not exist? or Some how the Greeks are the ones with the "issues".LoveMonkey (talk) 14:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Lovemonkey, you're very clearly not maintaining NPOV. It's made clear in your statement above. Sure, the Catholic Church's view and the Eastern Orthodox churches' view on Theosis/Divinization is slightly different, but it is substantially the same doctrine (i.e., that a soul united with God becomes a partaker of the Divine Nature without its human nature being annihilated). Whether or not hesychasm is acceptable in the Catholic Church or not has no bearing on that, even if they are related, they are not the same topic; and the topic of this article is Theosis/divinization. The opening paragraph has thus been re-edited to reflect this; removing your non-NPOV phraseology while still referencing the differences over hesychasm in the next sentence. Resolver-Aphelion (talk) 05:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Why does this article begin with "Rejection of theosis as taught by the Eastern Orthodox Church"? If it is about Theosis, this whole section should be a sub-section of a "Criticism" section, and not the first thing anyone sees when they look up "Theosis". Shadowmane (talk) 15:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Because of the above contention. I am not quite done with what needs to be clarified in that specific topic point but you can move it to another part of the article if you like. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

POV subsection heading
LoveMonkey insists on having a subsection heading, "Western rejection of the theosis of the Eastern Orthodox", that presents several problems. The only rejection that is mentioned in the subsection is that of the theology of Palamas and hesychasm by the generality of Roman Catholic theologians, at least until recently. Theosis on the part of any individual or group, including the Eastern Orthodox, has not been rejected by any of those theologians, still less by the West in general. On the theology of Palamas, the subsection itself states that there are Western theologians who have incorporated it into their own thinking. Theosis is not synonymous with hesychasm, and the Eastern Orthodox Church does not declare that the only way to achieve it is through that particular practice. The three Eastern-tradition stages of theosis, which the subsection presents on the basis of a source that cannot readily be checked, do not seem altogether different from the three stages or states of perfection that are part of Western tradition. This also does not support the POV contention, which LoveMonkey has placed in the heading, that the West has rejected the theosis of the Eastern Orthodox.

Rather than accept the challenge to an edit war, I have brought this question to the Talk page, asking that a more accurate and neutral heading replace that imposed by LoveMonkey. Esoglou (talk) 14:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Editor Esoglou has followed me and been WP:wikihounding me on several Wikipedia articles. I edited this Greek Orthodox theological article long before Esoglou showed up and started reverting my edits and rewriting them. Starting with the filioque article then East-West schism then Roman Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences and now this article. Esoglou seems to consider it personal that I edit on an article about a Greek word that is a theological tenet in the Greek Orthodox Church. Esoglou will not contribute to show what differences there is between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox on this and will edit war anything that tries to clarify that. This is the pattern of Esoglou's behavior. As there is a Apotheosis article for paganism and also a general deification article for the syncretic movement (henotheism) for their use of the concept under the title henosis. It seems that Esoglou does not want anyone to see the ugly things said about the theosis theological concept as taught by the Greek Orthodox church. As the ugly condemnation of the practice of theosis called hesychasm is condemned by the Roman Catholic church and that is at least one very obvious reason that the concept is not more pronounced. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I also would like to challenge Esoglou on how the entire section let alone the article in generial is not a Greek POV to begin with. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * An ad-rem word on the questions raised about the heading would be more enlightening and helpful. Esoglou (talk) 15:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And ignoring my responses is just one more example of wikihounding. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Why are Roman Catholic editors not creating a Latin santification article?
Instead of edit warring on the article for the Greek word theosis about the Greek Orthodox theological term. I.E. sanctification. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Toward neutrality in the Mormon section
I recently revised the Mormonism section as follows, including solid secondary footnote references, which was quickly changed by Storm_Rider|Storm_Rider, a Mormon apologist editor. I'm putting both edits up so that you can see the difference:

I think that the edited view presented by Storm_Rider is not a neutral statement of the Mormon belief, which evolved from Christian perfection and Holiness theologies in the early 1840s, but takes the idea of theosis/deification to its literal extreme. There is no doubt about what the Mormon belief is, as it is clearly set forth in many references including the LDS Church-approved Encyclopedia of Mormonism. And I don't think it's fair to imply that the Mormon understanding of Romans 8:17 is the same as the view of mainstream Christianity. Most mainstream Christians do not believe that Paul was arguing in Romans 8:17 that humans could literally become gods in the afterlife and become coequal with the Father. Actually, I think the whole edited section is a euphemism for Mormon belief. Let's just tell it like it is, without the apologetic spin.

In addition, this view does not broadly represent the view of the Latter Day Saint movement, but is held only by the narrower religious tradition of Mormonism. For example, the Community of Christ, while Latter Day Saint, is Trinitarian and shares a traditional Christian view of theosis. CO GDEN  18:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your opinion, but my edit is an actual reflection of the LDS position. There is not a more neutral position than actually stating what a religious group believes. To provide a slanted version of belief is or to actually interpret the beliefs of a religious orgainziation and then use a defective references is POV. Worse the references you have chosen do not reflect the doctrines of the LDS Church, rather they reflect the personal opinions of past leaders whose statements have never been accepted as doctrine.
 * The references I provided come frist from scripture clarifying that LDS use a literal understanding of scripture. The second and third references I provided came directly from the Guide to the Scriptures, which state the explicit doctrine of the LDS Church. There is no higher or stronger reference. It is concise, it is complete, and it is the reality of LDS beliefs about this topic. If more references are desired, there could be a plethora provided which actually come form the LDS Church about their own doctrine.
 * The LDS Church makes up over 90% of the Latter Day Saint movement. This is an overwhelming majority of the Latter Day Saint movement. Attempting to portray it differently is allowing the tail to way the dog. That would be unhelpful and disingenuous. The Community of Christ accounts for approximately 250,000 people; and that is the larges church outside of the 13.5 Million member LDS Church. - Storm  Rider  23:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We have to be careful when using primary sources, such as the Bible, in religious contexts to show what adherents believe. You can say that Mormons believe what the Bible says about theosis, but the Mormon interpretations of Romans 8:17 and similar Bible passages are uniquely Mormon.
 * There is no controversy about what Mormon theosis doctrine is. It is very accurately described in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, which was written for a general audience, is approved by the LDS Church, and is supposed to be an encyclopedic statement of current, mainstream apologetic Mormon thinking. Moreover, what the Encyclopedia of Mormonism says is exactly the same thing that various mainstream (non-apologetic) academic works say Mormon goodhood doctrine is. For that matter, it says the same thing as the LDS "Guide to the Scriptures" (which, for the uninitiated, is a Bible dictionary published with the LDS scriptures), because while noting the part about becoming "joint heirs with Christ", your above edit ignores the part that says faithful Mormons shall "be gods" and thereby "have all power". CO GDEN  20:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The care for primary sources is only when there could be confusion over the primary source. In this instance I stated clearly that LDS had a literal interpretation of scripture. Therefore if the scripture says that humans are joint-heirs with Christ then the meaning is exactly as it states, man will be a joint-heir with Jesus Christ. I do not think there is a "unique" way of interpreting a scripture literally. Literally is a defined term that all understand; it is different from figurative, allegorical, etc. It means to understand scripture exactly as it is stated. How many ways can you interpret "joint-heir with Christ"?
 * The definition that I provided is the orthodox doctrine of the LDS Church. It is true that Theosis and deification mean that man may become god. This teaching comes directly from scripture and does not initially evolve from the statement of any latter-day prophet. It is misleading to state otherwise. In the LDS Church the doctrine of Theosis is taken to the logical end, because of the atonement of Jesus Christ man may become like Jesus Christ. His greatest Gift, Exaltation, is to share in his divinity as a joint-heir. It is Christ's holiness that is given to man; he expands his godhood to man. This does not replace God or diminish God in his relationship to man; God will always be God for mankind. It does mean that man may become gods.
 * This is not the main article on Exaltation. Thus, the wheres, ifs, hows, and whats are not appropriate to go into detail because it would imbalance the article. All that is needed here is not short, concise article. - Storm  Rider  20:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * To Mormons, "joint-heir with Christ" means that humans may inherit the Father's godhood, including every aspect of his divinity, just as Jesus has. While I agree that is a more "literal" understanding of the scripture, the problem is that 99% of other Christians interpret this scripture more metaphorically, and will assume that Mormons do too if the present language is allowed to stand. Your proposed description of Mormon theosis could equally be applied to any other Christian denomination. But you and I both know that that the Mormon view of theosis is vastly different.
 * Merely saying that Mormons believe that they may become "joint-heirs with Christ" is technically true, but deliberately fails to correct the reader's misunderstanding of how that phrase should be construed within Mormon theology. Lets just straightforwardly present the Mormon theosis as it is described in authoritative secondary sources, without euphemism. CO GDEN  20:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Civility in edit summaries
I think we've been over this before, but in case it needs repeating, my understanding is that it is generally considered inappropriate to mention other editors in a negative fashion in edit summaries (such as [ here]). I would urge people to re-read WP:EDSUM and WP:CIVIL and be more careful in the future. Richwales (talk · contribs) 21:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

My addition to the lead
I moved a paragraph to the lead. Esoglou objected with this comment on my Talk Page. I will confess again as I have in the past: theology makes my head hurt. I don't want to venture an opinion as to whether or not the Eastern and Western views are "identical". It simply seemed to me that the type of comment being made in the paragraph in question was the kind of summary that belonged in the lead paragraph. Now, you theology-wonks can continue the argument about whether or not they are identical. It seems to me that the options are "diametrically opposed", "radically different", "similar but not identical" or "effectively identical". I suspect the answer is one of the last two. You guys can now spend hundreds of words discussing which of the preceding best fits the situation. --Richard S (talk) 09:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Uh...mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa... Somehow I didn't notice that the paragraph that I moved to the lead explicitly referenced the "Eastern Orthodox" understanding of theosis.  If that paragraph describes the "Eastern Orthodox" view then it belongs at the head of the section about the Eastern Orthodox view and not in the lead; so I have moved it there.


 * I have kept the sentence about "This conception of salvation is historical and foundational for Christian understanding in both the East and the West" because I assume it is true and unobjectionable. As stated above, I am neither endorsing nor objecting to the statement about the Eastern and Western views not being identical.  That's an issue for the theology-wonks to hash out.


 * --Richard S (talk) 09:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Richard, my question really is whether you do think it right to insert in the lead the disputed statement "however, Eastern Orthodox and Western Christian conceptions of theosis are not identical"? It is still there.  Esoglou (talk) 10:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Why shouldn't it be there? It's a fact that the two conceptions are not identical.--Taiwan boi (talk) 10:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The bald statement "it is so" should be nowhere in the article. You should attribute it to those who say it.  And is the lead the place for such a discussion?  Esoglou (talk) 10:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Esoglou, I understood your question the first time. My point is: if the statement is indisputably true then it should be in the lead.  If it is disputable, then the statement should be qualified and, depending on how disputable, perhaps it does not belong in the lead.  Probably, what it really needs is to be expanded i.e. it should explain that the East and West conceptions are "similar but not identical because of differences X, Y and Z".  As you say, it may also be better to attribute it to a reliable source than to simply state it as indisputable fact.  Citations are always useful although I'm not sure if the citations that were given for the paragraph directly support the sentence in question.  So fix it.
 * What I was saying is this kind of statement (i.e. one that broadly contrasts the positions of two of the major branches of Christianity) belongs in the lead but I did not possess the knowledge to determine if the statement was satisfactory as it stands or if it needed tweaking. For that, I defer to the theology-wonks to hash out the fine points.
 * --Richard S (talk) 16:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Since, if I understand you correctly, you think the statement should be attributed to a source, is there any hope that you will do the attributing to the author of the citation given? I am reluctant to intervene more than necessary.  If you too are reluctant to do anything, and decide not to intervene, then I will overcome my reluctance and edit the phrase.  Esoglou (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I'm sorry but there is no hope that I can do the attribution since, as I freely admit, I'm really an ignoramus in this area. I'm a bit concerned by your verbiage.  Is there any possibility that your "intervention" would be considered controversial by other editors?  Say, for example, LoveMonkey?  If so, please explain what the issue is so as to avoid a potential edit war. --Richard S (talk) 17:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As I indicated, my intervention would have been to present as the opinion of its author the unqualified statement that the two conceptions are different and that the Western one is heretical, no more than that. And yes, I do think that that intervention, at least if made by me, "would be considered controversial by other editors".  I hope that, with fresh editors active on the article, I may not have to intervene at all.  Esoglou (talk) 18:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OK... I understand... however, the problem is that I don't understand who the author of the opinion is. Can we attribute the "not identical" assertion to Romanides or Lossky (the "usual" suspects)?  Are there any Western (e.g. Catholic) authors who comment on whether Eastern and Western views on theosis are identical, similar or significantly different?  Is there a simple way to characterize the alleged difference?  Can we say something like "Orthodox theologians assert that Western views of theosis are heretical because they assert X (or deny Y)?  We must somehow find a formulation that will inform the reader in a very synopsisized way what the issues are. --Richard S (talk) 23:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Your latest change of the lead suggests that it is generally taken that there are differences, even perhaps incompatible ones, and makes it necessary to include in the article an important section disputing about "the differing views of Eastern/Western theology regarding the compatibility of the two theologies vis-a-vis theosis". Alas.

The author of the opinion that the Western conception was different and heretical was specified in the text that you removed earlier: Archimandrite George of Mount Athos. You can find his text here. Esoglou (talk) 08:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What would be an easy situation to document would be Tradition A believing X and Tradition B believing Y and both traditions calling each other heretics. Instead, what we seem to have is some theologians (possibly most) from Tradition A having called Tradition B heretics at some point in the past (e.g. Adrian Fortescue in the Catholic Encyclopedia) but having moderated its tone since then.  At the same time, some theologians (possibly representing the mainstream) of Tradition B call Tradition A heretics.
 * I have restored the citation to Archimandrite George of Mount Athos. However, I am uneasy with the restored footnote because this is awfully early in the article to be plunging into these issues.  I would prefer having a less detailed exposition in the quote that supports this statement.  Something that is more along the lines of an objective, secondary source rather than what reads like a primary source polemic against the Western Church.
 * --Richard S (talk) 08:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As you know, I do not at all think that the lead is the place for expounding ideas such as Archimandrite George's. And of course his polemic is just the sort of thing that I think should not be presented as a source on what really is the Western conception.
 * Regarding your first paragraph, I think it ignores the fact that theosis/deification (what the Wikipedia article is supposed to be about) is distinct from hesychasm (what Fortescue's article was about). Do you suppose that the Eastern Church believes that deification/theosis is the reserve of those who practise the hesychast system of prayer, and that all the rest of its faithful are excluded from being deified?  Of course you don't.
 * Nor do I see where you got the idea that Fortescue "called Tradition B (in this case that of the East) heretics at some point in the past". Fortescue says that "by the end of the fourteenth century Hesychasm had become a dogma of the Orthodox Church. It is so still."  But the Eastern Church, in spite of holding hescychasm to be a dogma, is not described as heretical in Fortescue's article on hesychasm (not, I repeat, on deification/theosis).  The only time that Fortescue in that article applies the word "heresy" to (two) Easterners is when he is speaking of the 1345 synod in Constantinople (an Eastern synod) that condemned the teaching of Palamas and Buchiras.  In that context, Fortescue says: "Buchiras and Palamas withdrew their heresy outwardly".
 * In other words, the Roman Catholic Church considers the views of Palamas on hesychasm as a theological opinion, one on which the (Roman Catholic) Church has made no pronouncement and so one that Catholic theologians are free to accept or reject (Fortescue was one who rejected). It was an Eastern synod that condemned his views.  As for the distinct concept of theosis/deification, perhaps you can find some Roman Catholic theologian who objected to some Eastern presentation of it, but I know of none.   Esoglou (talk) 10:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposal
The current lede would, in my view, benefit from a more impartial wording that doesn't dwell too much on either the EO or RC perspective. Perhaps something like this: "Theosis (a Greek word meaning "divinization", "deification", or "making divine") is used in Christian theology to refer to the transformation of a believer who puts into practice the spiritual teachings of Jesus Christ and his gospel.  This conception of salvation is historical and foundational for Christian understanding in both the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic traditions; however, the eastern and western conceptions of theosis are not identical."  Comments? Richwales (talk · contribs) 19:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If divergence between the two traditions is to be given a mention in the lead, that divergence (in substance, not just in wording) must be made evident later in the article. Is it evident at present?
 * However, since the proposed introduction is decidedly better than the present far less readable and clear text (to say nothing of the present text's footnote presentation of the Western tradition as heretical), I would accept it as it stands. Esoglou (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree that Richwales' version is more readable and clearer. I have replaced the previous lead with his version.  As always, this is simply the foundation for future rewriting and expansion.  It's simply a better foundation than what was there before.


 * I also was disturbed by the footnote presentation of the Western tradition as heretical. (I only left that in because I didn't want to be overbold in removing the text without prior discussion.)  Such assertions should be made in the section on Eastern Orthodox views in the main body text not tucked into a footnote of a key sentence of the lead.  We may even consider presenting the assertion explicitly in the lead.
 * I rely on the theology wonks to clarify the assertion "eastern and western conceptions are not identical". My feeling here is that if the two conceptions were substantially the same, we would not need to have an article organization based on separate major sections for each branch of Christianity.  Thus, the organization of the article demands some sort of explanation and justification in the lead.  Just saying that the two are "not identical" is not sufficient as it begs the question: "so in what ways are they different?"  Now, Esoglous has not come right out and said it but my suspicion is that he is asserting something along the lines of "(at least some) Orthodox theologians argue that the Catholic view of theosis is heretical but the Catholics view both views as compatible and substantially the same".  If it can be documented that there are actually two different positions as to whether or not the the Catholic and Orthodox views are "identical", then we should state this in the lead instead of stating simply that the two views are "not identical".
 * Thus, we might wind up with a sentence like "Although the some Orthodox theologians consider the Western understanding of theosis to be heretical, theologians within the Catholic Church consider the views of the Catholic and Orthodox churches to be substantially the same and fully compatible." Note that there is a problem of maintaining clarity between the Orthodox attack on the "Western understanding of theosis" (which at least includes Protestantism) and what the Catholic Church asserts is its view.  It seems that the Orthodox theologians would lump Catholic and Protestant theology together while it is not clear to me that Catholic theologians would make any assertion about whether Protestant and Orthodox conceptions of theosis were compatible.  If there is any substantial difference between Protestant and Catholic views of theosis, this should be presented in the lead as well.  Finally, we should summarize the differences between the non-Trinitarian views and the Trinitarian views in the lead.
 * --Richard S (talk) 17:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No, Richard, I was not planning to look for Eastern theologians who say anything whatever about the Western conception of deification/theosis. I think the proper thing to do would be to present what Easterners say about theosis/deification and what Westerners say about deification/theosis and let readers draw their own conclusions about whether there is any substantial divergence between the two conceptions.  In other words, I think the article should be about theosis/deification, not about "Do East and West differ on the Christian concept of deification/theosis?"  For that very reason, the proper thing to do would be to present each conception as enunciated by spokespersons of that tradition, not as perhaps caricatured by followers of the other tradition.  Esoglou (talk) 18:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * (Only when a Wikipedia editor presents the caricature as unanimously held by Tradition A concerning Tradition B can it be useful to show that not everyone in Tradition A has fallen for that distorted image of Tradition B's actual teaching.) Esoglou (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Esoglou wrote "I was not planning to look for Eastern theologians who say anything whatever about the Western conception of deification/theosis."
 * Richard responds - Excuse me but hasn't LoveMonkey already provided that? What I thought was most needed was to figure out whether the Western theologians see a significant difference or not.  My assumption is that Western theologians see no substantive (i.e. rising to the level of heresy) differences.  But that is pure speculation on my part.  I was hoping that someone could provide a reliable source that could shed light on the question.
 * It seems to me that if we have a section titled "Western rejection of the Orthodox theosis", then we should have a clear exposition on whether the West does or does not actually reject Orthodox theosis. I understand that there is not a clear answer per the statement " while some Western theologians see the theology of Palamas as introducing an inadmissible division within God, others have incorporated his theology into their own thinking,[12] maintaining that there is no conflict between his teaching and Roman Catholic thought.[13]"   It seems to me that we need a fuller exposition of the material presented on p. 243 of  Christensen and Wittung in Partakers of the divine nature: the history and development of deificiation .  The Orthodox section of the article suggests that the Orthodox view the Catholics as heretical.  The Catholics are apparently divided as to whether or not the Orthodox view (as embodied in the theology of Palamas) are compatible with Catholic theology.  Gee... actually, that's not a bad synopsis.  I'm going to put that sentence in the lead subject to suggestions for further improvement from other editors.  If anyone can provide sources for it, that would be really great. --Richard S (talk) 23:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

OK two things I have to put in ink first hahahahahahahahahaha. Heres 1 why---Richard wrote:
 * "My assumption is that Western theologians see no substantive (i.e. rising to the level of heresy) differences."

Now I see Richard is having to try and work with Esoglou and I see, well the problem is universal and not me hahahahahahahahahaha.2- To Richard's lead and above comment. I have been trying to keep the section Western rejection of the Orthodox theosis FOR MONTHS NOW, under that title in the article and have 2 other editors from time to time remove it. Esoglou and Leadwind. So now in that (which has been in the article for sometime) section I used quotes from the Catholic encyclopedia online that has two Roman Catholics theologians calling the prayer our ascetics use to obtain theosis and thereby calling our theosis heresy' -cause in the East you can't have 1 without the other- and all Richard noticed is a source I added 3 days ago calling Western Christianity when it does that (i.e. saying Eastern Orthodox theosis is wrong and not Christian-heretical and all Richard gets out of all that is that the Roman Catholics are innocent and the Orthodox are calling them heretics. How'd you miss Adrian Fortescue (priest)? I aint RCC and he's the one that tells the Greeks they are liars to themselves and Richard just missed that? And I thought Esoglou was on mars with his edits. Wow talk about disappointed am I the only person actually read some of this? For the record and the real world if I was looking for answers about RCC stuff and I go to a source called Roman Catholic or Catholic something or I encounter some guy on wikipedia by the very nature of common sense I'm going to believe the thing called Roman Catholic or Catholic something cause surely if it was wrong the Roman Catholic church woulda took down by now over "some guy". LoveMonkey (talk) 03:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * @LoveMonkey - without commenting on the quality of Esoglou's sources (which I have not looked at), I will re-emphasize to you that the Catholic Encyclopedia is not necessarily authoritative in representing the current state of Catholic theology. As the Wikipedia entry on the Catholic Encyclopedia says, "Since the encyclopedia was first undertaken in 1913 and has never been updated, many of its entries are out of date either with respect to the wider culture or to the Catholic ecclesiastical world. In particular it predates the creation of the Vatican City State and the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965), which introduced many significant changes in Catholic practice."  While the Catholic Encyclopedia entry written by Adrian Fortescue may have represented the mainstream opinion of Catholic theology at the time of its writing, it did not then and certainly does not now represent an obligatory doctrine of the Catholic Church (i.e. Catholics were not then and are not now obliged to believe something simply because it was written in the Catholic Encyclopedia.  If you quoted the Catechism of the Catholic Church, that would be a different story.  Even if the CE entry represented the mainstream opinion of Catholic theology at the time of its writing, that does not guarantee that the assertions in the entry represent the mainstream opinion of Catholic theology today.  I have not seen enough of Esoglou's sources to form an opinion as to what the mainstream of Catholic theology is today regarding this topic.  What I do know is that more than one Pope has asserted that there are no differences rising to the level of heresy between the Catholic and the Orthodox Church.  Did the top levels of the Catholic hierarchy feel this way in 1914?  I doubt it.  I suspect there was a lot more animus towards the Orthodox Church in those days.  Things have changed dramatically in Catholic attitudes towards non-Catholic Christians in the last 50 years.  --Richard S (talk) 05:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

And I would like to re-emphazie to you that Adrian Fortescue IS A ROMAN CATHOLIC AUTHORITY one that is touted as THE Roman Catholic authority on Byzantium. You Richard are now doing what Esoglou does. You don't like that officials and or authorities of your own church have called the Eastern Orthodox HERETICS and compared the Eastern Orthodox to groups officially labeled HERETICS by Roman Catholic councils (i.e. the quitests). I will remind you that this is not for Richard to decide what is the evidence and what is not. And I will say in general when it comes to knowledge I am deductive not inductive. I do not go and seek sources that validate what I already believe. I go and gather evidence and from the evidence I draw the best conclusion I can. Here at the very very very best you got Richard You have the fallacy of argument from silence - funny it is, because if you knock the New Advent encyclopedia, I then only have to quote from Fortescue books and this is let alone without mentioning Siméon Vailhé. You are doing the same nonsense that I have been critical of Esoglou for doing. Look at the sentences in the introduction still no mention of what at the very least that SOME Roman Catholic theologian have done just the same with no statement of condemnation or rejection about their comments from the Roman Catholic church. Richard this is not go and this is exactly what POV is. So lets say we focus on these to modern text based on Fortescue? IS that 50 years enough? Oh wait I have more so much more Richard we could make this article -days long MC Steenberg open forum discussion on this from 2007. Let me clarify -So according to Richard the Roman Catholic church can called the Eastern Orthodox heretics and because it did not happen yesterday it aint valid. I mean why should people believe that the comments don't still stand since this very serious business has been completely neglected by here recently by the Roman Catholic church and Richard who has no sources saying that the Roman Catholic church now rejects these opinions is making assumptions that they do- again with no evidence. The Roman Catholic church has a great PR department they can issue a statement saying they do not agree with what people like Fortescue expressed as the Roman Catholic position. So why should Fortescue's statements not stand if there is no official condemnation of them? Another big question for Richard is...Just how big do you want this article to be? LoveMonkey (talk) 14:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Fortescue, Adrian (2000). Orthodox Eastern Church. reprint: Adamant Media Corporation. ISBN 1421249049.
 * 2) Fortescue, Adrian (2001). Lesser Eastern Churches (The Eastern Churches Trilogy). reprint: Gorgias Press. ISBN 0971598622.
 * Official declarations of "ecumenical" councils of the Church (some of which admittedly the Orthodox did not attend and do not recognize) "still stand". As do papal bulls and encyclicals until officially retracted.  The Catholic Encyclopedia was not and is not an official publication of the Church.  There is no evidence that Fortescue was speaking on behalf of the Church officially.  Was he speaking on behalf of the majority of the theologians and pastoral clergy of the time?  Yes, probably.  Are there many theologians and pastoral clergy today who believe what he wrote.  I don't know.  Nobody has presented evidence to me to assert or deny that claim.  The simple fact that Fortescue's works have been re-published suggests that there is continued interest in his writings.  However, that does not prove how strong that interest is or whether that interest is specifically in those writings which condemn Hesychasm.


 * If you want to present a historiography of the evolution of the Church's stance towards Orthodox theology, then it would be perfectly acceptable to assert that at one time many theologians considered some of the Orthodox teachings heretical. However, then you would also have to present the fact that there was a sea change in Catholic attitudes towards non-Catholic Christians in the post-Vatican II era.


 * Some of the Orthodox customs and beliefs are strange and unfamiliar to Catholics even today. However, we are called upon by the council of bishops sitting at Vatican II and by the Holy Father to consider the Orthodox as brothers.  And so we do.  (Although perhaps a more apt analogy would be "cousins from a foreign country and foreign culture but family nonetheless").  In this spirit, Catholic theologians and clergy are motivated to jump through hoops not to call Orthodox theology heretical.  The mandate is to find ways to consider the two theologies compatible despite apparent dissimilarities.  Apparently, theologians such as Lossky and Romanides do not have such a motivation.  In truth, theirs may be the more intellectually honest approach.  However, the drive of the Catholic Church over the last 50 years has generally been to value Peace and Unity over Purity.  Well... within limits, of course.  We are apparently more able to reconcile with the Orthodox and the Anglicans than with those who demand the ordination of women or the right to use birth control.  We are able to accept that Orthodox and Anglican clergy marry without allowing it for Catholic clergy.  Etc, etc.


 * --Richard S (talk) 16:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Danger of edit war
Would one of the newcomers please prevent an edit war, if necessary by reverting to before today's edits by LoveMonkey and Esoglou, and have the two await comments by others before making futher edits. Esoglou (talk) 15:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The danger seems to have passed for now. I suppose that inclusion, right in the lead, of the disputed point was bound to stir up the danger.  Esoglou (talk) 15:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Excuses excuses excuses excuses
Esoglou just committed 3rr ONCE AGAIN. Will somebody post some warning on Esoglou's talkpage that his behavor is edit warring -NO-. Will someone on this talkpage look at what I have said and knock off the one sided Roman Catholic editors from being hypocritical on how their theologians can call the Orthodox heretic and thats not really so but if an Orthodox calls people whom attack our teaching on theosis heretics they are calling Roman Catholics heretics? Since Esoglou loves to play games and I am sure I will somehow be at fault for this nonsense if even partially. Let me point out that this edit warring today is unethical at best. Since George never says Roman Catholic anything. And in his comments he attacks Barlaam position (which is to attack the teaching of EO theosis) as heretics and even George notes that Barlaam leveled that label against the hesychasts FIRST. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Focusing solely on the accusation of hypocrisy, I have always assumed that Romanides, Lossky and other Orthodox theologians that are cited represent the state of contemporary Orthodox theology. Furthermore, I have been assured by LoveMonkey and Cody777777 that they represent the mainstream because they have not been condemned.  If I have gotten this wrong, I am open to being corrected.
 * In contrast, there are many theological opinions put forth by Catholic theologians which, while not having been condemned as heretical, are not necessarily the official teachings of the Church nor obligatory for all Catholics to believe. And some of them are downright strange and borderline heretical.  We don't condemn everything that is wrong, only the stuff that is so wrong as to be considered heretical.  There's good Catholic theology and weird Catholic theology.  But none of it is fully reliable until it has been incorporated into the teaching of the Catholic Church.  Some stuff we just ignore and let it die a natural death.
 * This is one reason that I am unwilling to accept that Fortescue represents the mainstream of Catholic thinking today based solely on his having been published in the Catholic Encyclopedia. His is just a theological opinion.  As far as I am concerned, he is a primary source.  We can say that "Fortescue asserted X, Y and Z in 1914".  However, whether that says anything about Catholic theology today is only supported by the fact that his opinion was published by the Catholic Encyclopedia which was published in 1914 and has not been updated since.
 * P.S. Just to show that I have read Esoglou's comment in this regard... all of the above also has to be taken in the context of Esoglou's comment that Fortescue was writing in the Catholic Encyclopedia about hesychasm, not theosis.
 * --Richard S (talk) 17:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

No I added two books published in the year 2000 as theological lessons of Fortescue's as Richard can not confirm nor deny the current Roman Catholic position on Eastern Orthodox theosis and it's ascetic practices (i.e. hesychasm). LoveMonkey (talk) 17:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * P.P.S. While I stand by what I wrote above... it is kind of made irrelevant by the fact that Fortescue does not say in the CE entry what LoveMonkey seems to be asserting he says. I will address this in a separate section. --Richard S (talk) 17:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Post here what I have specifically misunderstood from what Fortescue says. Talk about assumptions, Richard. Also Richard since you are here on this Eastern Orthodox theological concept as taught in Greek as a Greek word in the Greek church. Tell me is Fortescue still taught in Roman Catholic Seminary? LoveMonkey (talk) 17:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Attacking Orthodox theologians in BAD FAITH
Here is Esoglou TODAY saying that the overview held by Vladimir Lossky that the Orthodox theology of theosis is not Vladimir Losskys position. I have added two sources and Esoglou rather than have good faith and come here to the talkpage and ask for clarification (which in the past when forced to do Esoglou will deny any statement and or source unless it is verbatum in essence break policy about Wikipedia and plagiarism). Esoglou twice called the sourcing a lie.
 * 1) diff 1
 * 2) diff 2

Here for example is yet the source I hyperlinked to is part of where Lossky in his Book the Mystical theology of the Eastern Orthodox church contrast Orthodox theology with Western scholasticism. One of the main themes of the WHOLE book is to show how the West and the East differ as the actual name of the book expresses, since Lossky is saying that the Eastern theology is mystical while the Western theology is scholastic academic. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there no difference between using the unparliamentary term "lying" and asking for a citation that does say, as claimed, that East and West disagree on what theosis/deification means? Esoglou (talk) 17:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is Esoglou's response to me pointing out that I added a source in good faith an actual book written by the source a book taught as a book about the actual theology of Orthodox Christianity by a very well known Orthodox theologian. Whom taught Orthodox theology and whose book about the difference between Eastern Christian theology and Western theology he wrote about under the title the Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church. And Esoglou denies the whole topic of the book is what it is about WHILE ESOGLOU WILL NOT EVEN CONFIRM HE HAS READ THE BOOK!!!!!!!!!!!!! YET ESOGLOU ATTACKS IT OUT OF HAND. There is no way that such behavior is not acting in BAD FAITH. Since Esoglou has not actually sat down and read Lossky he has to assume that my posting on Lossky are wrong WHICH IS BAD FAITH. How could such behavior be anything but a put off and frustrating and downright unacceptable? LoveMonkey (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A simple citation of Lossky's (supposed) declaration that the Eastern and Western concepts of theosis/deification are in disagreement would have sufficed. In any case the text in question has happily been removed, so there is no point in discussing it further.  I, at least, will not discuss it further.  Esoglou (talk) 17:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank God for Esoglou cause if Richard hadn't removed the text Esoglou would have to confess that he has not read Lossky's book at all and would have to confirm that he is ignorant of its content and yet attack it as not saying what it says. AS THE WHOLE BOOK IS ABOUT THE MISCONCEPTIONS THE WEST HAS ABOUT EASTERN ORTHODOX theology. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Assuming bad faith
Here is examples of what I mean when I say I am not merely throwing uncivil criticism at Esoglou. I am literally reflecting on his actual behavior. THESE ARE THE BAD FAITH ASSUME CITATION TAG MISUSE ESOGLOU CONTINUALLY DOES THAT IS WRONG. Here Esoglou does a whole set of bad faith edits saying that I have added sourced information that I am lying about TWICE as that information does not say what I say it says (i.e. Failed verification|). In this diff Esoglou OUTRIGHT ASSUMES I AM LYING ABOUT MY SOURCING OF Dumitru Stăniloae and out right labels it a lie. When from his later comments he has no way other than to assume bad faith to actually come to that conclusion.
 * 1) 1 diff
 * 2) 2 diff
 * Here is the diff with the summary from Esoglou where he admits he does not actually know what the source says even though he put (and I removed twice) that the source does not say what I have used it for. Esoglou has done this repeatedly. As he did this type of edit warring on the filioque with me already. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I assume good faith even when an edit is mistaken. Esoglou (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You have assumed bad faith in general not just on this one theologian. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Esoglou (talk) 17:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have presented evidence above of you doing that to both Lossky and Dumitru Stăniloae just today. So saying no means that all of the bad faith citation tag requests and their reverting back in today is not you assuming? And your assumptions are negative as you are saying without conversation here on the talkpage that I am lying. How is saying I am lying not "assuming bad faith?" LoveMonkey (talk) 17:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken, although in good faith. You are sincere, not lying.   Esoglou (talk) 17:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * For other people whom might read this and try to approach it with a fair mind. I repeat I added two Orthodox theologians' names to the article . I then sourced those entries . Esoglou then assumed that the sources are not valid read Esoglou's summaries here where he admits to not reading the sources and assumes that they do not say what I have added in good faith that they do say. Esoglou claims that one of the sources couldn't say what I sourced it to say because first Esoglou has no way to read the source as it is not online, and then second it as an english translation so it does not use the Greek word "theosis" even though the title of book contains the word "deification". Which actually is the word for theosis in English. But Esoglou doesn't have time for this. And even when I pointed this out to him in my edit summaries (which is another thing Esoglou selectively reads and ignores and edit wars over while denying I have used them, given explanations or have said what I said). Esoglou goes and assumes my source is still invalid even though I have the page number in the source and the title of the book is about the subject now he wants me to type out the entire page, overview and add it to the sourcing.  Next as Esoglou has done in the past he will then argue that since the word theosis is not used (while on the page the word Catholic certainly is) that the source is not valid to use in the article and does not actually say what it says. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Western rejection of the Orthodox theosis
I really don't understand why the "Greek Orthodox theology" section of this article needs to have a subsection about "Western rejection of the Orthodox theosis". The part of the article describing theosis in Eastern Orthodoxy should, IMO, confine itself to a clear explanation of the EO belief (and/or of different views of the subject within the EO fold) — without dwelling on non-EO objections to the EO belief or beliefs. A subsection on hesychasm (as believed and practised by the EOC) is appropriate here, but the current text (or, indeed, any discussion about RC or other non-EO rejection of hesychasm) belongs somewhere else. Similarly, portions of the article dealing with RC or other non-EO beliefs or understandings regarding theosis / deification / whatever-they-may-call-it should not contain any significant body of EO objections to non-EO beliefs. Richwales (talk · contribs) 18:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I want to know what Richwales knows about Eastern Orthodox theology. Cause it seems he is intervening at a very tense moment and is ignoring that fact that Theosis is the overview and highest category and ultimate goal of Greek Orthodox Christians' lives and that theosis can not be separated from the different theological underpinnings that it has and since Richard and Esoglou wise to misrepresent that by making comments like this source saying nothing of hesychasm or ascetic practice and therefore can not speak to the overview of the Orthodox Christians life expressed by the big big term that has lots to it called theosis. I think that Richwales' comments are being disruptive. And since I recently voted against Richwales becoming an administrator here on wikipedia His comment appears disruptive and this issue looks like an attempt for Rich to involve himself in something that he himself says he is not privy to. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm confused. What I was (and am) trying to say is that the "Greek Orthodox theology" section (and BTW, that should really be " Eastern Orthodox theology", should it not?) should be free to explain the EO belief fully, without being encumbered with anti-EO polemics — and, conversely, that the Western belief or beliefs should be fully dealt with in their own section (or sections), without being intruded upon by any objections from EO scholars and theologians.


 * LoveMonkey, unless I'm really failing to understand here, it seems to me that you and I are in "violent agreement" on the idea of keeping the different descriptions separate. I may not personally share your views on theosis — indeed, it's my understanding that EO theologians consider my faith (Mormonism) to be a heresy — but please accept the fact that I fully support your right to believe what you believe.


 * I honestly don't see how you can think I'm being disruptive, and I harbour absolutely no ill will against you or your views on account of your having chosen not to support my recent admin bid. If what I say is not acceptable to you and you still feel I am being disruptive on this or related articles, please seriously consider bringing up your concerns on the appropriate noticeboard rather than dwelling on your grievances in an article's talk page.  Richwales (talk · contribs) 19:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't see LDS sources using the word theosis as a common term and even if they did LDS is English based and that would be using a LOAN WORD. I don't see why the LDS' and or any other group's use of the term should be treated in the same as the Greek Church and it's use of it's word and it's term. I do not understand how all of the sudden article formating is supposed to go out the windows until I convince you RichWales that I should use it in the creation of this article. I honestly don't understand why you are even saying or posting this complaint. I can not see where this is essential considering all of the other issues that are RIGHT NOW in debate. Really I can't. It just looks disruptive. Article are supposed to have subsections why are you even bothered by that? LoveMonkey (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Articles should certainly have subsections. However, what I was (and still am) trying to say is that I don't see why the section on Greek (or should it perhaps be Eastern?) Orthodox theology should have a section entitled "Western rejection of the Orthodox theosis", dealing primarily with RC denunciation of hesychasm.  I would have thought you (LoveMonkey) would be in agreement with me on this point and would also want to remove anti-EO polemics from the Orthodox theology section — or perhaps you and I are simply not understanding what the other is saying.


 * As for whether this article should acknowledge or discuss any non-EO perspectives at all — or whether it should focus exclusively on theosis as believed by the EOC, and any possibly similar doctrines outside Eastern Orthodoxy should be taken out of here and moved to separate articles of their own — I think that is a reasonable question for people to discuss and reach a consensus on. I'm not currently inclined to take a position on this question.


 * A short mention of the LDS "exaltation" or "eternal progression" doctrine already exists in this article (I didn't put it there) — but I see no particularly pressing reason or need for it unless people agree that non-EO concepts similar in whatever ways to EO "theosis" do in fact belong here (in their own separate sections). Even if this is what people want, I would favour at most a minimal mention of the LDS belief here and then direct readers to Exaltation (Mormonism) for more detail.  If anyone thought I was aggressively pushing for a discussion of LDS doctrine in this article, you misunderstood:  I was simply commenting on two already-proposed descriptions of the LDS belief, one of which is already in the current text of the article.  If the consensus is that LDS, other non-EO/non-RC, or even all non-EO perspectives on theosis or anything like it should be removed entirely, I wouldn't feel strongly one way or the other.


 * I would very much like to hear what others (LoveMonkey, but also the rest of you) think about the above. I have been trying very, very hard not to be disruptive at all here — but if it's clear that all I'm doing (whether intentionally or not) is fanning an argument with one other editor, then perhaps whatever usefulness I might possibly have had here is gone and everyone would be better off if I simply left you all alone, stopped watching this or related articles, and worked on other things instead.  I get the impression that LoveMonkey would probably prefer that, but I'd like to hear from anyone else with a view on this before I make a decision.  Richwales (talk · contribs) 20:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Richwales, your participation is welcome. Even if editors get things wrong from time to time, we should only consider them "disruptive" if they insist on their POV in the face of reasoned argument.  I don't see you as being anywhere close to "disruptive".  LoveMonkey has style that is often contentious and caustic.  Please ignore that and focus on the substantive discussion. --Richard S (talk) 20:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * As for the substance of your question, the reason that the section in question is in the current location is because it is NOT an anti-EO polemic per se. It is, in fact, an EO polemic against the West for rejecting (or, at least, failing to accept) what the EO considers to be a central concept and practice of the true Christian faith (i.e. theosis by means of hesychasm).  I will go out on a limb and suggest that Esoglou's argument has been that the Catholic Church fully accepts theosis but doesn't understand and therefore doesn't practice hesychasm.  Here is an analogy that I would propose: If a Western flautist does not understand, appreciate or play Japanese shakuhachi music, that doesn't mean they think shakuhachi music isn't music.  It just means that it doesn't work for them.  They don't necessarily say to the shakuhachi community, "Your music is bad music."  They just say "Your music doesn't speak to me."  So, in brief, the )(some) Orthodox consider the West heretical for their failure to accept hesychasm but the West does not necessarily return the favor. --Richard S (talk) 20:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. For the time being, at least, I guess I'll stick around. :-)


 * Thanks, too, for explaining the purpose of the "Western rejection of Orthodox theosis" subsection and the reason for putting it where it is in the article. Given what you're saying, I would like to suggest that it might be better to make the subsection more positive in nature by:  changing its title to "Hesychasm"; adding a bit more description of what hesychasm is (more than just "ascetic prayer") and why it is important in EO (emphasizing an apologetic rather than a polemic approach); and seriously abridging the current text dealing with RC theologians' negative views towards hesychasm.  As the text currently stands, it seems to me to be primarily a recounting of why the RCC opposed hesychasm until fairly recently.  Also, I don't believe a "see" note in an article text, referring the reader to a talk page discussion, is in line with Wikipedia style guidelines.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 21:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

No one is listening
I now have THREE editors on this talkpage both playing games. Why is it that I can provided Orthodox sources stating that what the Roman Catholic teach as deification is not what the West teaches and Richard can remove that? Why is that Lossky's books which Richard has stated that he outright refuses to read and Esoglou will not answer if he has. Are just chalked full of various comments by Lossky refuting the Roman Catholic and Western Christian positions on their take on Eastern Orthodox theology and yet Lossky all of the sudden is saying that the teaching of theosis is the same between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism? Really where does Lossky say that? LoveMonkey (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Right now this looks like cultural theft
Why are there other Western Christian articles that claimed that the Orthodox after the schism corrupted the true teaching of salvation (Justification (theology)), (Infused righteousness) and yet you don't see Orthodox editors go edit war on those articles? It seems to me that there are plenty of other Western Christian articles for various Western Christian editors to go and contribute to (Christian perfection, Sanctification, Consecration, Salvation, Infused righteousness, Justification (theology)) and it seems beyond outrageous to believe that this Greek term not even used in the West should be anything other then a overview of the Greek church and a general summary of the concept in Western Christianity. Esoglou POV that I caught him engaging in should now be so important that Wikipedia should state that it has ended the schism and forced the Eastern Orthodox to accept that they are wrong and that the Roman Catholics teaching the same thing theologically that the Roman Catholics do. It seems that Wikipedia is being abused and being use to be something it is an inappropriate venue for. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Non-trinitarian views
I have some concerns about the section titled "Non-trinitarian views". I wonder if this title is inappropriately chosen as a better-sounding (but flawed) substitute for "Miscellaneous other views". My first issue is that having such a section title promises to discuss all significant views of non-trinitarians on the concept of theosis. If we were going to do that, it would seem incumbent on us to present the views of the Jehovah's Witnesses and we don't. We also do not cover other groups that are considered "nontrinitarian". Consider the groups mentioned in the lead of Nontrinitarianism.

Even if we did cover the views of the major nontrinitarian groups, my second concern is that the title "Non-trinitarian views" suggests that there is something about non-trinitarianism that differentiates its views of theosis from that of the trinitarians. Well, I could imagine this to be true i.e. something along the lines of the view of Jesus as not fully divine and/or the view of the Holy Spirit as not being part of the Triune God causes nontrinitarians to view theosis differently or not at all. However, an assertion such as this should be made explicitly in the intro to the section on "Non-trinitarian views". Instead, there is no intro whatsoever and all we do is proceed immediately to presenting the views of the LDS and Christian Universalists.

Thirdly, is it indisputable that the LDS are non-Trinitarian? The lead of the article on Nontrinitarianism says that "Modern nontrinitarian groups and denominations include ... some groups in the Latter Day Saint movement". Why does it make the distinction of saying "some groups"? We should avoid sloppiness and laziness in the organization of the article. I suspect the major effort has gone into discussion of the Orthodox/Catholic views but we should not give short shrift to the views of the other branches even if they are substantially smaller. I'm not saying we need to go into great depth but we should take care to present the views clearly and carefully and not subtly give the reader an incorrect impression based upon careless choices of section headings.

Finally, there should be a sentence in the lead that summarizes what is said in the section on "Non-trinitarian views". Something like "Different views of the Godhead cause nontrintarians to have a radically different view of theosis". (if such an assertion can be supported by a reliable source).

--Richard S (talk) 17:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I am LDS. We (LDS) think of ourselves as non-Trinitarian because we generally reject the traditional formulations of the Trinity doctrine, and because we have a fundamentally different belief regarding the nature of God and the relationship between God and man.  I've read some "mainstream Christian" writers who have suggested that the LDS belief is close enough in fact to traditional views to qualify us as Trinitarian, but I think that is a minority opinion.  The "some groups" qualifier is probably necessary because the Community of Christ (formerly called the Reorganized or RLDS Church) — the second-largest group in the Latter Day Saint movement (I would call it a schismatic breakaway from the LDS Church, but that's definitely an LDS view and perhaps not NPOV) — holds a much more conventional Trinitarian view than we (LDS) do.  As for how the LDS view on exaltation (we don't use the term "theosis" at all) should be worded, I'm more comfortable generally with COGDEN's proposed restatement than I am with the current text defended by Storm Rider, with the exception that I would say the process by which the righteous will eventually become like God will happen as a result of God's grace via the atonement of Jesus Christ, our faithful obedience, and the gradual acquisition of knowledge (or something like that) — not simply through the acquisition of knowledge, which sounds to me like the commonly held fallacy that Mormons supposedly believe they will achieve salvation primarily through their own hard work (with the atonement of Christ being secondary).  Richwales (talk · contribs) 06:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't really know if we can draw any shared conclusions about all non-Trinitarian conceptions of theosis, because those conceptions all probably originated very differently. Joseph Smith was influenced by his father's and grandfather's universalism, but Smith's idea of radical theosis doesn't really stem from universalism. Rather, most of the secondary sources link it more directly to the Wesleyan idea of Christian perfection, with some influence from hermeticism. Mormon theosis has little in common with universalism, because Mormons only believe that a select few will achieve divine perfection. CO GDEN  22:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Fortescue's CE entry on Hesychasm
Oh Lord, I am being inexorably sucked into this a little at a time. OK, I have now read Fortescue's entry on Hesychasm in the Catholic Encyclopedia. I guess I should have done this long ago but I was really trying not to get involved in the detailed theological and philosophical arguments. I now see that I was wrong not to have read at least the CE entry since it is both quite readable and far less biased and POV than I had been led to believe. I had been led by LoveMonkey's comments to assume that Fortescue attacked the Orthodox position as heretical. Leaving aside Esoglou's comment that Fortescue is writing about hesychasm and not theosis, I don't even find a direct attack by Fortescue on the concept of hesychasm as being heretical. Instead, I found a fairly objective, historical description of events without much judgment on the theological orthodoxy of hesychasm. Fortescue does comment that Western theologians do not accept hesychasm since it goes against the foundations of Scholasticism but that is not the same thing as calling hesychasm heretical. The one subjective judgment that I did find was a slap on the Byzantines for engaging in politically-motivated theological infighting at a time when Fortescue thinks unity against external enemies should have been their most urgent priority.

Let's look at some specific quotes ...


 * From the Wikipedia article on Barlaam "Eventually, he was made the Hegumen (abbot) of the Monastery of Our Savior, and two confidential missions on behalf of the emperor were entrusted to him. During the years 1333–1334, Barlaam undertook to negotiate the union of churches with the representatives of Pope John XXII. In 1339, he was sent to the exiled Pope Benedict XII at Avignon to discuss the union of churches, but he was not successful. "
 * Richard's comment - Barlaam is an Eastern cleric (?!) Any attack of Barlaam on Hesychasm is not necessarily an attack of the Western Church on Hesychasm.  Barlaam does not represent the Western Church but rather the anti-Hesychasm faction of the Eastern Church.  (Yes, I recognize that Wikipedia is not a RS but I am assuming the above assertion from the Wikipedia article is unobjectionable.)


 * from the CE entry on Hesychasm...


 * It is to be noted that the philosophic opponents of Hesychasm always borrow their weapons from St. Thomas Aquinas and the Western Schoolmen. They argue, quite in terms of Latin Aristotelean philosophy, that God is simple; except for the Trinity there can be no distinctions in anactus purus. This distinct energy, uncreated light that is not the essence of God, would be a kind of demiurge, something neither God nor creature; or there would be two Gods, an essence and an energy. From one point of view, then, the Hesychast controversy may be conceived as an issue between Greek Platonist philosophy and Latin rationalist Aristoteleanism. It is significant that the Hesychasts were all vehemently Byzantine and bitter opponents of the West, while their opponents were all latinizers, eager for reunion
 * Richard's comment - once again, the controversy is primarily between two factions in the Eastern Church
 * the patriarchs of Constantinople and the great mass of the people had by now become too firmly persuaded that the cause of Hesychasm was that of Orthodoxy. To oppose it was to incur the guilt of latinizing
 * Richard's comment - in both of the above two quotes from the CE entry, Fortescue seems to be saying that it is the Greeks that consider opposition to Hesychasm to be a Latin position. We should be careful not to extrapolate a fourteenth century Greek view of the Latin position (i.e. the Latins in Constantinople!) as being the actual position of the Western church in the fourteenth century, much less that of the Western church in the 20th century.  I should want to read what the Church in Rome said about this controversy in the fourteenth century and what it has to say about it now.
 * by the end of the fourteenth century Hesychasm had become a dogma of the Orthodox Church. It is so still. The interest in the question gradually died out, but the Orthodox still maintain the Tomus of 1351 as binding; 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.


 * Richard's comment - So Fortescue recognizes that Hesychasm represents a "principle in which the Orthodox differ from Catholics" but he comments that "it is rarely insisted on now" (NB: in saying "now", Fortescue is talking about in the early 20th century)


 * Latin theology on the whole was too deeply impregnated with the Aristotelean Scholastic system to tolerate a theory that opposed its very foundation. That all created beings are composed of actusand potentia, that God alone is actus purus, simple as He is infinite—this is the root of all Scholastic natural theology. Nevertheless one or two Latins seem to have had ideas similar to Hesychasm. ... But these isolated opinions formed no school. ... Hesychasm has never had a party among Catholics.


 * Richard's comment - Nowhere does Fortescue say that the Western church condemns Hesychasm as heretical. Instead, he simply says that the Western theologians rejected it as incompatible with the Scholasticism that formed the foundation of their theological system.  This is different from the Church pronouncing Hesychasm to be heretical.  This analogy may have its flaws but consider the difference between having a Japanese cousin who eats raw fish and another cousin who is a cannibal.  For one who could never contemplate eating raw fish, the Japanese cousin eats strange food but this is mostly a question of taste not one of morality.  The cousin who is a cannibal would likely raise issues of morality.  Fortescue is not saying that Hesychasm is heretical.  He simply says that Western theologians reject it and explains quite matter-of-factly that Hesychasm is incompatible with the foundations of Scholasticism.  While Scholasticism is central to Western theology, it is not actually enshrined as an immutable doctrine of the Church.  (A concept hard to wrap one's brain around but I would venture to guess that the Catechism of the Catholic Church does not require Catholics to reject all that is counter to Scholasticism.)


 * There is a real and important difference between saying "Hesychasm has never had a party among Catholics" and saying "Catholics reject hesychasm as heretical". All Fortescue is saying is that the vast majority of Catholics don't accept, adopt or practice hesychasm.  It doesn't mean that they would not tolerate other Christians who do.


 * --Richard S (talk) 17:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OK we'll start here.


 * 1) . Now can we or can we not used Fortescue as a source? Be clear and stick to whatever decission you post as I must say as to not WP:Sandbag you, there are other things then that article the Fortescue said and I have been VERY selective.
 * 2) . So Richard is the Roman Catholic church as Fortescue says "Latin rationalist Aristoteleanism"? Or is it not? LoveMonkey (talk) 18:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we can use Fortescue as a source for purposes of describing the history of hesychasm. I'm not saying he's 100% reliable but I would assume that his analysis is not far off the mark.  I think he can be used as a source for explaining why Western theologians didn't accept hesychasm up until 1914 but I would be careful not to extrapolate the posture of the Catholic Church in 1914 to the posture of the Catholic Church in 2011.


 * I think it's important to note that Fortescue does not once mention the word "theosis" in his article on Hesychasm and so we run some serious risks in using him to support assertions in this article.


 * Finally, to answer your second question: yes, of course, Western theologians especially Catholic ones are "Latin rationalist Aristotelians". As Fortescue explains, this is why Western theologians almost unanimously fail to understand and accept hesychasm.  They are not trained in it and the very idea challenges the philosophical foundations of their training.  That does NOT mean that hesychasm is heretical.  AFAIK, nobody has declared hesychasm to be a heresy.  Only the Vatican or an ecumenical council could do that and, AFAIK, that hasn't happened.  So... hesychasm wasn't a heresy in 1914 and it isn't one now.


 * AFAICT, the score is EO 1 Catholics 0 i.e. (some) EO's consider the Catholics heretics but the Catholics refuse to return the favor.


 * LoveMonkey argues that if theosis is the truck, then hesychasm is the engine. I expect that this is an accurate characterization of the Orthodox view.  I suspect that an accurate characterization of the Catholic view as seen by the Vatican would be: if theosis/divinisation is a car then hesychasm is one kind of an engine (say gasoline).  However, there are different kinds of engines, not just gasoline engines.  There are also diesel engines, electric engines, even hybrid engines.  One could consider that Scholasticism is a different kind of engine.  Thus, Pope John Paul II could characterize the catholic church as one that breathes with two lungs: the Western (more analytical and rational than mystical) and the Orthodox (more mystical than analytical and rational).  Is one more right than the other?  In the Catholic view, this would be very possibly the wrong question to ask.  Is one of your lungs better than the other?  Would you cut one out of the body because you preferred the other lung?  In truth, you would not run as fast or as far with only one lung.  You would do better to have two lungs.  (Please don't criticize me if my understanding of human anatomy is deficient.  It's just an analogy.)  Pope JPII would not use the "two lungs" metaphor if Eastern Orthodoxy were heretical.  The appropriate metaphor for heresy is cancer.  You cut out a lung from your body if it is cancerous.  That is not the position of the Catholic Church vis-a-vis the Eastern Orthodox Church.  If you are separated from your brother, you do not expect him to like the things you like or to think the way you think.  You can nonetheless recognize him as your brother and treat him as a member of the family, even if he makes you uncomfortable at times with his unfamiliar ways of behavior, expression and lines of thought.  (Forgive the sermonizing but I think this needed to be said.)


 * --Richard S (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

?????? So Adrian Fortscue is now an acceptable source to use? Also how many Popes calling hesychasm heresy specifically do you need? The teaching of the uncreated light is not compatible with systems or systematization or symmetry as such it is the transcendence of rationalism as it has no need for this (rationism) or it's validation. Therefore only that which expressly maintains the vision of God is valid Christianity which is not a paganism its goals are not worldly power nor authority as such it has no purpose of maintaining its power while claiming to be the head of the church. Its head is God and the knowledge of God its authority is a spirit not reason. Again "a fig for your fine Aristotle". May God bless you with his spirit Richard. LoveMonkey (talk) 01:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Adrian Fortescue is an acceptable source to use within the temporal limits of the fact that he was writing at the beginning of the 20th century. One must not assume that the state of Catholic theology at that point in time stayed immutable across the century that followed.  Also, in the particular case of the Hesychasm entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia, we must be careful not to conflate Hesychasm with theosis and assert that theosis was considered heresy if it was not.  To do so without a source that specifically identifies theosis as heresy is to engage in synthesis.


 * As for "how many Popes calling hesychasm heresy" I need. I dunno.  How many have you got and which ones are they?  Who actually are the Catholics that we have on record as calling hesychasm heresy?  I apologize in advance for not reading through the entire archive of this Talk Page and checking all the sources.  I admit to my laziness.


 * Also, I thought this was the theosis article, not the hesychasm article.


 * --Richard S (talk) 02:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Now baby steps what about Simon Vailhé, is he a valid source to use as well? Also lets talk about Pope Benedict XII shall we? LoveMonkey (talk) 13:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * PS This is doublespeak "Also, I thought this was the theosis article, not the hesychasm article." Either it is the engine and the truck as so or it is not. Please refrain from doublespeak as doing so is wasting my time. Thank you. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Also please be aware of the fact that you are in essence picking and choosing what is acceptable and what is not for Wikipedia. As such look at the list Esoglou just added to the end section of the talkpage. I am not allowed to add valid Orthodox theologians to this article (you removed them when you deleted the introduction) and yet Esoglou and RCC editors can quote Bobby Hix and his book of Truth Theology from Euka Mississippi peer-review by his elder? Please knock off the double talk with one standard for you and another for me. And as an aside for Fortscue what about his allegation that our Hesychast monks engaged in practicing magic? Just asking. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My deletion of part of the lead implied nothing about the acceptability of sources. It was all about the fact that one or both of you had turned that text into incomprehensible drivel.  If you can't write English prose at least worthy of a freshman in college, keep your fingers away from the keyboard.  I think the lead needs to be expanded to provide a concise and cogent summary of the article.  Sorry but what you guys wrote wasn't it.  Not by a long shot. So stop whining about your sources being deleted and write some English that I can understand.  If I can't understand it, probably 95% of average readers won't be able to either. --Richard S (talk) 16:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to say you Richard contributed to that with your nonsense on how the Orthodox called the Westerns whom disagree with the Hesychasm councils heretics equated to Orthodoxy calling all Western Christians heretics. AND I THINK YOUR MESS UP IS ALLOT WORSE THEM SIMPLY WRITING A BAD INTRO. But your response did not answer any of my questions. As I think we should take this part one piece at a time. To do them justice. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S.S. Your sources are wrong on Barlaam heres a very straight forward approach to what is said about Barlaam and also the Roman Catholic church from the E/O POV. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Original research in the section on Roman Catholicism
Esoglou, when I say that you have a tendency to perform original research and synthesis, I say it in the manner of pointing out careless mistakes and oversights committed in an excess of enthusiasm and fervor. I do not view original research as an unforgiveable sin, a sign of ignorance or always driven by base motives such as POV. I think what happens is that there are things that we know and want to communicate but that we have not gone to the effort to find reliable sources for. Finding sources requires a lot of work and some of us have less time, less knowledge and/or less access to resources than others. I do original research all the time. Then I try to find appropriate sources to support it or hope that others can help in the search.

So, in the spirit of collegiality,... let us consider this paragraph in the section on Roman Catholicism:


 * The Roman Rite liturgy expresses the doctrine of divinization or theosis in the prayer said by the deacon or priest when preparing the Eucharistic chalice: "By the mystery of this water and wine may we come to share in the divinity of Christ who humbled himself to share in our humanity." And the same doctrine is expressed in prayer books: "Since it was the will of God's only begotten Son that human beings should share in his divinity, he assumed our nature in order that by becoming human he might make humans gods."

In this paragraph, we cite the Roman liturgy and a prayer book. These are primary sources. It would be better to find a secondary source that discusses divinization and cites the Roman liturgy and that specific prayer book as examples of divinization. I know this is may not be easy but, IMO, that would be the gold standard for sourcing. What we've done here is at best bronze or, viewed harshly, clay.

It's not that I don't believe what is written in the text above. I'm just trying to make the text bullet-proof against others who might judge it more harshly.

--Richard S (talk) 17:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Richard. That is just the kind of help I need and appreciate.  With regard to the prayer in the Roman Rite liturgy, many sources could be cited.  By now I have forgotten from what book I took the idea.  I did not think it up for myself.  May I leave to you to choose one or two?  As you understand, I prefer to intervene only if nobody else sees to some points that I believe need attention.  How about the following:


 * William Johnston, The Mirror Mind: Zen-Christian Dialogue, p. 69 - "For as Jesus is divine, so the human race is divinized in his body. This is a teaching of the church fathers ... all speak about the "divinization" or "deification" of man. Augustine does not hesitate to use the Latin word deificari ... 'Through the mystery of this water and wine may we come to share in his divinity who humbled himself to share in our humanity'."
 * Orlando O. Espín, James B. Nickoloff (editors), An Introductory Dictionary of Theology and Religious studies, p. 614 - "... being's mysterious possibility of sharing the divine life, the creature's openness to divinization. ... ancient prayer preserved in the liturgy: "By the mystery of this water and wine may we come to share in the divinity of Christ, ..."
 * Ormonde Plater, Deacons in the Liturgy, p. 52 - "While pouring the water, the deacon may pray quietly: 'By the mystery ...' The theology behind the prayer, used in the Roman rite, dates from the early church, and reflects the Orthodox concept of theosis..."
 * Kenneth Leech, True Prayer: An Invitation to Christian Spirituality, p. 13 - "... In the seventh century, St Maximus the Confessor says: 'A firm and trustworthy hope for the deification of human nature is God's Incarnation ...' ... perhaps the most widespread and uninterrupted witness to this truth occurs in the prayer at the mixing of water and wine, recited every day in the Roman Mass: 'By the mystery ...'"
 * Michael Robinson Tobin, Georges Bernanos: The Theological Source of His Art, pp. 33-34 - "... grant that by the mystery of this water and wine we may be made partakers of his divinity, who vouchsafed to share our humanity ... essential theology of divinization: the Christian is not called merely to imitate ..."

Regarding the prayerbook, I have felt no urge even to look up the article and see what prayerbook it was. It wasn't I who inserted the mention of it. Is it worth keeping, even if its connection with theosis/deification can be established by a reliable source? I think the quotation from it sounded like something that it in turn quoted from the Catechism of the Catholic Church or the like. Esoglou (talk) 18:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Esoglou. The problem remains with the sentence citing the prayer book directly as a primary source instead of a secondary source.  However, considering that we have adequate sources for the more important sentence preceding it, I think we can be excused for not being quite as good in our sourcing of the second sentence.  If anyone really wants to challenge the second sentence, we can agree to its removal then.  For now, let's move on to more substantive issues. --Richard S (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Remove the prayerbook quotation. I have looked at it now.  It is obviously another translation, by someone who disliked the use of "man" in the inclusive sense (inclusive of both sexes), of the phrase of Aquinas quoted earlier in the article in the wording of the English edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "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."  Esoglou (talk) 19:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Non-Trinitarian views
On a different but related topic, it would be great to have quotes that establish that the non-Trinitarian views are also akin to theosis/divinization. If there is no reliable source that puts Mormon "exaltation" and divinization/theosis in the same sentence or paragraph then we are vulnerable to the charge of synthesis. I think it is justifiable in this case but technically we are making a leap that is not 100% justifiable. It would be better to find a source that compares the two and says that the two concepts are similar.

--Richard S (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC) OK... I'll go first. Here are some sources...

I don't have time to incorporate these sources into the text so I'll just park them here for now and try to get back to them later. --Richard S (talk) 17:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Theosis and Exaltation: In Dialogue
 * I agree. Though the non-trinitarian views are of such minor significance to the subject as a whole that I don't think a lot of text should be spent on it--we can leave greater detail for the sub-articles. After all, Mormons don't actually use the words theosis or divinization, and while Joseph Smith certainly based the Mormon doctrine of exaltation on sanctification, Christian perfection, proto-holiness, and other theosis-derived doctrines from the 1830s, the Mormon doctrine is a radical extension of those doctrines. CO GDEN  21:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So that just makes it the most recent step in the evolution of these doctrines. I'm looking forward to reading the first of the sources that I listed (Theosis and Exaltation: In Dialogue) in which Jordan Vajda discusses a dialogue between Stephen Robinson, an LDS professor, and Craig Blomberg, an evangelical from Denver Seminary.  Apparently Robinson sees the LDS doctrine as nearly identical to the evangelical view but evangelicals are likely to challenge such a view. : I hope to learn something form reading it.--Richard S (talk) 04:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I believe most Mormons would challenge such a view as well. To some extent, this particular disagreement may be fed by misunderstanding by each side of the other side's positions, but I believe there are genuine and significant differences.  In any case, I'm not sure how necessary or appropriate it would be to go into great detail on this question in the Theosis article — as opposed to Exaltation (Mormonism), the main article on this LDS doctrine.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 05:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think Rev. Vajda review, which is part of his master's thesis, is not very suitable for citation itself. It would be better to cite the actual Blomberg/Robinson book. But even then, I don't think it's useful in this article to get into any apologetic defenses of the Mormon deification theology. We should just stick with a brief statement of the Mormon doctrine. CO GDEN  09:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

More Bad faith, Theoria is a stage of the process of theosis
I would add a catharsis stage to this article but considering the impotence of wikipedia to stop the edit warring of the editor Esoglou from the article I just don't have the time to fight this person to add this section to the article. Even though this person still can not answer the simple set of questions of what Eastern Orthodox theological works they have read and how what they have read justifies their disruptive behavior. I HAVE IN GOOD FAITH AGAIN ANSWERED THAT THEORIA IS A STAGE OF THEOSIS. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I will in GOOD FAITH ASK AGAIN What Eastern Orthodox theology sources say that theoria is not part of theosis? Could Esoglou please post them here on the talkpage? And again I ask this so that they could be added to the article. WHERE IS ESOGLOU GETTING THE IDEA THAT HE CAN KEEP ASKING THE QUESTION WHY SOME ONE IS TALKING ABOUT THEORIA ON THE THEOSIS ARTICLE? Why is Esoglou continuing to ignore the times I have already answered this question in good faith? LoveMonkey (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * When the two concepts merit distinct articles in Wikipedia, I think it is up to whoever claims that you can't have one without the other to bring forward the evidence. Esoglou (talk) 20:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * More bad faith and not reading what is posted. No I have already posted a source and Esoglou refuses to acknowledge that. I have posted one to this article and also to the theoria article that Esoglou edit warred on before he came to this article. As anyone can see that Esoglou is not being honest. Esoglou for an example to show this how Esoglou is being deceptive.

Esoglou edit warred over my additions to the theoria article as Esoglou and Richard both have complained about my adding of this source to this article theosis. Claiming they read this source and that this Eastern Orthodox Christian source was calling Roman Catholicism heresy. Page 58 of the source explicitly states that theoria is the second stage of theosis. This source is already in the article. Along with this Esoglou edit warred at the theoria article on the section of that called theosis It is more than a bit disingenuous that Esoglou needs clarification on the terms theoria and or theosis here. As he made no such objections on the theoria article (where he edited on a section there and a sentence making the explicit statement that theoria is the second stage of theosis. Esoglou also did this type of thing on the Roman Catholic- Eastern Orthodox theological differences article about theoria there. Again since Esoglou does not read Eastern Orthodox sources nor has he studied Eastern Orthodox theology and also Esoglou does not read my answers to his sourcing requests nor does he read the actual article he is working on. How is it that Esoglou can even ever get clarification? LoveMonkey (talk) 20:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Why I think esoglou is lying about how he needs more clarification and is not acting in good faith.
 * Just for the record... I have no memory of complaining about this [ source]. In fact, I have no memory of the source at all.  I reorganized the section on the "Eastern Orthodox" primarily to make it easier to read.  Frankly, I forget the details of what I did in that reorg but I don't believe I deleted any text.  I did recently delete a few sentences from the lead but that was because it had become incomprehensible.  My deletion was not intended to make any judgment over the content of what was written but rather removing atrocious writing style.  The details belong in the main body of the article.  The lead should summarize what the rest of the article says. --[[User:Richardshusr|Richard S]] (talk) 00:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for pointing to this particular source for this particular point. We now have a puzzle.  Until now I thought that, for instance, the Theoria article was right in stating: "In Eastern Orthodox theology, theoria refers to a stage of illumination on the path to theosis", thus clearly distinguishing the two.  So who is right?  Perhaps tomorrow I will have time to study the matter.  Esoglou (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Richard wrote "Just for the record... I have no memory of complaining about this." Really so the whole section above about the Orthodox 1 and Roman Catholics 0 on calling one another heretics, is my imagination? REALLY? Since thats the same source. So you wrote all of that above and the nonsense you put in the lead and did not even notice what you were quoting from? REALLY? And what kind of nonsense is Esoglou posting, one minute Father George is calling everyone a heretic Orthodox 1 Roman Catholic 0 and now the whole thing is forgotten? And now with all Esoglou lazy lazy lazy sandbagging and not know ANYTHING about Eastern Orthodox theology and arguing over things Esoglou has not even studied and can not confirm nor will he confirm that he has. I am again answering questions in Good faith. After all that when all Esoglou had to do was a brochure that is given out at Orthodox churchs called THEOSIS and Esoglou can't even do that. Esoglou expects his questions answer but Esoglou won't tell what Eastern Orthodox theologians or theology he has studied or owns. I even source things and here Esoglou still edit wars over them and after me having to do everything short of reading it recording it and posting it in audio and having a Patriarch or a bishop from Athos read and post that (maybe video but then Esoglou would edit war on that too) I have provided sourcing and asnwered questions all the way down to making it so Eosglou doesn't actually have to read and Esoglou in a moment of the ultimate hubris posts ""In Eastern Orthodox theology, theoria refers to a stage of illumination on the path to theosis", thus clearly distinguishing the two. So who is right?  Perhaps tomorrow I will have time to study the matter." Which is Esoglou even after all of this STILL NOT RESPECTFULLY ADMITTING THAT THEY ARE IGNORANT OF EASTERN THEOLOGY AND THEY ARE WRONG. LoveMonkey (talk)

The citation of Saint Athanasius
In the "Eastern Christian theology" section, the citation of Saint Athanasius is shown (at the moment) as "God became human so humans would become gods", however, usually in english the citation is found as "God became man so that man might become God." (it can be checked here http://books.google.com/books?q=Athanasius+%22God+became+Man+so+that+Man+might+become+God.%22+&btnG=Search+Books). The term "gods" is misleading, as it can suggest polytheism (Athanasius does not mean to say that men will become gods themselves, but rather that they will become deified/glorified and God will work through them). Cody7777777 (talk) 18:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello Cody how are you? I can say that god would be the correct translation. Because the "g" is lowercase. But I would imagine that you can change it as long as you can source the change.

LoveMonkey (talk) 19:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, "god" can also be read as "a god", but there is only One God (in three Hypostases/Persons). In my opinon, "God became man so that man might become deified." would be better, but I haven't seen it translated this way. Cody7777777 (talk) 20:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think you can make a better case by first off clarifying that Orthodox Christianity teaches Panentheism and not Pantheism. This would clarify the difference between henosis and theosis. Man participates in God. Via the energies of God. So say that love is an energy of God, or good. Whenever one loves or does Good one participates in the energies of God. One has to do this by free choice. So one does not loose their identity and get reduced to energy/force and then recycled back through the system, Universe or go and become a literal archon/angel, a God, spiritual being, the God (collectively) in theosis. God here is all and nothing more then the Universe in paganism/Pantheism. This is the essence of Pantheism. Man becomes united back to God, God as a substance that is detectable and contained here in the cosmos, Universe. Man then reduced to this monad or substance that all things reduce to. Theosis in contrast states that you have one "life" and that in that life you can choose God (Theophilia) or choose yourself, the world, evil, etc. If you submit to God then this submission makes you (by doing God's will) become good and then more good since God the Father is infinite so are his energies and so is theosis (as a process). Panentheism states that God is beyond any concept here in finiteness (including being (apophatic) and concept (kataphatic)). God is hyperbeing in his being/esssence/substance and therefore transcends the Universe and any form of conceptualization or finiteness (perceptibility by consciousness). Theosis maintains that you will always be you (you never lose your nous like in henosis). Theosis means that your joy and beauty is never ending, that God is the true, genuine originator who can originate greater and greater of his (uncreated) energies -forever. Heaven is being (ousia) with God. I hope this helps. Glory to Glory! LoveMonkey (talk) 18:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * PS I hope we can keep from the whole ousia- as substance- but not being- Roman Catholic, Augustine, Neoplatonic argument thing. Since that nebulous mess makes for allot of ugliness. I was hoping by my posts to give you something a bit clearer then just posting Greek concepts that have a tendency to cause headaches more than understanding. To end it before it begins! God the Father is the origin of all things. God the Father (as Hypostasis) gives his ousia to his Son and His Spirit. No biting please, I bruise easy.

LoveMonkey (talk) 18:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your post. I didn't meant to say that humans will lose their nous through Theosis (however, if I said that, I'm sorry). To reach Theosis, they must of course, follow God by freechoice, so their nous will become the way God would want it to be and they will participate in the Uncreated energies of God (and they would become like an icon/image of God), but not be absorbed and/or disappear like in henosis, since creation cannot know God's Uncreated essence (in other words, creation cannot become uncreated)). In my posts above, I was arguing that the term "gods" (or even lowercased "god") could suggest that they would not change their nous in the way God wants (and they won't participate in God's uncreated energies), but it will remain in the way they want (so they would still choose themselves, instead of choosing God). Cody7777777 (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, much of what caused the synods and councils was to try and clarify right and wrong on what was community traditional understanding phronema. The trouble with using the word god is people think, equal to God, instead of like God, God-ish. In the case of henosis its more like- absorbed by God, into God the non-sentient force, stuff. So when people say that the Greek Orthodox church is Neoplatonic in its teaching of things like deification, well as you can see its rather outlandish (though my oversimplification of Plotinus is not completely correct so I should try to be fair). Remember St Seraphim stated that theosis was acquisition of the Holy Spirit, the tongues of fire, photomos. LoveMonkey (talk) 00:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC) PS purification of the nous instigates sobriety (self-realization, enstasis, like at the moment of death) if prolonged, catharsis instigates theoria which is vision of God. Theoria instigates the nous' desire for the Beauty called God. This desire, passion or love of God is the fuel of theosis. Purification, illumination, deification=theosis this should be in the article. Other "groups" vilify the nous, mind, demiurge, eye of the soul, organic connection to the material world, consciousness. This causes the opposite of theosis which is prelist, somnolence, awake sleep- delusion. LoveMonkey (talk) 00:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Is the concept of Theosis a dualist monism? We could say that man-God relation is like a hair-head one? Hair emanates from the head without beeing the head, But it is part of it, without beeing a necessity to it? Of course it is a crude comparation,but it is only to ilustrate the concept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.9.151.39 (talk) 05:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What Athanasius wrote was Αὐτὸς γὰρ ἐνηνθρώπισεν, ἵνα ἡμεῖς θεωποιηθῶμεν (Migne, Patrologia Graeca, 25, 192 B De incarnatione Verbi, 54 - scroll down about 54%).  Grammatically, the verb θεωποιηθῶμεν could be translated as "be made God" or "be made gods".  Note: "θεωποιηθῶμεν" is presumably a misprint for "θεοποιηθῶμεν".  Esoglou (talk) 17:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia to publish Original Research
However.... Esoglou posted this statement in the Roman Catholic section of the article saying they did... "In a rather advanced phase of contemplative prayer (called in Greek theoria) the soul becomes "enveloped" by the Divine Nature. " This is using Wikipedia for Original Research and if I had not noticed, read the article I would not have seen that passage and it would still be in the article. Also notice Esoglou sourced the statement. But the source makes no such grand and big a statement as there is no theological difference. And considering the ugly history of what these terms mean to the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic church it is very bad to the credibility of Wikipedia when Orthodox theologians and Christians might read this article for whatever reason and see such a bold assertion. I have other Esoglou examples. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * When I say POV this is an edit by Esoglou that shows that even though there is no Roman Catholic source that states that the theological terms of the Greek church mean the same between the churches..
 * 1)


 * I will comment that I agree Esoglou has shown a tendency to use primary sources and perform original research and synthesis. I think this is due to a good faith belief that the differences are not as great as they are being made out to be.  Nonetheless, it is inappropriate to act as an apologist for the Catholic Church.  Far better to cite secondary sources that address the issue and let them engage in the apologetics. Unfortunately, I gather there aren't that many Catholic sources that treat the topics we are covering directly.  --Richard S (talk) 20:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Am I wrong in thinking that the only problem is the presentation of hesychasm as the only way to acquire theosis? What is theosis/deification?  What difference is there between the Eastern and Western definitions of it?
 * Now as regards LoveMonkey's repeated statement that I posted the above statement - doing so in a way that unfortunately convinced Richard that it was true and therefore that I indulge in original research and synthesis - I refuse to accuse LoveMonkey of bad faith, but I must therefore say that he either has a very short memory or he has failed to understand plain English. I have already answered that baseless charge.  Just look at Talk:Theoria.  It appears I must repeat for him and make known to others what I said there.  I did not "post that statement".  I see I did a bit of copyediting on it, but I did not insert it.  The last part of that statement ("the soul becomes 'enveloped' by the Divine Nature"), which is quite unsourced, was inserted on 29 July 2010 by a still active anonymous editor in Cambridge, Maryland.  I have never been in Maryland.  The first part, which is well sourced, including the mention of theosis, was inserted by User:Trc as long ago as 11 June 2004.  Why does LoveMonkey think I "posted the statement"?  Why has he repeated within two days the same false claim?  Why has he made - in, it seems. so convincing a way - this false accusation against me of pushing a POV and "publishing original research"?  How many other editors has he misled about me?  Esoglou (talk) 22:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Esoglou, my comment was more about my observation of your past interaction style in other contexts, not specifically about that sentence. I have a lot of respect for your knowledge of Catholic theology.  However, the difficulty is that Wikipedia editors must stick strictly to what the sources (ideally secondary sources) say.  My concern wrt this article is the question of whether theosis=divinisation or not.  Assuming that LoveMonkey is correct that Catholics do not use the word theosis, then we really need a source that atates that the Orthodox concept of theosis is at least roughly equivalent to the Catholic concept of divnisation.  For that matter, we kind of need a similar source for the non-Trinitarian religions that are mentioned (LDS and Christian Universalists).  It is original research to say "Oh, theosis is just Greek for 'becoming like God' and so any other Christian religion that has a similar concept under a different name is a candidate for inclusion."  The best sourcing would be to find a source who explicitly compares theosis and divinisation and says that they are at least in the same category even if they are not identical in every detail. --Richard S (talk) 02:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * More nonsense anyone can pull up those links and they will not find the sentence I posted the diff showing Esoglou add. I ask anyone to click on the two above links and try to find the sentence I have attributed to Esoglou. Did he not think people would check the links he posted trying to justify the statement he posted? I dare anyone to find the sentence as I have posted it sourced to any editor here but Esoglou. LoveMonkey (talk) 00:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Doesn't the left-hand column have this:
 * In Roman Catholic theology, theosis refers to a specific and rather advanced phase of contemplation of God, in which the soul becomes "enveloped" by the Divine Nature. 
 * I may have mistakenly overdone the copyediting. Since it is "theoria", not "theosis", that means contemplation, I must have thought that "theosis" was a mistake for "theoria".  And since "contemplation" refers also to philosophical contemplation, I must have thought that it should be specified as prayerful contemplation, since it was about "contemplation of God".  But I was only modifying what was already in the article, not posting something new.
 * As soon as this statement was questioned, and before any accusation was made against me, I removed it as not corresponding (in the second part, added 18 months ago) to the cited source. If I had known that it would be used as an accusation against me, and if I had known that the basic part of the statement had been in the article since 11 June 2004, I would instead have restored it to its formulation of six and a half years ago, together with an explicit quotation from the source:
 * In western Catholic theology, theosis refers to a specific and rather advanced phase of contemplation of God: "a more perfect knowledge of God possible in this life, beyond the attainments of reason even enlightened by faith, through which the soul contemplates directly the mysteries of Divine light. The contemplation in the present life is possible only to a few privileged souls, through a very special grace of God: it is the theosis, mystike enosis"..  Esoglou (talk) 11:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You mistaken then because the diff shows whatever was there before Esoglou WROTE THE SENTENCE. More bickering thinking that will change or absolve you. I seriously doubt any misstep on my end, even one mis-step would not be so easily forgiven. But here is Esoglou justifying his sins. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What the diff shows is that the sentence I modified had a long-standing existence in the article. Esoglou (talk) 15:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What the diff shows is that Esoglou claims to know better, Esoglou claims that he isn't adding Original Research. However Esoglou has a diff captured showing him adding a sentence that if he knew about the subject matter the way that he claims he would not have done what the diff shows. The diff shows and thats what the diffs shows you added the sentence and all the excuses in the world will not undo that diff. Nor the POV that the diff in question exposes. That sentence is a big fat Uniate no no. Just ask Graham Ward and how good his Radical Orthodoxy has went over with the not only the Greeks but his own church. As if the Roman Catholic church is the only one trying to play this angle. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Modified, not added. Esoglou (talk) 15:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Claims to know better, but did anyway. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Theosis and deification
I did not know that Richard thought it was original research to say that Roman Catholic theology sees theosis and deification as synonymous. I believe that, if any statement by me were challenged as original research or synthesis, I would either back up my statement with citations or else delete it with apologies for having made it.

For some reason, Richard assumed the correctness of LoveMonkey's affirmation of 19:32 yesterday, that "this Greek term is not even used in the West" (bolding in the original). Well, "theosis" is used in the century-old Catholic Encyclopedia quotation I have given immediately above this. But, more important, neither LoveMonkey nor Richard seems to have noticed that, before LoveMonkey made his 19:32 claim yesterday, I had already given, above, a couple of citations to show that in the Roman Catholic Church "theosis" is seen as synonymous with "divinization" or "deification":
 * What is theosis? Both the Latin Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches feature this idea as a central point in their theology. What is called "theosis" in the East is called "divinization" in the West. … 101 Questions and Answers on Eastern Catholic Churches By Edward Faulk
 * ''"May we come to share in the divinity of Christ, Who humbled himself to share in our humanity." This process, technically known as "deification" or "theosis" has its scriptural roots in a passage like 2 Peter 1:4 ... The Catholic Answer Book, Volume 3 By Peter M. J. Stravinskas

The second shows that the term "theosis" is used also in the West. Although the West has no need to use a Greek word rather than the English words that are available, it not only recognizes that "theosis" means the same as "divinization" or "deification", but even employs the Greek word itself. The situation is like Western use of the Greek term "koinonia". Westerners usually say "communion", but they recognize that "koinonia" is the corresponding Greek word, and they do sometimes use "koinonia", especially when referring to a Greek source, such as the New Testament or a Greek-speaking Father of the Church. Would anyone accuse the West of "cultural theft" for using the Greek word "koinonia"?

If more examples of Roman Catholic use of the Greek word are demanded, what about the following:
 * Jesus Christ fully reveals to us our human nature; he clearly shows us what it truly means to be a human being. At the same time he makes known to us the purpose or goal (telos) which is to become "like God" (deification, or theosis) - Catholic Moral Tradition by David Bohr
 * ... how do we use the concept of theosis to inform us about the Virgin Mary, and in particular, the issue of an 'Immaculate Conception'? - Mary for Time and Eternity by William McLoughlin, Jill Pinnock
 * Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches typically describe salvation as theosis or deification or divinization The Faith of the Christian Church: An Introduction to Theology by Tyron Inbody
 * Human beings are created in the image of the relational God and gradually are being perfected in that image (theosis) - As Leaven in the World: Catholic Perspectives on Faith, Vocation, and the Intellectual Life by Thomas M. Landy (editor)
 * An Anglican wrote: "To live in the καθολική is to live in life that is salvation, the life that the Church is, the divine life of the Blessed Trinity, the catholic process of theosis, which is deification, which is saving life" - Arthur Middleton, Fathers and Anglicans Esoglou (talk) 11:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Same old tactics Esoglou. None of your sources define nor speak of THE uncreated light NOT ONE. THey have no description of it as is taught as Orthodox theology in the East. They all talk about feelings and how they are thinking rationalizing just like the old gnostics did in the mystery systems. Just like Professor Angus here did not understand and gave a very weak at best explanation for the "victory of Christianity" so does the West not and it appears never did understand that Christianity gave the world not only "freedom and brotherhood" but also true "gnosis". As Vladimir Lossky points out that even the title Irenaeus is not as it is in the West- "On the Detection and Overthrow of the So-Called Gnosis" in the East it is "On the Detection and Overthrow of the false Gnosis." Not '"On the Detection and Overthrow of Gnosis. But Esoglou will have to do better then sources that claim just words he has to show that (like the Hesychast councils in Constaninople) that the experience of the uncreated light is not only a part and in the East A BIG part of salvation but that the experience is the same and that Roman Catholic theology and theologian REJECT Aquanis and choose "revelation" over "reason". SHOW ME THE MONEY ESOGLOU. Source that.  LoveMonkey (talk) 13:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Rather than talking off-topic about Tabor Light (an experience referred to as theoria, not theosis), and about Aquinas (who taught that "full participation in divinity is humankind's true beatitude and the destiny of human life" - Summa Theologiae 3.1.2), and about the best way to translate the title of Irenaeus's Adversus haereses , and about other matters, shouldn't we stick to what this section is about: the point that the term "theosis" is in fact used by Roman Catholic theologians, and that they treat it as synonymous with "deification" or "divinization"? Esoglou (talk) 15:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So again Orthodox theology according to Esoglou and only Esoglou. What Eastern Orthodox source do you have that states that theoria is not a phase of theosis? Please post it here so we can add it to the article. But I know you don't really know because you've never read or studied Orthodox theology and are on here editing articles on it because you think you know. And it better not be in Greek for you to translate. As the Greek translation Engines online do not provide an acceptable output to base an encyclopedia article on. And if you are doing your own translating go get your money back from your "school" or "teacher". As your misconceptions are yours and yours alone. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Esoglou, thank you for the quotes. Let's find a way to explain the relationship of theosis in Catholic theology to theosis in Orthodox theology. In my poor layman's understanding, it seems that the West and the East do, in fact, use similar terms to describe a concept that is similar in meaning at least at the most general level of meaning. I do understand LoveMonkey's diatribe about theoria, hesychasm and the uncreated Light of Tabor. This is much akin to a Protestant arguing that the Catholic concept of salvation is different from his because the Catholics believe in "salvation through works" (i.e. sacraments) while he believes in "salvation through faith alone". I think it is a mistake to get so caught up in whether two words have exactly the same meaning. It is better, I think, to establish that they mean approximately the same thing to different groups of people and then explain how the meanings differ in each group.

We need to do several things to address this issue. First of all, we should use your quotes to establish in the lead that theosis and divinization are considered (by the Catholics, at least) to be the same thing. The next step is to establish that (some) Orthodox view the Catholics as lacking theosis because they reject hesychasm. Then we say that some Catholics find hesychasm compatible with Catholic theology. The body of the section on Roman Catholicism provides the support. We just need to summarize it for the lead.

Then, we need to establish that the Orthodox conception of theosis is different from the Catholics primarily due to hesychasm and the "uncreated Light of Tabor". I'm still a bit fuzzy on the question of theoria. Translated as "contemplation" or "prayerful contemplation", it sounds fully compatible with Catholic theology. What do the Catholic theologians say about theoria? Do any of them use the Greek word?

--Richard S (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Theosis and heyschasm etc.

 * And lets not forget that section and part about how some Roman Catholics don't consider hesychasm compatible with Roman Catholicism and goes so far as to call it heresy. Your still being POV Richard. Better than Esoglou yes but still POV. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. As long as this is phrased as "some Roman Catholics..." and sourced, I don't think Esoglou would have a problem with it.  The question is whether you want to insist that this rejection of hesychasm is the official doctrine of the Catholic Church or simply the opinion of the overwhelming majority of theologians (NB: sourcing "overwhelming majority" may be difficult).  It may be that there are Popes from centuries past that have maligned hesychasm (I'm still waiting for the quotes).  However, I think Pope John Paul II looked at the Scholasticism of the West and the mysticism of the East and saw "two lungs breathing together".  I don't think Pope Benedict XVI saw anything different. --Richard S (talk) 17:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed as well. Here's some softball opinion., , LoveMonkey (talk) 18:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Richard, your Step 1 is easy, as you yourself have said. Just take a couple of the quotations I have given earlier in this section.  Step 2 seems very different.  Indeed, I have difficulty in understanding what is meant by "to establish that (some) Orthodox view the Catholics as lacking theosis because they reject hesychasm".  Yes, the goal of hesychasm is to achieve, ultimately, theosis.  But do the Orthodox - do any Orthodox - hold that, no Orthodox can ever achieve theosis, unless he or she undertakes that practice?  Do they hold that, when early Fathers such as Athanasius spoke of God becoming man so that men could become God, they were talking about something to be achieved by doing those exercises?  In any case, if LoveMonkey wants that to be stated, it's up to him to produce the evidence.
 * Regarding LoveMonkey's claim, above, that "some Roman Catholics don't consider hesychasm compatible with Roman Catholicism and goes so far as to call it heresy" (sic) - he may indeed be able to cite some Eastern Orthodox writer who says that; but I doubt if he can quote any serious Roman Catholic theologian who calls hesychasm a heresy. (Of course, if you go back long enough in time, you will certainly find in the West too prejudiced people sadly seeking differences to damn in others.)  The hesychasm-linked question of a distinction between the essence and the energies of God may be seen as dogma in the Eastern Orthodox Church, but in the Roman Catholic Church it is seen as a metaphysical question, not a dogma whose denial would make you a heretic.  Esoglou (talk) 20:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Esoglou does not respect or listen to his fellow editors here on Wikipedia. As I have in good faith provided sources for my contributions to the articles on the subjects I have worked on. ESOGLOU STILL HAS NOT. Esoglou has been asked repeatedly what Eastern Orthodox theology he has study and what in it has lead his to do and behave as he has behaved here on Wikipedia on the various Eastern Orthodox theology articles, Esoglou has been disruptive on. As for Esoglou again ignoring how I in good faith have posted how Siméon Vailhé on the Roman Catholic encyclopedia online has indeed called the teachings of Palamas which are called ORTHODOX and the Greek Orthodox church in general teaching various heresies.
 * As the Roman Catholic encyclopedia online via Vailhe states that our teaching on the stage of theosis called theoria clarified by Palamas and then made Eastern Orthodox DOGMA;
 * "The conflict began in 1338 and ended only in 1368, with the solemn canonization of Palamas and the official recognition of his heresies. He was declared the "holy doctor" and "one of the greatest among the Fathers of the Church", and his writings were proclaimed "the infallible guide of the Christian Faith". Thirty years of incessant controversy and discordant councils ended with a resurrection of polytheism."

This is bad faith to ignore me answering questions by Esoglou. REPEATEDLY, as this is already in the article and not me WP:sandbagging [i.e. The act of being lazy at a job and getting close to nothing done in a given amount of time]. Esoglou does not respect nor assume good faith. Esoglou again is ignoring, being disruptive and has no clear explanation for why Esoglou continually engages in ignoring what other posters give as answers to his questions in Good faith and instead keeps very disrespectfully asking the same questions over and over again and then ignoring fellow editors answers. AGAIN Esoglou wants to push their POV have that heard but does want to have to return the collaborative spirit and behavior of having to listen. This is what I mean when I say Esoglou is pushing their POV. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As it has been shown that there are Westerners who hold that Roman Catholic thought and that of Palamas are compatible, it is obvious that they don't support the long-dead Vailhé. Esoglou (talk) 20:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So it is even more obvious that this that I copied from the article that already answers your above objections is supposed to be treated as if it is invisible. Why would Esoglou post this as a response? With this Esoglou again is ignoring what is obvious and already in the article. Whenever I post in good faith answers to Esoglou's questions like my answer here to Esoglou's question "he may indeed be able to cite some Eastern Orthodox writer who says that; but I doubt if he can quote any serious Roman Catholic theologian who calls hesychasm a heresy." Esoglou does not respectfully acknowledge that his question was answered in good faith, no Esoglou attempts to move the goal posts. He ignores. Esoglou needs to ask his questions and when he gets an answer that is a sourced answer, a verifiable answer Esoglou should not be changing the criteria and then ignoring what is being said. As my answer (in good faith) is already in the article and Esoglou is ignoring that. LoveMonkey (talk) 21:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I did remark, didn't I, that, "of course, if you go back long enough in time, you will certainly find in the West too prejudiced people sadly seeking differences to damn in others." Fortunately, not all share their prejudices.  Esoglou (talk) 21:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Long enough. Thats maybe a 100 years ago. And you are using a logical fallacy both and Richard. The fallacy is an argument from silence. The Eastern Orthodox are to assume that Jasenovac is 100 years old? Tell me how so Esoglou? Tell me how so. Tell me how the Chetniks have anything even close to that. Go ahead and help Richard with his article on Christianity and violence you could share what Father Petar "Pero" Brzica did. Yeah like the Serbs setup Nazis concentration camps for the Roman Catholic. Tell me how that is? And I am being REALLY REALLY NICE and you I am about all of this. Do we want to go into all that is the Roman Catholic church REALLY ready to be honest? I bet their not. But if they give alittle lip service say things that will insult the Orthodox and play on the ignorance of their own laymen they can get those mobs of European and Roman Catholic partisans all rillied up and ready to crusade again? Your behavior is very provocative and hateful and disrespectful. However young Roman Catholic will seek after God and if they think for themselves and listen to the Mother God they will move all this unchristian behavior one step away from the same old partisan, blocking blind zealotry of the Ustashe and other Uniate, the East has its sins to atone for as well (Koliyivshchyna). There are more. Keep up playing on people's ignorance or worse teaching ignorance if you are ignorant of this yourself. LoveMonkey (talk) 03:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this is straying rather far from the topic of 'theosis. Esoglou (talk) 10:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you don't live in the real world. I think your comment shows your ignorance of the truth of the matter. And your denial of what is history between the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholics. Catholic clergy involvement with the Ustaše. As you can't and won't address this because of your POV. Esoglou won't talk about what ideas or beliefs motivated and informing those Roman Catholic Croates some 60 years ago to hate Orthodox Christians and kill them put them into concentration camps. I think you know about the hatred the Roman Catholic church preaches against the Eastern Orthodox and that hatred it was what informing those Croates just 15 or 20 years ago to ethnically 200,000 Eastern Orthodox Serbian neighbors from Croatia. It was nothing said 100 hundred years ago Esoglou.

As the beautification of Father Aloysius Stepinac did not happen 100 years ago it happened just 12 years ago. Esoglou likes to separate the real world and what happens in the real world from what people say. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No need to repeat my comment. Esoglou (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)