Talk:Theological differences between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church/Archive 1

Roman Catholic perspectives
How can one justify giving the name "Roman Catholic perspectives" to perspectives of certain Eastern Orthodox writers on the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church? Lima (talk) 14:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * LoveMonkey reinserted at least one of the subsection headings ("Roman Catholic perspectives") saying in the edit summary "Revert Richard is telling me to create uniformity between various "like" articles thats where the entry you removed came from take it up with Richard."


 * I'm not sure where I told him "to create uniformity between various "like" articles" or what the "like" articles in question are. If, as Lima alleges, the text is from Eastern Orthodox writers, we should be careful not to put that in "Roman Catholic perspectives" as it sounds like an Eastern Orthodox characterization of the Roman Catholic perspective.


 * It may take a while for us to settle an appropriate style and format for presenting information in this article. In the meantime, let's try to be collegial and collaborative.

--Richard (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Since no justification has been offered, other than the one that Richard has here refuted, I will now make bold to undo the reinsertion of these inaccurate headings. Lima (talk) 13:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * More shanagans. Richard is this material to be added to the Orthodox theology article or not? Again I used the formating style as was in the Orthodox theology article Essence-Energies distinction. Are we shooting for uniformity or not? I mean its not like Lima can be trusted now is it? Since very soon I am sure this article too wil become another play for him to edit war and for the administrators to rag me instead. And you can skip over the whole bit about me being overly complaint-ent. He was given his chance on the East-West schism with other Orthodox editors and he edit warred them away from adding the Orthodox side to the article. Here is on a kinder note a pleasent thought for today LoveMonkey (talk) 13:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem is not the headings per se but what is in each heading. I don't think Lima is objecting to having "Roman Catholic perspectives" sections per se. I think that Lima is objecting to having each "Roman Catholic perspectives" section provide an Eastern Orthodox description of what the Catholic position is. Surely, the opposite situation (a Catholic description of what the Orthodox position is) would be equally unacceptable. In particular, his edit summaries seem to suggest that he thinks the Catholic position is being described as different from the Orthodox position when, by his estimation, there is no substantive difference. One approach would be to challenge him to provide a source that makes this argument although that could lead to a messy article (e.g. "Orthodox say Catholics have a different theology" "Catholics say their theology differs from Orthodox theology only in terminology"). Then again, that could be the crux of the problem... Catholics don't view the Orthodox as heretical and are perhaps discomfited to learn that the Orthodox DO consider Catholics to be heretical.

I don't remember ever suggesting to LoveMonkey that we should aim for uniformity but it is true that more consistency is better than less. The problem with Wikipedia is that we always have to ask: "Consistency to which set of articles?". Just because one article Essence-Energies distinction uses a particular organizational scheme doesn't mean every article should. Let's not nail ourselves to the cross of slavish consistency. Let's use our brains to figure out what works best for the material we want to present. --Richard (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yow. Richard go back and look at your edit summaries for your edits to the East-West schism.

LoveMonkey (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I reviewed the edit summaries for 500 edits to East-West Schism looking for edit summaries that might have suggested a need for consistency with other articles. I didn't find any.  Perhaps you misconstrued what I was trying to say in one or more of them.  I stand by what I wrote above.  Consistency is good but let us make sure that the pattern we are following is applicable to the situation at hand.  I don't see how
 * Essence-Energies distinction is notnecessarily the best model for this article. I think we will have to muddle our way through before we can figure out how best to lay out this article.  I'm not convinced that having sections marked "Eastern Orthodox perspective" and "Roman Catholic perspective" are the best approach.   It's a bit pedantic.  If the prose is written well, the reader won't need these kinds of "handrails" to guide him.  In the meantime, let's not let this picayune format issue become a stumbling block for progress.

--Richard (talk) 18:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, agreed. But one requisite- the formatting does not give handrails to Limas edit warring. Have yet to see any one address his redding out edits so people cant easily see his changes?

LoveMonkey (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Your (Richard's) distortion of Vladimir Lossky's work
"Eastern theologians view the heart of the conflict to be the presence of modalism, in specific the Sabellian heresy of modalism, in the use of the word person by the Latin West in its translation of the Greek word hypostasis. The Eastern Orthodox theologian, Vladimir Lossky charges that the Western understanding of God is 'God in uncreated essence', which he alleges is a modalistic and therefore speculative expression of God.[45]"
 * This is not what Lossky states and you would be good to either attempt to clarify (with someone who has his works) or read the text for yourself. This is very bad for wiki.

LoveMonkey (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This is the original text of the article that I was working from...


 * Not like in the West which appears to be from a position teaching God is God in uncreated essence, which then makes for a modalistic and therefore speculative expression of God.


 * I confess that I am not a theologian of any sort, not even an amateur one. I have little knowledge of Orthodox theology and none of Lossky's work.  I was just trying to make sense out of the mess that was there.  Note, for example, that the quoted text above is not even a complete sentence.  I thought it was a natural conclusion that if Lossky was provided as a citation for the sentence fragment, that must have been his position.  If I got it wrong, please feel free to fix it.  Perhaps the Lossky citation accidentally got juxtaposed with the sentence fragment and I mistakenly connected the two when there was no such connection?  If so, I apologize.


 * --Richard (talk) 17:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Theology very messy, yes. That is (I can only assume) why you complain about my wording of concepts. Since they are not Greek or Russian or whatever when I post them but instead in English. English is not a very simple or nice language. It also is not philosophically structured like Greek so it is rather nebulious and unforgiving, but you restored enough so that the point was re-clarified. Thanks LoveMonkey (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Messy it is but must be done. Richard please pretty please with money on top. Help me to word more coherently the subtitles I have addeed to the article section of the "realities" of God - Trinity.

LoveMonkey (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

"Redding out"
Copied from Talk Page
 * This expression refers to an effect that the Wikipedia software produces when, it seems, trying to show changes in a paragraph that has grown too long. I find no other hypothesis to explain why not only the actual changes but the whole of the paragraph, in both its before and after forms, appears in red, an effect that the editor who wrote most of the material in the paragraph accuses me of deliberately causing.  Once the paragraph had grown to that extent, the same effect followed his own changes too.


 * Thanks for your excellent work. Lima (talk) 12:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like a credible explanation to me. LoveMonkey's paragraphs are so often full of citations with lengthy quotes that I can well imagine that Wikipedia's "diff" software might fail from indigestion.

Let us suffer from an abundance of good faith and stop seeing malfeasance where there might be none.

--Richard (talk) 05:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have followed policy and posted a comment about the "issue" at the village pump, since I was following policy and first reported it to administrators. As for Good faith Lima has been edit warring not just with me. Anyone can read what has transpired. I have done no WP:3RR Lima has though. All that before redding out the article's edits, changes while nobody else (including you Richard) got the same effect from editing the article. Lima has control over the "issue" or it would not have stopped now that I pointed it out. You are covering for him and that is an unacceptable bias. Respect is mutual not one sided. Good Faith requires trust, bias undermines trust. Show me don't tell me. My edits have no such redding out or issues. What is being said and what is being done are not matching. Such issues should be reported by administrators to the techs here to get them addressed.

LoveMonkey (talk) 14:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have tried to avoid confrontation with LoveMonkey, but since it was on the basis of my comment to Richard that he brought the matter here, I must point out that, until Richard reduced the paragraph to a reasonable size, whoever edited it "redded" (reddened) it: example 1, example 2, example 3, etc. etc. Lima (talk) 16:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, as I said, I assumed good faith and did not see anything underhanded about the "redding" out. Nonetheless, LoveMonkey's real problem is that he thinks the redding out was a deliberate smokescreen on your part to obscure edit-warring. Let us try to avoid edit-warring. I like the WP:BRD model. Let us discuss substantial and controversial changes here on the Talk Page rather than solely via edit summaries. --Richard (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, one if I was wrong on this I apologize, I feel however if Lima had collaborated and answered my requests, complaints for clarification on the talkpage for the East-West Schism article this would have been addressed long ago (as it should have). Now my main complaint still stands. Lets follow Richard's example and not edit war and collaborate here on the talkpage. Again I agree with Richard. As his example lets bicker it out and collaborate. Not Edit war.

LoveMonkey (talk) 14:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Canonical territory
A significant difference, which is not yet mentioned in the article, appears to be the notion of canonical territory, which is seemingly valued to a higher degree within the Moscow Patriarchate. ADM (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes and no. The West has one Patriarch so all territory falls under the Pope. Where as in the East no Patriarch can intercede into another Patriarchs territory. If there is reconcilliation between East and West then Eastern Catholics would have to revert back to their respective Patriarchs (Constantiople, Moscow, Jerusalem, Alexandra, etc etc) who are Orthodox for example. Or then the Orthodox would have make the Pope the Patriarch over each of them which give Rome Primacy over every major civilation world wide. So when you say what you say it seems a bit "narrow". The territorial implications are vast since Rome has insisted that Primacy means absolute authority over East and West rather then First among Equals.
 * LoveMonkey (talk) 17:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This is not a blog and we should not debate or speculate on what the future reconciled Church would look like. Let us focus on what the differences are now.  I don't know a lot about this issue but I do not think that it is possible for two Catholic archbishops to argue much about territory as these are fairly well defined.  Presumably the Catholic Church's hierarchical structure establishes territorial boundaries.


 * In contrast, the Russian Orthodox Church has walked out of more than one ecumenical meeting in protest over the recognition of the Estonian Orthodox Church.


 * I don't make a judgment here over who is right and who is wrong or which system is better. We simply have to document what is currently true.


 * --Richard (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Besides, doesn't the concept of canonical territory become increasingly outmoded as the Orthodox Churches have spread globally? Who has territorial jurisdiction over the United States, for instance?  I imagine just about every Orthodox patriarchate is represented in the United States.  I assume the answer is that no patriarchate has exclusive jurisdiction over the United States but that each one asserts jurisdiction over its adherents in that country.  Does each patriarchate divide its territory in the United States in a model similar to the Catholic Church?  (Are Metropolitans equivalent to Catholic archbishops?)  I would assume so but I know very little about these matters.


 * Thinking about this a step further, a major difference between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches is that the Catholic Church is "catholic" in the sense that all nationalities and cultures can worship in any parish church. Yes, some parish churches have more of one nationality than others but the church is not officially set up in that manner.


 * In contrast, the Orthodox churches are rooted in national and cultural identities. Unlike the Protestants who split on theological and ecclesiological differences, the Orthodox seem to split based on national and cultural differences.


 * I wonder if there are any scholarly works that discuss these issues. In particular, I am interested in what sorts of discussion there has been about the global spread of Orthodoxy into countries like the United States which are much more culturally heterogeneous.  What does the future of Orthodoxy look like when most of the members of a church (e.g. Greek Orthodox) live outside of Greece?  What happens when the children of Greek Orthodox grow up not speaking Greek or intermarrying?  A Greek Orthodox marries a Russian Orthodox.  Where do they worship?


 * NOTE: We need to draw a distinction between the speculation of Wikipedians about the future of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches and the speculation of reliable sources on the same topic. If we debate the topic, it is outside the scope of Wikipedia.  If we bring in reliable sources to establish that there are real-world opinions and debates on the topic, it is encyclopedic.


 * There must be an encyclopedic topic around here somewhere. What is the title of the article?


 * --Richard (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Richard, I suggest that you create a stub on phyletism, which is the name given to this ethno-national controversy, for example see this on OrthodoxWiki. ADM (talk) 19:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, great... this is why I love Wikipedia. Now I know what Phyletism is and I created the article.  It looks like this is an article that could be greatly expanded but my Googling is slow in turning up reliable sources.  Can you guys help?  --Richard (talk) 05:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely fantastic. That was an article I had attempted to create a while back but got stuck in an edit war with Lima. I had added the link as a see also to the East-West Schism (I think) but it got removed. Excellent and inline with the Roman Catholics earlier critism of Orthodoxy. Man I am having a heck of a time trying to find the edit though. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Relative importance
Obviously the article is entirely one-sided at present, but hopefully this can be remedied. But I think at the moment the existing text needs to distingish somehow between the issues that really represent major obstacles to restoring closer unity in some form (eg Papal primacy) and those that are really just theological differences of emphasis no greater than many within churches. Not an easy job perhaps, but it should be attempted. Johnbod (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Baptism
I believe there is confusion in the sacraments section between baptising a child and raising a child in a particular faith. I am not familiar with the Orthodox view, but the Catholic church recognises all Trinitarian baptisms as valid. There is no such thing sacramentally as a "Catholic baptism", only a "Christian baptism". Thus a parent would have no obligation to baptise their child in a Catholic church. They would however be expected to raise the child "in the Catholic faith". Thus my recent edit to the article. –OrangeDog (talk • edits) 04:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Not highlighting differences
A number of areas of this article seem to assume knowledge of the relevant parts of Catholic theology and only present the Orthodox theology. A prime example is the entire Noetic or Intuitive faculty and the "Unseen Warfare" of the Human Heart section. All this does is talk about Orthodox theology and sheds no light on what the differences or contentious issues are.–OrangeDog (talk • edits) 04:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Poor quality
I have been away from Wikipedia for a while, but the poor quality of this article is pulling me back. The sentence fragments, poor organization, tendentious reasoning, mischaracterizations, and inaccuracies regarding Eastern and Western theology lead me to believe this was written by a Greek high school student with just enough theology to make a muck of it. At the very least, overt implications that Catholicism is tantamount to Paganism ought be removed by reorganizing the topic headers to focus on historical disputes. A header "philosophical influence of paganism" with a subheader of each Catholic position is highly offensive. Amicuspublilius (talk) 23:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Assume Good Faith refrain from Poor quality ad hom attacks try to contribute instead

 * Then write it. I used Romanides, Lossky etc etc ad nausem. I used David Bradshaw. Funny though.
 * If you look at the David Bradshaw book's reviews on Amazon.[ http://www.amazon.com/Aristotle-East-West-Metaphysics-Christendom/dp/0521035562/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1249264494&sr=8-1 ] They make allot of the same types of style over substance fallacy remarks that you have made. Lets see
 * "There is indeed some impressive scholarship in this book, except where the author attempts to make sense of figures he has failed to study in depth, such as Aquinas, where the errors are numerous and elementary. Behind the project, of course, is an agenda, a familiar anti-Western polemic dressed up in good historical research and extremely clumsy philosophy. I notice that the publishers quote David Burrell's review in Nova et Vetera--funny, since that review was anything but positive in its final conclusions regarding this book. Bradshaw is a bad philosopher, but he gives his audience what they want. He will be praised extravagantly."


 * You hopefully noted in the intro to this article the passage mentioning the book the The Byzantine Lists Errors of the Latins Author: Tia M. Kolbaba. Right? Here lets see what some Westerns commented about its subject matter.....
 * "The Byzantine lists cataloguing the "errors" of Latin Christians have been dismissed by generations of scholars as the writings of deranged fanatics." Note however what the rest of the page states.


 * Gee should anyone involved in such a subject from the Eastern side be suprised that someone in opposition to their perspective engage in ad hominem? Or the style over substance fallacy? That they are blatant in their offensive ridicule but then decry that they are offended?

But comments like
 * "poor organization, tendentious reasoning, mischaracterizations, and inaccuracies regarding Eastern and Western theology lead me to believe this was written by a Greek high school student".


 * Well not only are the comments supposed to be taken as healthy and good comments but somehow the editors who worked on the article should take them as WP: Assume Good Faith. This looks like you attempting to start off on the wrong collaborative foot. I'll say this though. Lets pick apart pieces here on the talkpage. I will not be like you and not assume good faith. Through insults at your contributions (which is as I showed nothing but towing the party line) I will do my best WITH SOURCES to accommodate you and why what is being said is being said.

LoveMonkey (talk) 01:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with LoveMonkey. And I didn't see the ad hominem attack. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 16:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I got it wrong. Some parts of the article have a quality that justifies deletion of entire sections. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 16:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Canonical territory
The section Canonical territory explains "canonical territory", then claims there are disputes between the Ukrainan orthodox church and the Russian orthodox church. Which of them are 'Latins' in this context? If none, what does that dispute have to do with anything? Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 14:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Me idoit! (I hope ad-hominem-attacks on myself are OK?) Next subclause. Me need new glasses! Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 14:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Synthesis
The section modalism seems to be a mess of confusion upon confusion, so let me relate to how I believe: so the statement
 * Aristoteles did not invent modal logic, he made a treatise that modern researchers interpret as a precursor to modal logic, Avicenna did however invent a temporal logic, and that is a modal logic,
 * Plato wasn't involved in this,
 * Pythagor a s has nothing in common with neither Aristoteles nor Plato, he is irrelevant in the context,
 * modal logic has nothing whatsoever to do with modalism,
 * Aristoteles's and Plato's God theories have nothing to do with modal logic,
 * Modalism is the way ontologically that Hellenic pagan philosophy starting with Pythagorus and following following through Plato, Aristotle and Middle Platonism and Neoplatonism, analytically and dialectically deconstructed human consciousness ... blablabla

is the  purest bombastic bullshit  I've seen on Wikipedia: WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:HOAX, WP:NOTESSAY, ... Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 15:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * FYI, I've saved it to my cabinet-of-horrors page User:Rursus/Kill. I think the section shall be deleted, and the following section too. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 16:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Added screech for help
With this edit I claim:
 * I deem the article is not credible. Something here or there is correct but there is simply too many obvious confusions and too many nonsential formulations to take the text seriously!

Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 18:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Section Ecclesiological issues seems to be accurate, the following sections need some extra text:
 * Celibacy of the Priestly Order: disagreement must be established,
 * Divorce: disagreement must be established.
 * I remove the expert help for the entire article, but note that the section Pagan philosophical influence is prob full of errors and still needs some expert review. I'll keep on proofreading on Theological issues. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 13:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Formal request for help
(Please read the above two objection postings against the section Pagan philosophical influence after reading this request)

The article in its entirety seems to relate pretty correctly to facts and sources, but the section Pagan philosophical influence starts with a grand-confusion discourse that compromises the reliability of that section (red in extra highlight for, blue for ): The request is to evaluate the sections, giving thumbs-up or -down, advices: such as delete/blank-and-rewrite/rewrite-w\o-blanking, etc. according to sentiment. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 08:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Pagan philosophical influence
 * (noname) ,
 * Modalism - mostly confused, ,
 * Pagan philosophical modalism and idealism - unknown,
 * Metaphysics and the scholastic method - unknown,
 * Via moderna,
 * Trinity,
 * Filioque,
 * Origin and procession of the Holy Spirit,
 * West acceptance of the Filioque,
 * Lets start here..Please refrain from using the word bullshit. Thank you now heres a general overview in a few articles [[,, , ,[[User:LoveMonkey|LoveMonkey]] (talk) 21:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * OK I'll refrain from that. That was unconsiderate of me. Link 1 contains 5 "modalistic/modalism" and zero "modal logic", link 2 contains zero "modal", so it is prob irrelevant, same for link 3 and 4. From where did you get the idea that "modalism" have anything to do with "modal logic"? Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 08:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Finally its a struggle.. and its a matter of debate here in the West, not something that's not even valid or not being discussed.LoveMonkey (talk) 21:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Also are you saying that Aquina doesnt have a modal theory?, That the Latin word persona, as used to translate the Greek word Hypostasis, does not lend to modalism, when the word persona is used to describe the existences of God translating from Latin back into Greek?LoveMonkey (talk) 11:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm saying that Aquinas did not have a modal logic according to the link you provided, that low quality blog link mentions a myriad of "modalism" but never once "modal logic". It seems you don't understand the term modal logic. Go read it! It has nothing to do with Modalism whatsoever. The modal logic has a "pagan" philosopher heritage, modalim has not. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 08:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * "sabellianism" "modal logic" -"wikipedia" 66 hits, dictionary entries. Modal logic is logic about possible worlds, and conclusions that can be drawn between them. Sabellianism is a theology claiming that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are different modes or aspects of one God, as perceived by the believer, rather than three distinct persons in God Himself. They're unrelated.


 * There's also an unrelated "modalism" used in the context of Modal logic, which is equal to modal logic thinking, that has been criticised for some technical artifacts and shortcomings, I think the issue is that nobody have succeeded to construct a modal logic system that counterparts linguistically similar clauses, so there's no homomorphism between language and modal logic notation, making the modal logic unsound and/or contraintuitive. (My philosophy professor claimed that "modal logic" is a virus. I politely listened, but I'm not going to dig in it until it's time for "building my great Artificial intelligence system", just a saying, not serious!) Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 18:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Delete
It seems I'll get no help on the sections  Modalism nor  Pagan philosophical modalism and idealism. I'll delete them one week from now, since they're contentious, slandering and factually false. Please make objecttions to this below before the week ends, otherwise I'll remove it per above issues. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 14:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * For everyone interested, the sections are analysed in one of my subpages. That subpage list numerous errors. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 21:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

OK I reworded one of the sentences to reflect a less Soviet take on Western Idealism. Since I can not tell what it is that you want. I will instead uncompress the section I wrote, I can't tell if you are here to insult and berate or be pedantic or all of it. I will assume all of it. Since you are resetting the goal posts each time I try and address this with you. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The sections needs to be relevant to the Orthodox criticisms against the Western churches. I think the sections Modalism and Pagan philosophical modalism and idealism can be collapsed to one section, since the Orthodox criticisms boils down to identifying Aristotle's and prob the RC Trinity as being modalist (in the Orthodox view). As for the WP:NPOV asked for by DCC (?), I think the modern RC view is that both ways to see it, the Orthodox and the Augustine, are profitable, but I think it always wasn't so.


 * The Platonism mentioned is mostly but not entirely irrelevant, except per the way to define God. Monads and aeons were cleansed away from Catholicism (in reality from the Alexandrine cathedral school) from the 2nd to the 3rd century, the immobile, unchanging, apathetic God of the pagan philosophers is still used within Christianity much, so that is a valid issue.


 * At last we get rid of irrelevant modern logic systems. Thanks for that! Now we only have to tamper with the almost incomprehensible logic of the old greek philosophers, an almost superhuman task in itself. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 17:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * FYI: Having failed in using Catholic Encyclopedia because of inferior theological explanation, in using my priest, who just says the trinity "is designed to be mystical", I'll now try Karen Armstrong in A History of God to see if I can get a neutral view on what this trinity struggle is about. All I know is that the Christian (all Christians) Trinity is modalist (homoousios) yet not modalist, containing relations, modes, prosopai, hypostases, ousiai, relations, persons, yet not persons, here and there, and that bugs me very much. Maybe I'll solve it... Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 17:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Soviet philosophical articulation
I can not directly speak to the motives of Rursus but I can say that what I attempted to place in the article was some of the ideas set up by N.O. Lossky Since it does not lend well to trying to take and make it a very short passage on an encyclopedia article. I will do my best to remove the contentious terms and will try to reword.LoveMonkey (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Good, except no need to berate yourself with "soviet". That land is almost forgotten by now, and sorry for all inconveniences BTW! Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 17:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I don't mind being challenged just being insulted. Anyway it is no difference now as this is very difficult a thing to say in a small space and I fear I am still oversimplifying it. So be objective and help if you can. Both N. O. Lossky (whos article I have done a very poor job in trying to express) and V.V. Zenkovsky's History of Russian Philosophy are very good for this. They are taboo in the West. Because Russian philosophy completely removes epistemology from its components i.e. it is mystical and irrational (see Lev Shestov and Dostoevsky). This is the byzantine metaphysics called stochastics that modern day philosophers like Nassim Taleb express. It was a form of metaphysical libertarianism (every moment (existence) is a miracle and a byproduct of the interaction of organization and randomness) but rejected this position too as it treats freedom as a concept that can be rationalized metaphysically, which the East states that all energeia (including randomness) can not be rationalized and can only be understood intuitively. If you could help with this it would be good because I would like to go and re-retire. The Orthodox teach that the philosophers in trying to stop the corruption of the sophists and Persian magicians exchanged one set of problems for another WITHIN Hellenistic society.

Aristotle in creating a rigid set of rules to validate scientific truth (called the classical scientific method) was not ever understood properly in this by the West. But since the West (i.e. Augustine, Aquinas etc. etc.) knew Greek better then the Greeks they were going and are going to train the Greek on what it means to be Greek. You see only finiteness can be rationalize. The uncreated ingredients of something can not. In the East the argument that this quality was called uncreated (i.e. the supernatural you can engage or experience) this quality was given a name of measure called energy. Since it was the thing in stuff that can not be created or destroyed. This is the East including India and China and the Middle East (Persia etc). Now the West embraced somehow the idea that only that which can be rationalized really exists (see things like nominalism and existentialism and nihilism). So things that can not be validated by reason because they are uncreated, are said to not exist (i.e. love, freedom, God). Nihilism is the idea that "nothing" is real and everything is an illusion or unreal. That is why people tie it to mysticism as this reality is an illusion argument. And yes we blame the Roman Catholic church for this. This is what the Orthodox mean when they say that the Roman Catholic church (Western theology) manifests the old atheism/misotheism of pagan times in it's teaching that God is a benevolent tyrant (yeah thanks Augustine). LoveMonkey (talk) 17:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

general opinion

 * 1) .I've placed a NPOV tag on the article, because of the great overemphasis on the Eastern viewpoint.
 * 2) .An example of the bias is : "Eastern theologians have contented that Christianity is the truth;" errors like this are frequent", as if Roman Catholic theologians do not think that Christianity is the truth.
 * 3) .Many of the sections read as if Eastern theological views were totally uniform, and that a quote from any one modern theologian represents the entire tradition. A quote from any one person, of course, represents his particular interpretation of the tradition. The only way of showing that something is a generally held position is from a source that explicitly or implicitly indicates that--this can be tricky of course in controversial theology, where people tend to present their positions as demonstrated truths, not propositions. Sometimes the only way to handle this is to present a range of sources.
 * 4) .References in Wikipedia are used for providing citations, including key quotations, but not argument. They can al;so be used"to add explanatory material, particularly if the added information would be distracting if written out in the main article"   WP:FOOTNOTE but this should be done very carefully & only for what is really peripheral because if it is really peripheral it perhaps does not belong in the article at all, & if not peripheral it belongs in the main text. This is a more limited use than in conventional academic scholarly writing in the humanities.  Therefore normally this is minimized at Wikipedia--the article uses the device much too extensively.
 * Understood DGG I think this article is due for an overhaul. I would like to state that in the case for V Lossky and Michael Pomazansky their works are used in seminar to teach Orthodox theology. As the case of Romanides his works are used on a global scale in ecumeninistic councils between large church bodies (Roman Catholic, Protestant, Anglican) to define the Orthodox theological and historical context. So to begin discussions toward reconcillation. George Florovsky and Semen L. Frank also. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Free will or metaphysical libertarianism
There was an internal contradiction in this section: a claim on the one hand of difference between EOC and RCC views and yet a statement that the difference was one on which EOC and RCC (and OOC) were in agreement. I have removed the contradiction. Esoglou (talk) 02:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The Roman Catholic do not teach Cassian, this from V Lossky the Orthodox position is not the same as the Roman Catholic's.pg 198-199 LoveMonkey (talk) 02:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

And Lossky is not alone.
 * From a Catholic perspective, the leaders of the monastic movement in fifth-century Gaul stand under the shadow of a "heresy", later to be called by them "Semi-Pelagianism". The westerners regard Saint John Cassian as the founder of this "heresy". They, furthermore, accuse many other fathers of Lerins for their subscription to it - Saints Vincent of Lerins, Hilary of Arles, and Faustus of Riez (Rhegium). In Orthodox eyes, it is rather these fathers who transmitted the Orthodox doctrine of divine grace and man's free will. It was Augustine who pursued an exaggeration of the doctrine of grace that threatened to negate the whole meaning of human effort and asceticism in the path of salvation.LoveMonkey (talk) 02:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This information, which is unrelated to my correction of the self-contradictory statement that EOC and RCC are in conflict because both of them reject the doctrine of Total Depravity, might perhaps be of use towards providing a citation in support of the statement in the article about "the Catholic Church's use of describing the position of the Eastern churches and St Cassian as Semi-Pelagian". Esoglou (talk) 06:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

No its not there was no mention of total depravity at all in the passage you edited. You know that Lossky was speaking to exactly what was in the article that you distorted. This will be the third time that you have either ignored this passage, outright rejected it or now deny what it actually says. As it clearly states that the Roman Catholic Church condemns the teachings of Cassian where the Eastern Orthodox do not. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The next sentence said the point of difference between the EOC view and that of certain others on free will is the total depravity doctrine, which it said is rejected by EOC+OOC+RCC. I therefore adjusted the first sentence so that it no longer contradicted the second by putting RCC with the Protestant view. Esoglou (talk) 16:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added to the article some of what I had originally read that prompted me to make the passage. The original passage did not involve Protestantism nor was it complicated and confused about what is wrong or right between the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox like it does now. I will admit in my personal experience with the Uniat church (as the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia online the New Advent calls them they run amoke of not only the Orthodox but other Catholics as well whom also quote the same sources and teachings that the Roman Catholic church proposes. . As the Orthodox believe that the Vatican when enough of its regular flock complain will force its dogma as not talk but actual practice on the Eastern Churches. And it this never happens it will only be because the Orthodox did not capitulate. Because the if the Orthodox did the Vatican would be defining our dogma and using the word catholic as a theme to force uniformity.LoveMonkey (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Knocking down the overhead
The one article I did an extensive amount of research on and wanted to create here for wikipedia and never did would be an article covering ousia. I think that the article could be properly called ousiology. The "Thing is" the "thing is not". I mean. Or the study of substance, essence, thingness, in general, as universally held, generalization as categorization etc, etc. I think that this or I at least feel that it would fruitless as this so much a component of East understanding of reality and it would be hard to source in a Western way without getting it REALLY REALLY wrong. However I good chunk of this articles passages on Aristotle and the whole entire movement of Greek Pagan philosophy could be expressed in such an article.LoveMonkey (talk) 13:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Original Research that Esoglou is adding to article
--- The Eastern Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem (1672) also, again without naming Cassian, laid down that grace must guide and precede any action that is spiritually good. - I removed this as I also objected to it in the East-West schism article. Since Esoglou is not stating that he is quoting a specific individual he can not take a primay source and interprete the source to say things that it does not say. The Confession of Dositheus does not say that it condemns the teachings of synergeia (the Eastern Orthodox term for Cassian's teachings) nor Cassian. I can find no Orthodox theologian to validate that the Orthodox church rejects Cassian. Nor can I find where it is taught by the Orthodox church in general that this Council refuted the teaching of Cassian that the Orthodox Church calls synergy or synergeia. Esoglou needs to provide a secondary Orthodox source stating what Esoglou is interpreting. Stating this as the teaching of the Orthodox Church.LoveMonkey (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What a curious demand! Surely the best source for what a (pan-Orthodox) council of bishops declared is the text of the council's declaration.  The declaration can be summarized in the article, provided that a link or footnote quotation is given of the actual text of the declaration.  This enables the reader to check whether the summary is faithful; and other editors - especially those who are hostile! - can question or themselves modify the summary, without of course being allowed to delete the link or quotation giving the actual text.  However, this time I have given no summary of mine of what the council said and, to respond to the curious demand, I have added another's statement that the council declared that the only works that are perfect and make the doer worthy of salvation are works done "under grace and with grace".  In addition, as often happens when I have to reexamine a questioned statement, I have remembered another important EOC source that speaks of the need of grace from God in order to do works that are in actual reality good, and I have quoted it in the article.  As a result, the article now has two (instead of one) EOC sources that oppose the notion that the first steps to salvation can (sometimes) be taken without any help from God.  In this context it is not of much relevance whether Cassian did or did not uphold the opinion that they oppose.  Note that I have not stated anything "as the teaching of the Orthodox Church".  But the cited sources are undeniably authoritative EOC ones.  The Russian source, in at least one part of its text (not the part I have quoted), cites the older one as authoritative.
 * There are absolutely no grounds for demanding as a condition for admission of the Jerusalem council's statement that it must have used the word "synergeia". Nobody made that ridiculous demand for allowing mention of the declaration by the Council of Orange!  In the same way, neither Jerusalem nor Orange condemned Cassian.  Esoglou (talk) 20:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

WOW now you are stating in the article that Philaret is condemning Cassian and that Lossky is wrong. Why can you not stop this?LoveMonkey (talk) 15:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Now what gave you that idea? Didn't I state clearly enough that nobody (neither Orange nor Jerusalem nor Philaret) condemned John Cassian?  Esoglou (talk) 15:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is it I can quote where the Roman Catholic church declares the teachings of Cassian in error LITERALLY? And yet not only can you not do the same for the Orthodox Church (you are not Orthodox and you are interpreting our doctrine, against the words of our theologians) If it is a commonly know thing (as I have shown in the case of the Roman Catholic Church) then you would not be needing to quote someone's opinion and or comments on it and could use the many theologians I have posted and find the rejection of Cassian in their words. Instead you make your case in posting anecdotal evidence to boaster your opinion of what a saint stated not as doctrine but as their opinion (as is the case with Philaret). And your opinion on the Dositheus is an opinion NOT ORTHODOX DOCTRINE. You do this kind of thing constantly.LoveMonkey (talk) 15:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * An advance. Now you are saying (or are you?) that I have declared that the Orthodox reject the teaching of Cassian.  I did not.  I said that the Synod of Jerusalem and the Catechism of Philaret reject the idea that man can take the first steps to salvation without any assistance from God's grace (something that sounds to me to be different from synergy and to be instead a monergy at that stage).  I have not denied, have I, that perhaps, in spite of the teaching of these two highly authoritative Orthodox sources, some Orthodox hold the contrary view?  I have not denied, have I, that perhaps most of them or even all of them disagree with the pan-Orthodox council of Jerusalem and the Catechism of Philaret?  You seem to me to be a member of the Orthodox Church and to disagree with the teachings of Jerusalem and Philaret, so I certainly do not state that "the Orthodox" (all of them) reject what these authoritative teachings reject.
 * (By the way, I think that the ideas of a theologian, whether Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, are by no means as good an indication of the teaching of his or her Church as a declaration by the bishops of the Church. However, this is just "by the way", since I am making no statement about what is the teaching of the EOC on anything.)  Esoglou (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

That last comment is a little closer to the kind of discussion I think we ought to be having here than the stuff that came before — but I think I'll still go ahead and post the following comment anyway.

Please forgive me if it sounds like I'm being harsh here (or if you think any harshness should be directed only at the other person and not at you), but:

With all possible respect, the two of you need to calm down, be civil, assume good faith on each other's part, and cooperate. If you have a problem with a source (or with the way a source is being used), it's perfectly OK to question the validity of the source or its proper use, but please don't make it personal. I would strongly recommend that when you talk here, you should talk about the article and the sources — and not point at the other person or use sardonic comments (like "curious demand", or "WOW ... what gave you that idea?", and I'm not yet sure what I think about even "you do this kind of thing constantly") so as to suggest that they (as opposed to the material in the article) are the real problem.

Additionally, regarding the timing and quality of sources, I would suggest everyone should read this comment from a very recent (early June 2010) ArbCom decision. Since the WP:BLP rules don't apply here, this ArbCom ruling says (at least as I read it) that people ought to be given a reasonable amount of time to supply and/or clean up source citations before material is denounced as unverifiable or as "original research" and removed. This should obviously not be taken as an excuse to insert spurious material that you know cannot ever be verified, but it does seem to say that disagreements over the appropriateness and interpretation of sources should lead to calm, rational discussion — not to edit wars or the trading of accusations. Richwales (talk) 16:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for intervening, Richwales. Esoglou (talk) 16:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. I will attempt to be critical in a more objective way. This is completely acceptable. From what I have posted how might I state it more clearly so as to not be misunderstood.LoveMonkey (talk) 19:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

May we ask Richwales for an opinion on whether, in the context of the article, it is Wikipedia-excluded original research to quote the Synod of Jerusalem and the Catechism of Philaret as they are quoted? LoveMonkey's initial objection (see above) was a claim that the summary of what the Synod said (accompanied though it was by a quotation of the Synod's text) was original research. In response, the Synod's text was quoted without summary. And, in addition, a summary in a reliable source about the Synod's statement was provided as an interpretation. A summary-less quotation of the Catechism of Philaret was also added. It was at this stage that LoveMonkey added the "Original Research" tag with the reasoning, "passage below states through the editor opinion that the Orthodox reject the teachings of Cassian" (diff.), a reasoning that I maintained was baseless (diff.). If Richwales kindly agrees to express an opinion, I think LoveMonkey should first be given the opportunity to comment on this presentation of the situation. Esoglou (talk) 07:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My point is very simple. No Orthodox theologian that I can find states that the Council of Jerusalem and or any Council acknowledged as Orthodox or the Orthodox in general says Cassian was in error. AT ALL. Even though they acknowledge and or might give the Council of Orange validity they interpret even that Council as not rejecting Cassian. The teaching of synergy is heart and soul eastern right up there with nepsis and ascetism LoveMonkey (talk) 13:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I refrain from expressing an explicit judgement on the relevance of this remark to an article on theological differences between two churches, neither of which has declared that Cassian was in error, while the EOC Council of Jerusalem (as its own words and Schaff's account of it show), the EOC Catechism of Philaret, and Carl S. Tyneh's book on Orthodox Christianity (pp. 84-85) say that divine grace is necessary even for the beginning of the work of salvation, as RCC also says, and Tyneh adds that even the first steps in this work are not performed by the human agent on his own, but involve "cooperation, or synergy, as it is called in Dogmatics, synergy of our will and Divine Grace and power that constitutes the great work of our salvation" (p. 86) - again as RCC says. Perhaps Richwales would now give his opinion?  Esoglou (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

////The Catholic Encyclopedia online states very clearly that the Roman Catholic Church considers some of the teachings of Cassian as erroneous in specific the teaching of co-operation or synergy.
 * "The error of Cassian was to regard a purely natural act, proceeding from the exercise of free will, as the first step to salvation. In the controversy which, shortly before his death, arose over his teaching, Cassian took no part. His earliest opponent, Prosper of Aquitaine, without naming him, alludes to him with great respect as a man of more than ordinary virtues. Semipelagianism was finally condemned by the Council of Orange in 529."

Again who in the Orthodox church states that Cassian's teachings are condemn? Who in the Orthodox Church states that the Council of Jeruselm condemned Cassian's teachings? Who in the Orthodox Church says to take what the council states or the confessions of Dosethius or the comments of Philaret as to mean that the Orthodox Church condemns or rejects the teachings of Cassian? Who has done this in the Orthodox Church? Where is this? How can anyone state that they are speaking for the official position of Orthodox Church and not be able to find something that big and simple and then quote that source. As I already posted all I had to do was a simple Google search to find where the Roman Catholic church states clearly that they consider some of the teachings of Cassian erronious. I can not find any official condemnation of Cassian by an official Orthodox source. I can not find anywhere that or that such a condemnation was made so in Orthodoxy because of the Council of Jeruselm or something Philaret said.LoveMonkey (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Why am I having to repeat this over and over again. What am I stating that is unclear? I am simply asking for an Orthodox source that states that Cassian's teachings in whole or in part are declared erroneous by the Orthodox Church. Thats all. Those councils and those comments are not used by Orthodox to state that we hold the same position of Augustine or the West on free will. I posted where the Orthodox theologian Vladimir Lossky very clearly stated that Cassian's teachings are considered the Eastern position on the matter of Free will.LoveMonkey (talk) 15:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 102 years ago, Maurice Hassett identified as Cassian's a theory rejected by the RCC, but the RCC itself has never attributed that theory to Cassian in its condemnations of the theory. The identification of Cassian's teaching with the teaching known as "Semi-Pelagianism" is not accepted by all scholars (see, for instance, this dissertation). The theory rejected by the RCC and that Hassett, not the RCC, attributed to Cassian, is that human beings can take the first steps to salvation independently, instead of merely collaborating with divine grace. The same theory has been rejected by an EOC council and an official EOC catechism, and is considered non-Orthodox by Carl S. Tyneh. Where then is the theological difference between the two churches for inclusion in an article called "Catholic-Eastern Orthodox theological differences"?

Unlike Hassett, Lossky seems to have considered that Cassian taught collaboration, synergy, not independence from divine grace. But even if we were to suppose that Lossky considered that Cassian taught independence from divine grace, not collaboration with it, and that he considered such independence to be Orthodox teaching, his authority - even if you might conceivably argue that it is greater than Tyneh's - is certainly inferior to that of an Orthodox council and an official Orthodox catechism. Even in that case, there would be no solid ground for making Wikipedia state as an undisputed fact that on this point there is a theological difference between the two churches. At most, one could say that theologians such as Lossky, but not such as Tyneh, see a theological difference here, and that an EOC council and an important EOC official catechism propose the same teaching as the RCC. Esoglou (talk) 16:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Esoglou, I don't disagree with your argument. However, you need to put that argument in the mouth of a reliable source.  Can you find any theologian who makes this argument? --Richard S (talk) 17:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Cassian
I'm new to this discussion and I haven't read all that went before. I have read only this one section. Nor have I read the entire article section, just the couple sentences about Lossky and Cassian. (OK... I've now read the whole section. What a mess.  The whole section needs to be rewritten.  It's too long and way too confusing.)

However, based on what I have read, I will comment that it is perhaps risky to rely on primary sources as doing so risks engaging in WP:SYNTH. And thus, on the specific issue of citing the Council of Jerusalem or the Council of Orange, I would be inclined to think that this risks OR and SYNTH.

Let's start with this sentence:

1) Orthodox theologian Vladimir Lossky has stated that the Roman Catholic Church has rejected the teachings of John Cassian.[71]

This seems to be an OK statement. The sentence is cited to reference #71, a work by Lossky. However, I think the sentence could be improved. Does Lossky specifically state "the Roman Catholic Church has rejected the teachings of John Cassian" in the sense of rejecting all of the teachings or just the SemiPelagian ones? I would like to see that sentence tightened up to clarify precisely what Lossky wrote.

2) While the Roman Catholic Church venerates Cassian as a saint they also teach, without naming Cassian, against Cassian's belief that our good will can sometimes precede the grace of God

This sentence is a bit dicey. I would prefer something closer to the source.of reference #73.

Yet Cassian did not himself escape the suspicion of erroneous teaching; he is in fact regarded as the originator of what, since the Middle Ages, has been known as Semipelagianism. ... The three opposing views have been summed up briefly as follows: St. Augustine regarded man in his natural state as dead, Pelagius as quite sound, Cassian as sick. The error of Cassian was to regard a purely natural act, proceeding from the exercise of free will, as the first step to salvation. In the controversy which, shortly before his death, arose over his teaching, Cassian took no part. His earliest opponent, Prosper of Aquitaine, without naming him, alludes to him with great respect as a man of more than ordinary virtues. Semipelagianism was finally condemned by the Council of Orange in 529.

Without knowing much about this topic, I would venture to speculate that the above excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia captures the essence of the Catholic position on Cassian. Cassian may be a saint but teachings from his third, fifth and especially thirteenth conferences were the seed of heresy known as Semipelagianism. The Church, however, has not chosen to tag Cassian with the blame for Semipelagianism. More speculation on my part, but I think what's going on is that Cassian's life as a whole is considered saintly although some teachings were later considered to be erroneous and leading to heresy.

This much seems clear. If I have gotten it wrong, please enlighten me.

So, if we look at the sentence... "While the Roman Catholic Church venerates Cassian as a saint they also teach, without naming Cassian, against Cassian's belief that our good will can sometimes precede the grace of God." the problem is that it doesn't capture the spirit of the passage in the CE. It would be better to get away from sweeping statements such as "the Roman Catholic Church has rejected the teachings of John Cassian" if the truth is more accurately stated as "the RCC has rejected SemiPelagianism as a heresy that is considered to have originated from teachings found in the writings of John Cassian". This is OR on my part but, if Cassian is considered a saint, it seems hard to believe that all of Cassian's writings are rejected. The CE seems to indicate that only specifically the SemiPelagian ideas in the third, fifth and especially thirteenth conferences are rejected.

More importantly, I think we should get away from focusing overly on Cassian and focus on the CE's framework "St. Augustine regarded man in his natural state as dead, Pelagius as quite sound, Cassian as sick". The Catholic position is against Pelagianism and SemiPelagianism. What is the Orthodox position? Is the CE's framework appropriate? Do the Catholic and Orthodox churches differ with respect to this framework? If not, is there a difference regarding grace and free will that is not captured by the framework?

It would be better to focus on what specific writers say about this topic. In other words, rely on secondary sources rather than making arguments based on primary sources. Are there any Catholic theologians who see a difference between what the Catholics believe and what the Orthodox believe on this topic?

My experience with this article is that it seems easier to find Orthodox theologians who argue that the Catholic Church takes a different view from the Orthodox Church and harder to find Catholic theologians who argue that the Orthodox Church takes a different view from the Catholic Church. I am not sure whether this imbalance is caused by a failure of Wikipedia editors to find the appropriate theological writings or because the imbalance actually exists in "the real world". My personal impression is that Catholic theologians are not in the habit of attacking Orthodox teachings and that the general position of the Catholic Church is that the Orthodox Church is "orthodox" and that, for the most part, their theology is "not wrong".

Thus, I think that LoveMonkey's desire to look for Catholic responses to Orthodox assertions, criticisms and attacks is ultimately futile. If I am wrong, enlighten me.

--Richard S (talk) 16:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Richard, for intervening.
 * Do you think that in your interpretation of the matter under discussion the heading of the section should be changed to "John Cassian". As it stands, the discussion seems to be broader, with Cassian only as a minor point, but LoveMonkey does seem to be directing the discussion to Cassian alone..
 * Do you think that it is an oversimplification to say that what the RCC rejects is Cassian's teaching? Whether Cassian was in fact a Semi-Pelagian is disputed in the West: "Was John Cassian a Semi-Pelagian?" was the topic of a lecture by someone from the Catholic University of America last year (page 3 of this program).  What the RCC rejects is clear: you need only look up its official statements.
 * I don't understand how quoting – not interpreting - its official statements can be considered to be Wikipedia-excluded original research. Nor do I understand how quoting what an EOC council said about the teaching in question can be considered original research.  As I said, you (and LoveMonkey) seem to want to make Cassian the topic of the discussion.  Well then, make that the heading, and I will grant that the Synod of Jerusalem and the Catechism of the Russian Church say nothing about Cassian, and that then any mention of them would be not merely original research but simply off-topic. Citing the Council of Orange would then likewise be not merely original research but simply off-topic.
 * I have no objection whatever to having the interpretations of Cassian's teaching listed as a matter of divergence between EOC and RCC. But that is not what the section (on whose quality I fully concur with Richard's assessment) at present claims to be about. So shall we simply rewrite it entirely?
 * I apologize for perhaps misunderstanding matters: on my return here I have found here more than I can fully take in and comprehend in a short time. Esoglou (talk) 17:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Richard wrote.
 * This seems to be an OK statement. The sentence is cited to reference #71, a work by Lossky. However, I think the sentence could be improved. Does Lossky specifically state "the Roman Catholic Church has rejected the teachings of John Cassian" in the sense of rejecting all of the teachings or just the SemiPelagian ones? I would like to see that sentence tightened up to clarify precisely what Lossky wrote.


 * Ah Richard the king of concise. I have learned much from you. If I can keep you from getting angry this time then much can be achieved. I only posted that sentence in that way because of the other positions being posted in the article. I think it would be truer to Lossky's passage to say "The Eastern Orthodox position embraces the teachings of Cassian which it calls synergy and rejects the Western interruption of how Cassian is understood."
 * As for the Roman Catholic church stating that the Orthodox are right or wrong. I beg to differ. Here is one such example. And NO EXCUSES, this time. Own up to it already. It is or it is not the position of the Roman Catholic church Richard. Again if you could keep your emotions out of it. You guys got busted. We did not do that nor do we have the history of it. Either own up the history. Or just stay out of it. PS I voted for you to be an admin just so you could do this stuff. What happened aren't you still an admin anymore. I know you where busy but come on that wasn't something to just give up (pls remember I am not speaking to your personal life as I know nothing about it). Its just you seemed sane enough to understand at least.

LoveMonkey (talk) 17:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As Esoglou has pointed out, it is perhaps counterproductive to focus on pro-Cassian vs. anti-Cassian. I think we should start by presenting the positions of Total Depravity and Total Free Will (Pelagianism) with links to the appropriate other articles.  We should then point out that both the Catholic and Orthodox churches reject Total Depravity and Pelagianism.  We should also point out that the Catholic Church rejects SemiPelagianism.  I leave it to you to tell me whether the Orthodox Church accepts SemiPelagianism.  I honestly don't know the answer to that yet although my current impression based on what I've read here is that the Orthodox Church rejects SemiPelagianism but at least one Orthodox theologian (Lossky) believes that Cassian's perspective is sound while also believing that the Catholic Church rejects Cassian's viewpoint on this.  I suspect that the Catholic Church favors Augustine over Cassian although I don't think the word "reject" is quite appropriate wrt to the Catholic Church's position on Cassian.  As Esoglou points out, at least one Catholic theologian saw fit to present a talk on the topic "Was John Cassian really a SemiPelagian?"
 * I like this text from the article on SemiPelagianism
 * The Eastern Orthodox Church generally adheres to the doctrine of theosis in its conception of salvation. Theosis closely links the ideas of sanctification and justification: salvation is achieved by the divinisation of man.  This doctrine is sometimes labeled Semipelagian by Protestant theologians on the grounds that it suggests that man contributes to his own salvation. The accusation is rejected by the Eastern Orthodox Church, which holds that "for the regenerated to do spiritual good – for the works of the believer being contributory to salvation and wrought by supernatural grace are properly called spiritual – it is necessary that he be guided and prevented [preceded] by grace … Consequently he is not able of himself to do any work worthy of a Christian life".


 * John Cassian, known particularly for his teachings on theosis, is considered to be a Saint in the Eastern Church as well as in Roman Catholicism. Augustine of Hippo, who was closely identified with anti-Pelagianism and whose teaching is very much centered on God's action in salvation, is likewise considered to be a Saint in the East as well as in the West, but he is not as highly regarded in the Eastern Church as in the West.
 * The above text extracted from SemiPelagianism needs some work but I think it is a good starting point for our treatment of the topic in this article.


 * --Richard S (talk) 18:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Esoglou, the problem with writing too much (a sin of overindulgence which I often commit) is that people can wind up overlooking the point that one was trying to make. If my doing so has led you to miss my point, I apologize.

While I think you are engaging in OR and SYNTH in focusing on the Councils, I do agree with you that the current debate on this Talk Page may be focusing excessively on how the two churches view Cassian.

In the middle of what I wrote above, I said: More importantly, I think we should get away from focusing overly on Cassian and focus on the CE's framework "St. Augustine regarded man in his natural state as dead, Pelagius as quite sound, Cassian as sick". The Catholic position is against Pelagianism and SemiPelagianism. What is the Orthodox position? Is the CE's framework appropriate? Do the Catholic and Orthodox churches differ with respect to this framework? If not, is there a difference regarding grace and free will that is not captured by the framework?

You wrote: "Do you think that it is an oversimplification to say that what the RCC rejects is Cassian's teaching? Whether Cassian was in fact a Semi-Pelagian is disputed in the West: 'Was John Cassian a Semi-Pelagian?' Do you think that it is an oversimplification to say that what the RCC rejects is Cassian's teaching? Whether Cassian was in fact a Semi-Pelagian is disputed in the West: 'Was John Cassian a Semi-Pelagian?'"

Let us accept your implied assertion that it is "an oversimplification to say that what the RCC rejects is Cassian's teaching". Catholic Encyclopedia posits a framework of Augustine (orthodox), Cassian (SemiPelagian) and Pelagius. We need not focus on whether or not Cassian was SemiPelagian. It is sufficient for us to provide a framework for understanding the different positions on this debate. We should present for those totally unfamiliar with the debate the full range from Total Depravity to Total Free Will and then point out that both the Catholics and the Orthodox reject Total Depravity (mostly a Protestant viewpoint, Sola gratia being one of the Five Solas).

Next, we should comment that there is some debate as to whether the Catholics and the Orthodox agree or differ on their perspective regarding free will and grace. Are you aware of any Catholic who criticizes the Orthodox positon on this? We can readily assert what Catholics believe using, among other sources, the Catechism but I don't think it is as easy to find a Catholic theologian who attacks the Orthodox position on this. My impression is that Catholic theologians aren't generally interested in attacking Orthodox theology. If I am wrong, please enlighten me. It would be wonderful to find a Catholic theologian who responds to Lossky's charges.

We can assert that there is at least one prominent Orthodox theologian (Lossky) who attacks the Catholic position on this. However, we risk OR and SYNTH in presenting a defense against Lossky's attack if we base it on primary sources. This is the mess that you and LoveMonkey are stuck in right now.

I like the analogy of God throwing a rope to a drowning man. The man must reach out to the rope and hold on to it. The Protestants believe this also. They just think that the man could not even form the will to reach out to the rope if God had not foreordained it and willed it.

I'm not sure about Monergism vs. Synergism bit by Cushing Biggs Hassell. He probably has something worthwhile to say but, unless we can put it in the mouth of a Catholic or Orthodox theologian, it's probably not appropriate here. We have to be careful about using an anti-Catholic polemic by a Protestant to define the Catholic position.

BTW, it occurs to me that the CE says "St. Augustine regarded man in his natural state as dead". This sounds to me like Augustine's position is closer to Total Depravity, a position which we have stated both the Catholic and Orthodox reject. Can you help resolve this for me? Is the Catholic Church's position in consonance with Augustine or somewhere between Augustine and Cassian?

--Richard S (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Richwales

 * I just finished reading the section on "Free will or metaphysical libertarianism". My first set of thoughts (which might or might not all be on point, since I'm not an expert on this subject) are these:


 * It was hard for me to keep straight exactly what the Orthodox position is, and what the Catholic position is, because of the way everything is mixed together. Rather than try to combine everything in a single discourse, I think it might be better to describe the Catholic view, and then (separately) describe the Orthodox view.  Try to keep these separate, and don't phrase whichever one comes second in terms of a rebuttal of whichever one comes first.  It might be OK to compare and contrast the two views in a third paragraph — though I would advise this only if you can find a balanced set of secondary sources from which you can derive a comparison/contrast section (i.e., don't do it if the main source for understanding the differences is the sayings of LoveMonkey and/or Esoglou).


 * I think it would be better to keep Protestantism out of the discussion entirely. You're trying to compare and contrast Catholicism and Orthodoxy, and Protestantism postdates the Great Schism by several centuries.  Even if Protestantism might appear (from the Orthodox POV) to be closely related to Catholicism, this is not how it is viewed from the Catholic POV, and you'll just be making things more difficult for the reader to understand if you lump Protestantism together with Catholicism and try to compare/contrast the views of Calvin, Arminius, or Luther to the teachings of the Eastern Orthodox Church.  You might, possibly, want or need to briefly mention Protestant theologians if and when you bring up the philosophy of semipelagianism, but I'd recommend doing this in passing if you can get away with that.


 * Similarly, I would avoid discussing Oriental Orthodoxy unless you really need to. Please keep in mind that many/most readers will be hopelessly confused regarding Oriental Orthodoxy vs. Eastern Orthodoxy — no matter how you may try to explain it, the two names are simply too similar — and if you get away with discussing only Roman Catholicism vs. Eastern Orthodoxy, I think you'll end up with a clearer article.


 * Since the Synod of Jerusalem is much later than the early church fathers (as well as being much later than the Great Schism), I would exercise some caution in depending too much on it. If you do feel citing material from the Synod of Jerusalem is appropriate and necessary, try to concentrate on what it says about Catholicism and avoid (as much as you can) talking about whatever the Synod of Jerusalem says about Protestantism.  Again, from the Catholic perspective, Protestantism is very different from Catholicism; be careful to avoid lumping them together.


 * If at all possible, find reliable secondary sources which talk about what John Cassian said (from both the Orthodox POV and the Catholic POV). Since he is apparently a controversial figure — or, at least, the two camps disagree vehemently regarding what he said, how important he is, and how they feel the other camp has (mis)treated his legacy — you're really risking accusations of WP:OR and violation of WP:NPOV if you try interpreting and presenting his teachings yourselves.


 * Regarding the declarations of the Second Council of Orange and the Synod of Jerusalem, as well as the Catechism of Philaret, I think it would also be preferable to find secondary sources and quote tham. But if you can't find reliable secondary sources, you might be able to get away with quoting the original documents (or English translations thereof), provided the material is going to be clear to the average reader and its meaning is not significantly questioned.  I see an analogy here between the writings of church councils and the decisions of the US Supreme Court or other courts:  some leeway is already permitted regarding the use of court decisions themselves (vs. secondary sources discussing the decisions), though even in this case it's recognized that you can get into trouble if the meaning or significance of a court ruling isn't obvious.


 * I'm not sure if all the above will help, and if something I said here doesn't make sense because I don't fully understand the subject matter, hopefully you'll be able to deal with that and make some use of whatever I said here that does make sense. Richwales (talk) 17:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. I think personally interrupting a Council's decision without a secondary source (to back it up) should not be used. I mean if you are quoting the teachings of someone it is good to the use their text but Councils are group decisions and not personal ones so... Anyway good posting.LoveMonkey (talk) 17:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Free will or metaphysical libertarianism
Having read the section in the article, I find it rambling and confusing. Let's distill it down to the framework in the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Augustine, Cassian (SemiPelagian), Pelagius

The Catholic Church asserts the Augustinian position and condemns both the SemiPelagian and Pelagian positions as heresies.

What does the Orthodox Church assert? Do they see themselves as Augustinian, SemiPelagian or Pelagian?

Do they see the Catholic Church as Augustinian, SemiPelagian or Pelagian?

Or do they use a different framework e.g. Monergism vs. Synergism (cf. Cushing Biggs Hassell)? Do their interpretations of the three positions differ from that of the Catholics?

The article text asserts "The charge of Semipelagianism is also laid against the Roman Catholic Church because of its teaching that "there is a kind of interplay, or synergy, between human freedom and divine grace".[75] "For Catholics human cooperation with grace is essential. For Calvinists, human cooperation with grace is an impossibility."[76] As a result, Roman Catholic teaching is accused of being a form of Semipelagianism,[77] and it is claimed that, "over the course of time, Semi-Pelagian doctrine became the official theology of the Roman Catholic Church, and remains so even today." It has even been said that "Semi-Pelagianism, or Pseudo-Christian Pharisaism, or carnal free will, thus reaches its culmination, in the Roman Catholic communion".[78]"

We need to be careful here. There are two assertions: (1) SemiPelagianism is erroneous (2) The Catholic teaching is SemiPelagian.

We need to be absolutely clear on who asserts that "SemiPelagianism is erroneous". If we can rely on the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Catholic Church teaches this. Does the Orthodox Church also teach that SemiPelagianism is erroneous? Or does it assert that Cassian is correct while SemiPelagianism is erroneous? Perhaps the answer lies in the discussion of monergism and synergism (cf. Cushing Biggs Hassell) but this debate is not well presented in the current article text.

Side note: we should be careful about citing Cushing Biggs Hassell here. AFAICT, he was a Primitive Baptist elder and so at best represents one Protestant denomination's view of the debate. It's unclear to me why we are introducing the Protestant viewpoint here except perhaps to provide context.

Secondly, who asserts that "The Catholic teaching is SemiPelagian"? I think it is the Protestants. The Catholics don't believe that they are SemiPelagian. Do the Orthodox believe that the Catholics are SemiPelagian?

The current article text is confusing because it throws out all these ideas but it doesn't provide a framework which addresses the key issues that I have outlined above.

--Richard S (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahhh the return of Richard. Good to see you, I hope all is well. And yes Richard we are here at this article and the East-West Schism and the filioque again. You think that this time you would MAYBE just MAYBE add the actual Roman Catholic parts to the article from Roman Catholic sources? Please pretty please. As for the answer to your question. I added Lossky and what he said to the article. BUT UH WHY CAN'T HIS STATEMENT BE THE OFFICIAL ORTHODOX ONE? Its esoglou who added the contradictions.LoveMonkey (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)