Talk:Theoria (Eastern Orthodox Christianity)

Proposal to delete the section on the Roman Catholic Church
After doing some thinking, i'd like to propose we delete the section on the Roman Catholic Church entirely (rather than replace it with that section from that other page as i'd previously suggested). Theoria doesn't have the same significance in the Western Church as it does in the Eastern Church, and everything that needs to be said about the Roman Catholic Church in regards to theoria is already covered in the section Theoria.

Here are the main problems with the section as it currently stands, as i see them:

1. John Cassian, Saint Gregory the Great, and Dionysius the Areopagite are all figures from before the Roman Catholic Church split from the Eastern Orthodox church and each is somewhat more closely tied to the Eastern Orthodox tradition than to the Roman Catholic tradition.

2. The portrayal of St Augustine is misleading. His understanding of God was more rational and mechanical than contemplative in the intuitive sense of theoria.

3. The reference given regarding the writings of Peter Lombard, Alexander of Hales, Saint Albert the Great, Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint Bonaventure:
 * "According to these writings, mystical knowledge must be distinguished from the rational knowledge by which we know God, not in his nature, but through the wonderful order of the universe, which is a participation in the divine ideas. Through the more perfect mystical knowledge of God, a knowledge beyond the attainments of reason (even when enlightened by faith), the soul contemplates directly the mysteries of divine light.[172]"


 * does not mention any of those people.

4. The paragraphs :


 * Theoria or contemplation of God is of far higher value than reasoning about God or speculative theology,[182] its illumination prized much more than the intellectual capacity of a theologian.[183] "Prayer cannot be reduced to the level of a means to improved understanding".[98] Instead, contemplation is "the normal perfection of theology".[183]


 * The rational exposition and explanation of Christian doctrine is the humbler task of the theologian, while the experience of contemplatives is often of a more lofty level, beyond the power of human words to express,[184] so that "they have had to resort to metaphors, similes, and symbols to convey the inexpressible."[103]


 * reference the works of Thomas Merton, who is a 20th century thinker who doesn't exemplify the historical position of the Roman Catholic Church. This passage would be fine as a sort of footnote describing how some more modern Roman Catholics have begun to accept the idea of theoria, but his ideas are among Roman Catholics the exception to thousands of years of denying the importance of theoria, not the rule.

5. The Jesus Prayer is used mainly in the Eastern Church. The Rosary Prayer would be more fitting in a section about the Western Church.

What do you (Esoglou) think of my suggestion to delete the section?Timothy.lucas.jaeger (talk) 02:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The pretexts advanced by no means justify deletion of the section. If adjustments are required, that can be dealt with without a blanket deletion of the whole section.  Esoglou (talk) 09:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll submit a request for third opinion.Timothy.lucas.jaeger (talk) 13:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * No third opinion offered yet. I've been trying to wrap my head around your stance on this issue Esoglou.  Perhaps you could answer a question for me, to help me understand.  What do you see as the difference between theoria is the Eastern Orthodox tradition and in the Roman Catholic one, considering the time from the Great East-West Schism of 1054 up until the present day? Timothy.lucas.jaeger (talk) 19:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose the chief difference is that in recent centuries the East seems (but perhaps this is a false idea) to have plumped for a single method (one that was unknown to Cassian or at least not mentioned by him in his advice on prayer) and for the Palamist interpretation, while the West is open not only to that method and that understanding, but also to others. (An attitude of "both/and" rather than "either/or" - cf. this commentary, which of course is not applicable, strictly speaking, to theoria.)  Do you think this is the main difference?  Whatever the main difference, it is much less than that between philosophical understandings of theoria and the Christian understanding of theoria as contemplation of God.  An article on theoria must cover them all.  And whatever differences in understandings of theoria there may be, they are not grounds for excluding any of them from an article on theoria.  Esoglou (talk) 08:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps then, this is the crux of our dispute. I think that theoria is really a concept of eastern christianity, whereas you see it as something somehow larger.  Consider that a search for theoria on encyplodedia britannica returns this:   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothy.lucas.jaeger (talk • contribs) 13:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It is indeed something larger. What you have in mind is an article on "Theoria (Eastern Orthodox concept mysticism)", but the article we are discussing is instead an article on theoria.  Your link to EB does not lead to an article on theoria.  All you get is: "The topic theoria is discussed in the following articles" (note the plural), followed by a link to the subsection "Eastern Christian mysticism" in the section "Eastern Christianity" in the EB article "Christianity".  The same topic theoria could have been discussed also in other articles or sections of other articles, even if in fact it hasn't been.  If there were an EB article on theoria, it would have to be somewhat on the lines of the Wikipedia article on theoria.
 * The EB mention of the topic theoria within a subsection of a section of an article obviously does not go into anything remotely like the details in the section "Eastern Orthodox Church" of the Wikipedia article. In particular, it is obvious that the EB mention can have nothing of the remarks put into that section by an editor who, instead of indicating what the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches, has insisted on ideas that some selected Eastern Orthodox writers say are not Eastern Orthodox teaching but are instead, so they say, the teaching of others.  Remarks about others'  teachings surely belong rather in other sections of the article.  Esoglou (talk) 14:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry wrong link. A search of theoria actually turns up seven articles on britannica: . Take a look. Most of the seven don't really sound like they have anything to do with the concept of theoria we're talking about.  Now compare a query of that encyclopedia on the word contemplation: .  One hundred eighty one results hitting on a wide variety of themes.  Contemplation is a broad concept.  Theoria, however, is only an important term inside of Eastern Christianity. Timothy.lucas.jaeger (talk) 15:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Look at the list of pages on wikipedia that link to theoria. Almost every one is about Eastern Christianity or a Christian religious figure. Timothy.lucas.jaeger (talk) 17:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The seven EB articles listed as dealing with theoria amply show that the meaning of "theoria" is much wider than that of "theoria (Eastern Orthodox mysticism)". Only one of the seven deals with that.  They have also reminded me that the Antiochene style of Biblical exegesis (this of course is long before the division into Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic) is called theoria, a different concept from that of theoria (Eastern Orthodox mysticism).  The Wikipedia article, don't forget, is about theoria, not about any particular kind of theoria.  It should therefore treat of theoria, not limit itself to some particular kind of theoria.
 * The reason that so many other Wikipedia articles link to the theoria article is that the link has been included in the "Eastern Christianity" template, which is inserted in perhaps all articles related in any way with Eastern Christianity. In scarcely any of the articles themselves is there mention of theoria.  In addition, your "almost every one" shows that the inclusion of that template in so many articles about Eastern Christianity (even non-Eastern Orthodox forms of Eastern Christianity) and about Eastern Christian figures (again, not all of them Eastern Orthodox) is no indication that the only meaning of theoria is theoria (Eastern Orthodox mysticism).  Esoglou (talk) 18:53, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I feel like i've been reasonable, but you haven't convinced me that this section on the Roman Catholic church is appropriate or relevant. I can't any longer just sit idly by when i'm sure many more people are reading it and being as confused as i was when pretty much every reference is to people and ideas from the Eastern Orthodox Church.  Anyone trying to learn the difference between the two churches as i was when i first proposed changes to this section is sure to be set back in their studies.  I am going through with my proposal to delete. Timothy.lucas.jaeger (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources undeniably show that theoria has several senses other than that of theoria (Eastern Orthodox mysticism). Your action in deleting an important part of the article with support from nobody else is an act of vandalism. Please do not repeat. Esoglou (talk) 20:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I disagree and consider what you are doing vandalism. Please leave my changes. Timothy.lucas.jaeger (talk) 22:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Whatever your convictions on this matter you cannot simply remove large sections of text unless it clearly violates some non-negotiable policy. You also cannot call Esoglou's edits "vandalism" just because you disagree with them.  This is a *content dispute* and must be resolved through the appropriate processes for dealing with such disputes.  Any attempts by you to just remove this information will be reverted until and unless you can convince other editors of the rightness of doing so.  So far, it seems to me, you have completely failed to offer any arguments which remotely come close to doing this. Anglicanus (talk) 04:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * If this is the way America acts during negotiating then i can see why no other countries want to act nice. Fine whatever my convictions are etc etc you go ahead with all that and this nonsens i dont give a damn go right ahead with you and whatever other sockpuppets you have; i dont have the time to fight that shit.  Make it right or don't.


 * Yeah you busted me with your patience, congrats. I guess that is what theoria means to you Timothy.lucas.jaeger (talk) 08:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I haven't the time (or apparently the patience) to try to fix this any longer. I'm removing this page from my watchlist. Feel free to contatct me on my talk page if you need my further involvement in this matter. Timothy.lucas.jaeger (talk) 05:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Copyright violation
The extensive word-for-word quoting from Romanides (and others) is surely a violation of copyright: "Copying material without the permission of the copyright holder from sources that are not public domain or compatibly licensed (unless it's a brief quotation used in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free content policy and guideline) is likely to be a copyright violation. Even inserting text copied with some changes can be a copyright violation if there's substantial linguistic similarity in creative language or structure (this can also raise problems of plagiarism). Such a situation should be treated seriously, as copyright violations not only harm Wikipedia's redistributability, but also create legal issues" (WP:CV).

"If you suspect a copyright violation but are uncertain if the content is copyrighted or whether the external site is copying from Wikipedia, you should at least bring up the issue on that page's discussion page, if it is active. In that case, please tag the page, unless your concerns are swiftly resolved. Others can then examine the situation and take action if needed. ... You may also make a note of your concerns at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems" (WP:CV emphases added).

Perhaps the editor who inserted this extensive material will give an explanation that will show that the suggested further action is not necessary. Or perhaps someone else can give advice. Esoglou (talk) 08:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Theoria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101007032450/http://www.pelagia.org:80/htm/b15.en.orthodox_spirituality.01.htm to http://www.pelagia.org/htm/b15.en.orthodox_spirituality.01.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Same topic?
Aren't Theoria and Christian contemplation the same topic? Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   19:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Add Hesychasm.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   04:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Moved to Christian contemplation
I've moved the content to Christian contemplation; it's the same topic. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   07:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)