Talk:Filioque/Archive 1

Old talk[edit]

it is a pity that no one looks in depth on this matter about the political issue that relies. The catholic church wants a world of its own and complete control so does the orthodox who won? well observe it is obvious.

--212.251.85.20 13:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC) What does exactly mean "proceeds from the Father and the Son"?[reply]

This must have been a source of heated theological debate where we barely understand even the question nowadays.

Could somebody elaborate this a bit please?

sure. will do when I get some time this (Eastern Daylight Time) afternoon. It's a big topic.

is 'heresy' npov? Only if you're accusing someone of it. The term itself becomes merely descriptive, like 'schism', of groups which are not part of the larger church. You can, if you like, refer to them as 'Arian Christians,' but they were a separate body and recognized themselves as such. Lutherans and Calvinists did factually become separate from the Catholic church - schism would be an entirely appropriate term.

I think that heresies in this case is NPOV -- one of the primary focuses of the early church was to define orthodoxy, which necessitated defining the non-orthodox, i.e., the heretical. I'm fairly sure that Arians were considered heretics rather than schismatics at the time.

On another note, are Calvinists really schismatic? I thought it was just the Lutherans and the Anglicans...

Perhaps a better word would be heterodox. Same point but without the other NPOV usage. Danielsilliman 03:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did this really originate in the fourth century?? Just found two different online sources that say the filioque clause was first formally adopted at the Synod of Spain in 589, and gradually spread to the Franks. Also, while some Popes may have approved of its usage elsewhere, Pope Leo III had the Nicene Creed engraved in Greek and Latin without the filioque clause and placed on St. Peter' tomb as late as the early 800's, perhaps to avoid schism with the Eastern patriarchs. I can provide references if need be, but it does look like this history could be expanded and some dates adjusted.

Also, I don't think the Eastern view is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father "through the Son", as the article says. Their view is what the Nicene Creed said, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. The Athanasian Creed says that the persons of the Trinity can be differentiated by their relationships to each other: the Father begets the Son, the Son is begotten of the Father, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. The Father and the Holy Spirit are not begotten of anyone, the Son and the Holy Spirit do not beget anyone or have anyone proceeding from them, and the Father is not begotten and does not proceed from anyone. They are God, neither confused with each other or divided, sharing one Divine Nature, one Divine Essence.

--Wesley

Feel Free to expand the entry - it's wikipedia, after all.

It's all a lot less clear cut, as you're finding out, than controversialists like to admit. And also, notice that in the Eastern Rite Churches in union with the papacy the filioque is not said. So, it hasn't been (for at least the last 500 years) the make-or-break issue that some controversialists would like to make it. The standard explanation the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Rite Churches gives for lay people (which is all I am - not a theologian) is that the difference in formula does not express a difference in belief. I leave the fine points to the professionals, though, and just deal with the histories. One other thing to check is the actual creed of Nicaea vs. the Creed of 381. There are differences. --MichaelTinkler

I certainly agree that it's a complex issue. I believe that some East Orthodox theologians would agree that the difference in wording does not represent a difference in belief, but others of them would insist that the difference reflects a fundamentally different understanding of the Trinity. What is more clear is the issue of the pope insisting on the right to edit a creed which had been established by the whole church at Nicaea I in 325, edited by the whole church at Constantinople I in 381 to expand on the definition of the Holy Spirit. (Thanks for inspiring me to research that. :-) The Third Ecumenical Council in 431 expressly forbade any further changes in the creed, or the composition of any new creeds. At any point, I think the role of the Pope in the church continues to be a much larger obstacle to reunification than the filioque clause itself; if East and West were to agree that it should consistently be one way or the other, the significance would be that they would have resolved how to settle differences between them, whether by all deferring to the Pope, or the Pope and everyone else deferring to Ecumenical Councils of the entire church.

The existence of the Eastern Rite churches is a current point of contention between Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and Pope John Paul II. Pope John Paul II wanted to visit Moscow earlier this year, but was refused by the Patriarch, partly because the Catholic Church is continuing to invite Russian Orthodox churches to convert to Catholicism and come under the Pope without making substantial changes to their prayers. This is viewed as something of a 'sweetheart deal'. Jurisdictional disagreements in Europe between East and West have been source of contention since at least the ninth century.

In the interests of full disclosure, I suppose I should mention that I'm a recent (2-3 years) convert to Eastern Orthodoxy, and part of a parish that is slowly moving into communion with the Orthodox Church in America. I grew up in a variety of protestant denominations, one after the other, including one that was "non-denominational." I'm certainly biased in editing these articles, but I'm doing my best to retain a NPOV in what I write and edit. I hope others will continue to correct me when I fail to do so, as I'm aiming for accuracy, not necessarily persuasion or proselytizing. I'm also using the process as a chance to research and learn.

--Wesley, a sinner

nice to meet you, Wesley - I'm glad you're here; in interest of disclosure (not that you couldn't find it if you trolled long enough, because it's come up before), I'll say that I am a cradle-Presbyterian-turned-Roman-Catholic, and I actually have family members who have become Orthodox (OCA - one's in seminary now) and friends who are Melkhite and Maronite priests. I think we can keep the entries npov - I agree with your historical summary above - after all, it's clearly true. The difference, whether or not it's irreconcilable, needs to be presented clearly but in a non-inflammatory way - including the inflammatory interventions of those across history (Photius, Humbert of Romans, Michael Caerulius, etc., etc.) who have made the difference less easy to reconcile because so unpleasant to review. On the other hand, we shouldn't be afraid to call spades shovels sometimes, either (I think Humbert was a hand-trowel of the spirit, though a fine public speaker). Let me take up one sentence in your response to show how hard npov on jurisdictional niceties is:

because the Catholic Church is continuing to invite Russian Orthodox churches to convert to Catholicism and come under the Pope without making substantial changes to their prayers

Russian Orthodox churches - meaning parishes? or some of the several Russian Orthodox bodies? Or the whole shooting match (by the way, i'm sure the Pope would be delighted if they all came over at once) - or are we talking about th situation in the Ukraine, which is truly unpleasant and leads from statement to accusation immediately? I would rewrite it to say "because the Patriarch of Moscow perceives xxxx (spelling it out) as an invitation to Russian Orthodox (parishes/communions/whatever) to submit to Papal authority, the invitation sweetened with the promise that they would not have to alter their liturgy." I'm not certain that it's better, but I hope it is. So, are you going to start working on the big entry for Eastern Orthodox? --MichaelTinkler

It's good talking to you too, Michael. Yes, npov gets sticky when we talk about the nature and causes of the continuing schism between East and West. FWIW, I don't think the differences are irreconcilable, even in my lifetime. How they'll be reconciled, who knows, I just follow my bishop. But my guess would be it would need increasing informal cooperation and friendship at the local level, in lots of places, followed perhaps by more formal steps toward reunion. In the section you quoted, I was mostly referring to parishes in several parts of Russia and Eastern Europe, and especially to the mess in the Ukraine. I just found what seems to be a decent summary of the problem from the Russian Orthodox pov: http://www.russian-orthodox-church.org.ru/ve110771.htm. Sometime I need to go see what the Vatican has to say about it. The only reason I brought it up at all in this section was to point out that, from the East, allowing eastern rite churches to omit the filioque might be seen as less conciliatory if it seems to go along with taking over Russian Orthodox church buildings and parishes. I don't know that any of this discussion belongs in the article about the filioque clause itself. And yes, I have started thinking about working on the Eastern Orthodox entry, but I'd rather wait a couple weeks until I have time to do it justice, even as a beginning. Wesley

Wesley referred to "a parish that is slowly moving into communion with the Orthodox Church in America". I am puzzled. I thought the Orthodox Church in America was one of the 16 autocephalous Eastern Orthodox churches (having been granted autocephaly by the Patriarch of Moscow in 1970) and therefore to be in communion with it is the same as being in communion with the whole Eastern Orthodox communion. Therefore, I would have thought one would speak of "slowly moving into communion with Eastern Orthodoxy". Could it be that you mean the parish is already in communion with the rest of Eastern Orthodoxy and is slowly moving toward membership in this one particular autocephalous branch of that communion? Or does "communion" simply mean membership in that particular hierarchical church (in which case my understanding needs revision)? Is this a "dissident Orthodox" church that is not part of the Eastern Orthodox communion but nonetheless considers itself Eastern Orthodox? (Full disclosure: I am an atheist. And the author of some Wikipedia material on Catholic sacraments and similar topics.) -- Mike Hardy

Many Orthodox Christian parishes in the USA have very perigrinatory histories. There is a parish in Indianapolis that, for a while, was the last headquarters of the "Holy Order of MANS" (HOOM)--a theosophical group formed in the 1960s. Gradually, many individuals and groups within MANS embraced the Orthodox Church. Likewise, there have been many Evangelical parishes who, in an attempt to become more like the ancient Church, have determined that the Orthodox Church is that ancient Church. In addition, due to the fact that the US government does not intervene in who and who is not allowed to use terms like "Orthodox" in their names, there are many groups who owe their establishment to "independent" Bishops, some of whom were Old Catholic, others were of groups that left the majority of Orthodoxy over various local controversies. After emigrating to the USA, they would establish their own parishes. Some of these have entered a jurisdiction of the larger Eastern Orthodox communion.Dogface 04:59, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There is no et in the filioque clause. This is readily apparent to those that have studied Latin, since the -que in filioque simply means and, so no et is necessary. But don't take my word for it, the Nicene Creed on the Vatican web site [1] also lacks the spurious et! Stephen C. Carlson 22:06 Dec 26, 2002 (UTC)

Sorry --- I got that one wrong. -- Mike Hardy

"....the connection between the Son and the Spirit is nevertheless clear" This statement is inaccurate, especially in an entry that is about the controversy over just this relationship. References here to the "Bible" to "Scripture" to "Gospel" need to be made specific, and distinction has to be maintained between a statement in scripture and its interpretation before the entry meets Wikipedia standards. --Wetman 08:25, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

--I agree wholeheartedly. The original (Orthodox?) author of this article said that Scripture is "clear" with regard to his interpretation of Scripture. You point out, rightly, that this is the whole point of the controversy, over many generations. Therefore, the text has been updated, in the interest of greater objectivity. Michael Gilligan 68.78.34.133 05:20, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I removed this sentence from the article as the link is dead:

An excellent history of the filioque is available, as assembled by Gerard Serafin: Filioque/And the Son, replete with images and links.

Pjacobi 11:09, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This sounds very POV to me: "(Instead, like all heretics, they will readily quote the Scripture in defense of their positions.) For this reason, over the years, creeds, decrees, hymns, and prayers have been formulated, in order to clarify, defend, and make explicit the faith we have from the apostles, the faith which is both Catholic and Orthodox. The filioque is but one such attempt." Who you calling 'heretics' and what do you mean 'we'? ThePedanticPrick 00:59, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

While doing some research on the new Roman Catholic Pope Benedict XVI, and reviewing some of his writings on the Vatican Web site, I came across the document Dominus Iesus and as an old Latin student and former Catholic seminarian, I decided to take a look at the official Latin text. I was totally amazed to find the filoque REMOVED from the Latin. And mind you I was NOT expecting its removal. Can you imagine my total suprise? This removal, an obvious and conscious removal by Cardinal Ratzinger, a renowned Catholic theologian and Prefect of the Congregation of the Faith, and now Pope Benedict XVI, was, to me, simply astounding! I HAD to update the Wikopedia discussions here and elsewhere with this "find" that I wasn't even looking for. Respectfully yours, User:KCSIMO-USA Major Keith Simon USMCR (Ret) 11:33 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to all above[edit]

Sincere thanks to all those who made criticisms. I have tried to implement all suggestions, as noted. For example, while Orthodox and Catholics would look on Arians as heretics, it's more neutral to identify them at this point in the article as "those who denied the Trinity." In this context, it is not necessary to refer to Unitarians. Throughout this article, I have tried to be neutral with regard to Catholics and Orthodox. Especially for many Orthodox, this is a "hot-button" issue and has been so for a long time. From my perspective, this is a great time to see the Holy Spirit helping us to work out such a long-standing issue of controversy. It is necessary, too, to understand the history behind the dispute; much published material involves name-calling and unfair accusations.

I have also included what seem to me to be the best results of contemporary scholarship. For example, the Nicene Creed today is thought to be most likely the baptismal Creed of Constantinople, not something derived from the statement of Eusebius at the 325 council. It is also not true that Pope Leo III kept the filioque out of the Mass. At that time, there was no Creed in the Mass. Finally, the original author of this article said that the filioque was introduced to show a connection between the Son and the Spirit. He then included references to Scripture, to show that the Bible is clear enough on this point. (Hence, one would think, the Latins were obtuse.) The truth is rather that the Spanish were engaged in a rough struggle to fight denial of the divinity of the Son and divinity of the Spirit. So, these corrections seemed necessary. Michael Gilligan MichaelG 02:50, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

External links in article[edit]

It is generally considered against Wikipedia style guide, to put external links into the article text. Can you please clarify, why you added such a number of those? Do you have any suggestion for re-arranging to avoid them? --Pjacobi 15:35, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Rationale for References Provided[edit]

Thank you, Peter, for this observation. I am new at Wikipedia and am sincerely grateful for any help offered, especially to conform to Wikipedia style; I am just beginning to learn. Specifically, with regard to the references added at the end of this filioque article, I wanted to provide indications of published material that to my knowledge is not available online and, consequently, cannot be the object of a link. Please tell me if such a bibliography is or is not appropriate. Advice is welcome.

Other references can be added, such as Congar and Gill, who do have links in the article. However, their complete works should be consulted in print, not merely in linked excerpts. Congar has an entire chapter on the filioque. Gill has assembled a thorough historical review, of benefit to any serious student of Florence.

Another example is that of Jungmann's Pastoral Liturgy, which provides an essay that is still of excellent value, in understanding the anti-Arian cast of the Byzantine Divine Liturgy, especially the historical context. However, I can't find even an excerpt of this material online; therefore, a reference is added to the printed word. Similarly, I have included a reference to a document from the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches. I have only the French edition on my shelf and can find nothing of it online. This document, however, represents valuable testimony to the scholarly, ecumenical work as of the early 1980s. Would this sort of thing not be useful to the reader, as in any scholarly encyclopedia?

For my part, I can only cite works that I actually have in my hands. In due course, I will go the library and confirm the works of Congar and Gill. For the moment, I have added only selected references I have used and which are in my hands. More work needs to be done.

At your convenience, please let me know what you think would be the best course of action in this matter. Sincerely, Michael Gilligan 68.79.140.104 20:46, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

External Links in Text[edit]

Sorry, Peter; I believe I misunderstood your note. I think you are referring to the links in the body of the text which are external, to sites outside Wikipedia. I did not know this was not appropriate and did not understand why. As in any published scholarly article, one should document statements that are made. Where I have added references, I did so in part because I found no equivalent reference within Wikipedia. For example, on the topic of the filioque, at the beginning of the article, there is a reference to Seraphin's website, which provides a wealth of citations and quotations that are important to understanding the controversy. Especially noteworthy are Seraphin's references to Grohe and to [Kalistos] Ware; their observations, as noted in the article, are critical.

Please help me out here. Would it appropriate simply to refer to such authors, without a link? I think that in such a case, the reader would not be able to check my work, to see if I have been accurate, or to follow up in more detail, for a deeper understanding. Would external links be more appropriate in a bibliography, at the end of the article? I could certainly do that. Sincerely, Michael Gilligan 68.79.140.104 20:57, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Michael, I must have been somewhat unclear in my statement above: The point, in which your changes contradict the usual style guide, is directly linking some words to external websites, e.g.:

"influence of the Franks" => http://stjosephplacentia.org/RCath-L/history6.htm
"new situation" => http://www.praiseofglory.com/photius.htm

Perhaps in the second case, the internal link to Photius in the next sentence is good enough on its own, and the http://www.praiseofglory.com/photius.htm reference can be given in the Photius article?

Pjacobi 21:00, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

External websites with general information to the article are usually put in the last section "External links" of the article. If for some sentence you want to give a specific external link, use the [http://www.example.org] syntax, which would look like this: [2]. --Pjacobi 21:06, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks very much for this advice, Peter. As you have suggested, so shall it be done. Michael Gilligan 68.79.140.104 23:40, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, now it's done. As best as I could, all external links in the body of the text have been transferred to the final section of this article. A few other editing upgrades have also been added. As you can guess, I'm still new at this, so the advice is appreciated. The extensive norms for writing provided by Wikipedians are well worked out. With regard to the link to the Congar article on Photius, it seems to me useful to keep it here, for the convenience of the reader who can thereby get ready access to an excellent author, on this precise topic. Overall, as noted, I have done my best to be fair to both Orthodox and Catholic positions, as clearly as possible in this format. Any further comments are welcome. (I'm still trying to log in to Wikipedia and awaiting a new password.) Michael Gilligan 68.79.140.104 10:22, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Here's a question. When I first came to the brief, original version of this filioque article, the name of the page was and still is "Filioque clause." Yet, in English, a clause has a subject and a predicate. The word "filioque" could be called a "phrase," but it is really (in Latin) only a word. Why, then, does the page "Filioque" redirect to "Filioque clause"? It seems to me that, rather, the opposite should be true. Is there a Wikipedia expert out there who can answer this question? Michael Gilligan 68.79.140.104 03:49, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Objectivity in 2nd paragraph[edit]

Here's another question I have. In the 2nd paragraph the original author, presumably Orthodox, sets forth a distinction of meaning in two verse fragments of the Gospel of John, reflecting a long-standing Orthodox interpretation of the Scripture. On the one hand, I understand this interpretation; it is the familiar Orthodox response to the filioque. On the other hand, the texts in question can and have been interpreted differently. In the interest of objectivity, then, especially for fairness between Orthodox and Catholic, I think the article should just say that the wording of the Creed ("proceeds from the Father") is derived from the specific verse fragment quoted of John. At this point in the article, it seems that we should not include this interpretation right off; it is mentioned later and is explained somewhat extensively. The undeniable fact here is that the wording of the Creed is derived from the second verse fragment quoted. I think in the filioque article, at this point, we should just say that and move on. Is this not so? Would that be not more objective? Michael Gilligan 68.79.140.104 05:55, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Copyrights and OrthodoxWiki[edit]

I suspect a cross-pollination between this article and Filioque on OrthodoxWiki . Since OW operates under a kind of "noncommercial use-only" license, I would kindly ask the authors to make sure that our article does not have copyvio. mikka (t) 20:07, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Iota[edit]

What about one "iota"? - a major cvause of the Filioque and schism. Still used in contemporary English Today as in "I don't care one iota! or I'm not changing even one iota of it!

I believe you're thinking of the iota difference between homoousios and homoiousios that was a topic of debate regarding Arianism and the First Council of Nicea, a debate which predates the Filioque by some centuries. Both sides of the Filioque debate held (and still hold) to the homoousios formulation, without the iota. —Preost ^talk contribs 01:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Section headers[edit]

Should not the headers 'Orthodox Church' and 'Catholic Church' be changed to 'Eastern Orthodox Church' and 'Roman Catholic Church' respectively since those are the titles of the Wikipedia articles? Also, might those headers be linked to the respective articles?

Trvalentine 19:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)trvalentine 2006.02.11 19:54[reply]

Generally it's best ot keep wikilinks out of headers. Rich Farmbrough 13:04 14 March 2006 (UTC).

Wandering[edit]

Is it just me, or do the entire contents of section 2 regarding the history of the clause wander off-topic with some frequency to deal with a myriad of historical details and events that relate to the East/West Schism but not the filioque clause directly? I feel as though some of the material, while accurate and reasonably clear, does not belong in this article at all, but on articles examining that split between Rome and Constantinople. Anyone else have a reaction to that section? Jwrosenzweig 07:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LARGE portions of this article are off-topic. If there is no active editing going on, and no objection from interested parties, I will try to remove irrelevant sections (and add to an appropriate article) next week (maybe). Mdotley 20:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so it wasn't "next week" (March 2007), but this week (September 2007). I hope I didn't step on any toes. Feel free to reinsert anything necessary. ~ MD Otley (talk) 02:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that there still is too much irrelevant historical material on the reconciliation attempts. Andres (talk) 00:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification[edit]

"Of special importance is a recent clarification of the filioque by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. This document was prepared at the specific request of the Bishop of Rome. It is entitled The Greek and Latin Traditions Regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit."

What does the document say?! 71.198.169.9 09:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AN EASTERN APPRAISAL OF THE VATICAN'S "CLARIFICATION ON THE FILIOQUE" (Posted: 27 July 2006)

The Vatican's "Clarification on the Filioque" is an attempt to resolve the problem of the filioque, but sadly the text of the "Clarification" is theologically ambiguous as far as the monarchy of the Father is concerned. Here are a few examples of the problems present within the Vatican's "Clarification":

1. "The Father alone is the principle without principle of the two other persons of the Trinity." [Quotation taken from the "Clarification"]

The problem with this statement is that the Father, rather than being described simply as the "principle of the two other persons of the Trinity," is described as the "principle without principle," which can imply that the Son is a "principle with principle" within the Trinity (i.e., that the Son is a secondary principle within the Godhead). The idea that there can be a "secondary" principle in the Godhead is contrary to the teaching of the Eastern Church, and would ultimately destroy the monarchy of the Father, replacing it with a diarchy of the Father and the Son.

2. "The Holy Spirit, therefore, takes his origin from the Father alone (ek monou tou Patros) in a principal, proper, and immediate manner." [Quotation taken from the "Clarification"]

The problem with this statement is centered upon the concluding portion of the formula, that is, where the text says that the Spirit comes from the Father alone in a "principal, proper, and immediate manner," because this modifying phrase implies, or at least allows for the possibility, that the Son is involved in the existential origin of the Spirit in a secondary, received, and mediate manner. This kind of secondary or mediate causation is incompatible with the Triadology of the Eastern Fathers, and in particular with the doctrine of the Cappadocians, because as St. Gregory Nazianzus said, ". . . all that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality" [St. Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 34:10]. Now, in order for the ecumenical dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches to advance, the Latin Church is going to have to issue a document that cannot be read in an equivocal manner on these issues. In other words, it must say that the Father is the principle of divinity, period, end of sentence, with no modifying phrases or clauses added on. Moreover, the West will need to say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, without adding modifiers like "principally, immediately, properly, etc.," which can imply that the Son Himself participates in the hypostatic origination of the Spirit.

3. "In 1274, the second Council of Lyons confessed that 'the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles but as from one single principle.'" [Quotation taken from the "Clarification"]

The Western theory that says that the Father and the Son are a "single principle" in the spiration of the Spirit is unworkable in Eastern Triadology, because the fact that the Father is the principle of divinity is held to be a hypostatic characteristic of His person, and so it cannot be shared with the Son, as St. Gregory Palamas explained:

"We do not say that the Son is from the Father in as much as He is begotten by the divine essence, but rather in as much as He is begotten by the Father as person. For the essence is common to the three persons, but begetting is proper to the Father personally. That is why the Son is not begotten by the Spirit. Consequently the Spirit is also from the Father; He possesses the divine essence, proceeding from the person of the Father. For the essence is always and absolutely common to the three persons. Therefore the act of spiration is proper to the Father as a person and the Spirit does not proceed from the Son, for the Son does not have the personal properties of the Father." [St. Gregory Palamas, "Logos Apodeiktikos" I, 6; this quotation from Palamas' writings was taken from M. Edmund Hussey's dissertation "The Doctrine of the Trinity in the Theology of Gregory Palamas," page 25]

In saying this St. Gregory Palamas is simply following in the tradition of the Cappadocian Fathers, because within their Triadology it is not possible to call the Father and the Son a "single principle," since that would be to confound the person of the Father with that of the Son, which would entail falling into the heresy of Sabellian modalism. Thus, the Western notion that the Father and the Son are a "single principle" is incompatible with the doctrine of the Eastern Church.

Sadly, the insertion of the filioque into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed shows that the West has confused two distinct -- but inseparable -- divine realities: (1) the existential procession of the Holy Spirit as hypostasis (person), which is from the Father alone; and (2) the Spirit's eternal manifestation as divine energy (i.e., as uncreated grace), which is from the Father through the Son. In other words, in the theology of the Eastern Fathers the Holy Spirit proceeds as hypostasis from the Father alone, but He is manifested -- both temporally and eternally -- from the Father through the Son, not as hypostasis, but as divine energy; and this energetic manifestation expresses the consubstantial communion of the three divine hypostaseis within the Godhead. Now, as is clear from what has been said, it is vital that the Spirit's energetic manifestation through the Son not be confused with the hypostatic procession of the Spirit from the Father alone, because that would ultimately lead to Sabellian modalism.

It should be noted, of course, that these are only a few of the problems with the "Clarification on the Filioque," and so, even though it is a valiant attempt by the Western Church to make the filioque more acceptable to the East, it ultimately highlights the differences between the two sides as it concerns the doctrine of the hypostatic procession of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, I do not want to give the impression that the document is an utter failure, because it at least shows that the West realizes that the filioque is a true obstacle to the restoration of communion, and that further dialogue on this issue will have to be carried out if there is to be any chance at all of resolving this doctrinal disagreement.

Finally, the best solution put forward so far to resolve the problem of the filioque can be found in the "Agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox / Catholic Theological Consultation," which put forward the recommendation that the Latin Church remove the filioque from all liturgical and catechetical documents. The use of the original creed by the Latin Church in its liturgical celebrations, and catechetical instructions, would facilitate ecumenical dialogue, while simultaneously removing one of the major obstacles to the restoration of communion between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches.

See the Tomus of the Blacernae Council (A.D. 1285) for more information on the Spirit's energetic manifestation from the Father through the Son: Tomus of Faith against Beccus

See the "Agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox / Catholic Theological Consultation" recommendations: USCCB or SCOBA

Steven Todd Kaster, Th.M.

Homepage: The Taboric Light

Sad that a genuine attempt at reaching an understanding is outrightely rejected and the words twisted: "not as from two principles but as from one single principle.'" is turned into a claim that "that the Father and the Son are a "single principle"", as if the text didn't say "as from one ...". All of this to ensure that one "has been right all along", to avoid being "Christocentric", to protect the political machinations of a Patriarch long dead and buried. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Spirit as hypostasis proceeds "from one principle," i.e., the Father, and not from the Father and the Son. The Son is not a principle (secondary or mediate), a source, or a cause within the Godhead.

Steven Todd Kaster, Th.M.

But do not even Eastern Orthodox believe that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, not if you are referring to the existential origin of the Holy Spirit as person (hypostasis), because as person the Spirit proceeds (ekporeusis) only from the Father. Now, on the other hand, as energy the Spirit is manifested (proeinai) from the Father through the Son, but this manifestation must not be confused with the Spirit's hypostatic procession of origin from the Father alone. The Tomus of Blachernae (A.D. 1285), which rejected the "union" council of Lyons II, emphasizes the importance of this theological distinction. Moreover, this distinction is supported by St. John Damascene, who, in his treatise "De Fide Orthodoxa," said that the Holy Spirit is of the Son, but "not from the Son" ["De Fide Orthodoxa," Book I, Chapter VIII], and he confirmed this distinction yet again when -- in another treatise -- he wrote that, we speak of ". . . the Holy Spirit of God the Father, as proceeding from Him, who is also said to be of the Son, as through Him [i.e., the Son] manifest and bestowed on the creation, but not as taking His existence from Him" [St. John Damascene, "Sabbat." 4:21-23], and elsewhere he said that, ". . . the Word is a real offspring, and therefore Son; and the Spirit is a real procession and emanation from the Father, of the Son but not from the Son, as breath from a mouth, proclaiming God the Word" [St. John Damascene, "Trisagion" 28:40-43].

Steven Todd Kaster, Th.M.

What do "old-calendarists" have to do with the filioque controversy?[edit]

My guess is, nothing. Including this non-canonical 'fringe group' and their rejection of... electrical power within temples, seems designed to "weasel word" negative connotations about the Orthodox at large, despite the fact the latter don't have much to do with them. Last time I checked, "weasel-wording" is discouraged in wikipedia ; accordingly, this irrelevant statement is out. Porfyrios 22:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What would jesus do[edit]

honestly, i cannot believe these major conflicts in history are brought about by such stupid stuff

The comment above is pointless.

What you consider pointless and stupid, a simple word like filioque added to the creed changes the very structure of the theology of truth. Change one word and you change the whole church. As a result of this one tiny change to the creed, the Roman Catholics have become what they are today, and the Eastern Orthodox have remained what they are. --Phiddipus (talk) 05:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Text of the creed[edit]

Perhaps it would be worthwhile to present the creed in full text and highlight the part this article refers to. I mention this as this is the first article I came upon doing some research and am not familiar with the creed, nor do I feel that it would cause considerable harm to include it here (whereas having to look it up and then return here to try and comprhend is difficult (especially because I am not a christian scholar.)

70.177.212.37 23:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is this?[edit]

I just read the first half of this article and still have no idea wat the filioque actually is. The article is clear that it is a disputed part of the nicean creed which has something to do with the trinity, but it never explicitly states what the thing is.

You were right. I just changed the intro to make exactly what is being discussed more clear. Thanks for pointing this out. Gentgeen 08:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

want to make some adjustments[edit]

I question the accuracy and/or evenhandedness of the following, and barring any profound arguments, want to make some adjustments:

>In the first millennium, the "Catholic Church" is the "Roman Church" of both East and West.

??? How is the Eastern church the "Roman Church"?

Constantinople was the New Rome, and, indeed, the new capital of the Roman Empire. Mdotley 21:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

>By the same token, it is not accurate to say, as some historians do, that the >"Catholic Church" introduced the filioque into the Mass. Eastern Churches, for >example, the Maronites, fully part of the Catholic Church, never used the filioque.

Uhh, the Western Church did introduce it to the mass, albeit they introduced it as part of introducing the creed rather than adding it to the pre-existing creed, right?

How the Maronites fit into this I'm not sure. The "Catholic Church", as a term used to refer to those in communion with the Pope did not include Maronites when the filioque was introduced to the mass as part of the creed.

I believe what the writer was saying is that the whole Catholic Church did not introduce it. And according to the Wikipedia page on Eastern Catholic Churches, the Maronites pride themselves on NEVER having been out of communion with the Pope. Mdotley 21:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

>for a long time, as mentioned, it was in no way justification for breaking communion.

It wasn't justification of breaking communion, because the East had little knowledge of it, right?

>Now briefly, officially and publicly, the Catholic and Orthodox Churches were in communion. So, the Council of Florence >helped establish a fundamental principle: the Church must be one in its faith, its essential beliefs, but may be diverse in >its culture, customs and rites. Although theologically the Church had to be uniform, the addition of the Filioque did not >seem at the time to violate that uniformity. > >However, the reconciliation achieved at Florence was soon destroyed. Many Orthodox faithful and bishops, including the >Patriarch of Constantinople, rejected the union,

How "official and public" could this communion be when the Patriarch didn't sign off on it??

58.169.1.85 04:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Public because it was announced publicly, (regardless of who agreed or disagreed), and official b/c it was an official delegation, with the Emperor's support. Mdotley 21:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is wrong to call the united Church Roman - it was headed by the Pope of Rome, whose authority was universally accepted despite the conflicts, but it was not the Roman Church (which is the diocesis of the Pope) any less than today's Catholic Church would call itself Roman Catholic Church.

It is also wrong to emphasize the non-controversial nature of the filioque over 400 years. The issue only came up in the Photian controversy and after this the controversy was always there - it was not the reason for the schism but the element that made the schism so hard to heal.

It is also wrong to talk about "the right to change the creed" to being in issue and Council play no role in this. The Eastern position is that no one can change the creed (this was first decided at Ephesus, 431 - because of this no more dogmatic definitions were added but defined separately, first in 451) - the Western position is not that the Pope can change the creed but that the version including the Filioque has been handed down through the generations as well and is dogmatically sound and that the usage of it is nothing to object to on dogmatic grounds. The West does not consider the creed changed.

Communion was restablished twice (despite popular opposition in Contantinople). There is no denying this. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a matter of contention. Photius was not the first to object to the filioque; Pope Leo III objected to adding it to the Creed well before then. Had later popes not given in to the Franks, the schism might have been avoided. The West does not consider the creed changed because the version the Franks were familiar with included the Filioque, and the Franks eventually got Rome to adopt their version, and accused the Byzantines of heresy for omitting it. In hindsight from today's perspective though, we know that the Creed of 381 did not have the filioque clause and that later versions in the West did. Whether communion was ever reestablished is also a matter of debate, as the delegation had the Emperor's support but not the support of the people or the patriarch. Byzantines emperors are notorious for getting their theology wrong from time to time. :-) Wesley 03:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Historical origins[edit]

Somehow or another, the theory that the Filioque clause reflects Arian influence in Hispania came up on Talk:History of the Eastern Orthodox Church. I don't find the theory very convincing, but fourth-century views of the Holy Spirit may still be relevant. Since it was largely irrelevant over there, but may be relevant here, I'm copying my last comment on that thread, with minor corrections:

I was wondering if the idea of dual progression was generally accepted or generally rejected by the Eastern Orthodox; of course its insertion into the Nicene Creed is rejected.

One common suggestion is that the Filioque was inserted, not to rule out Arianism, but to attract those wavering between Gothic Arianism and western Catholicism, in Spain. I'm not sure how that would work. Arian theologies generally regard generation and procession as forms of creation, and Nicene ones do not, so I'm not sure how any addition about procession in the Nicaean sense could compromise with Arianism or address Arian concerns. Strictly speaking, this is getting way off-topic for the History of the Eastern Orthodox Church and we may wish to port this discussion to Talk:Filioque clause. Nonetheless, I'll continue here.

Not many Gothic Arian theological texts survive. One is Auxentius of Durostorum's eulogistic letter for Wulfila where he says (translated by Heather & Matthews; Goths in the Fourth Century) (gaps are my selection, not gaps in the text):

The Holy Spirit he furthermore declared to be neither Father nor Son, but made by the Father through the Son before all things ... created by the unbegotten through the begotten ...

This could be said to parallel the Filioque, but I'm not convinced.

Another is the Skeireins (translations here). I actually disagree with the translations; One of Wright's dictionaries, as opposed to the linked translations, translates andwairþi as "presence, face, person" in andwairþja as "before, in the presence of" and andwairþs as "present" - so, going on an OR limb, the definition as "person" is the odd one out, and while it makes the Skeireins fit Trinitarian expectations, it is not logically necessary.

This reads, in part:

... For not only the change of names signifies the difference of the two persons, but much more the evidence of work. the One obviously judging no one, but giving to the Son the power of judgment, and He, receiving the honor from the Father, and He performing all judgment by His Will, that all may honor the Son, as they honor the Father. Now we all should, at such and so clear a declaration, render honor to the Unborn God, and recognize the Only Begotten Son of God to be God ...

There are several references to the Holy Spirit but none to tripersonality (regardless of the translation). I'm not sure what to make of that. Jacob Haller 06:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spliting the article based on theme[edit]

From what I see there are at least two articles. So there are the Filioque clause and the Filioque case at best. This article should spend bandwidth explaining the Filioque clause, which subject is barely touched. Instead it revolves around the political case and about historic fighting between the two churches. 82.240.243.35 15:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be marked somehow that this is Catholic argumentation so far[edit]

It should be marked somehow that this is Catholic argumentation so far with some mentions to the Orthodox dogma. At this point I find the article biased, which is not a bad thing in my oppinion. Perhaps such a subtle subject should be more of a result from reading and understanding the two sides' arguments instead of trying to make just one page containing it all. 82.240.243.35 15:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Council of Ephesus[edit]

Quoting from the current text of the Filioque article:

This creed was not officially received until the Council of Ephesus in 431.

and that is all. No other information. In the context of:

Following John 15:26b, the First Council of Constantinople in 381 modified the statement of the First Council of Nicea in 325 by stating that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father". The Council had not elaborated on the origin of the Holy Spirit. Hence, the Nicene creed is often called "Nicene-Constantinopolitan" or "Niceno-Constantinopolitan." This creed was not officially received until the Council of Ephesus in 431.

the phrase is just misleading. It implies that the form of the Creed was not clear to the leaders of the Old Church (after all at that time there was no Schism).

On the other hand, the facts are:

The Council of Ephesus also declared the text of the Nicene Creed of 381 to be complete and forbade any additional change (addition or deletion) to it. In addition, it condemned Pelagianism.

based on the current information also in Wikipedia about the Council of Ephesus.

Now, I don't know so much about the Catholic way of taking dogmatic decisions, but in the Orthodox Church nothing can change what was formaly decided, thus the Council of Lyon (1274) or later on the Council of Florence couldn't make a change. 82.240.243.35 15:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Council of Toledo[edit]

In the current text of the article there is no clear difference between the various Councils.

In reality there are two type of Councils ecumenical (bishops representing areas from all churches) and local (bishops from a certain area that do not represent the Church in its unity.

Although there were earlier hints of the double-procession of the Holy Spirit, including an expression in the Athanasian Creed and a dogmatic epistle of Pope Leo I[3], it was first officially added to the Nicene Creed at the Third Council of Toledo in 589.[4] This was done primarily to oppose Arianism, which taught that the Son was a created being and which was prevalent among the Germanic peoples. This version of the Creed was accepted by the local Visigothic rulers, who had been Arians until then.

In this unclarified form the Council of Toledo would have had the same weight as the Council of Nicene or the Council of Ephesus. Which is not the case. 82.240.243.35 16:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A rephrasing could be of help[edit]

The filioque clause became integral to the Western theology of the Trinity in part because the teachings of the Western Church fathers such as St. Augustin of Hippo, Anselm of Canterbury and Thomas Aquinas contain statements that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Eastern Church fathers, such as John of Damascus and Gregory Palamas, carried on the tradition of the original Creed promulgated at Constantinople in 381 and the filioque was thus seen as alien to the theology of the Eastern Church.

This reads to me like there are two teams fighting for the prize like a debate competition. In reality there should be a split, probably making the text longer for the sake of clarity. I would add to the article the links to the pages refering to the above saints.

Back to my rephrasing request. So there are Augustin of Hippo and John of Damascus before the Schism. After the Schism there are Anselm of Canterbury (father of scholasticism), Thomas Aquinas and Gregory Palamas.

A final note John of Damascus should read St. John of Damascus as both he and St. Augustin of Hippo are recognised saints by Catholic Church as well as the Orthodox Churches. 82.240.243.35 16:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something that I forgot to mention when I added this section: St. John of Damascus lived before the Great Schism so his text couldn't mention something like the filioque was... alien to the theology of the Eastern Church. 82.240.243.35 17:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are several texts written by St. John Damascene in which he explicitly excludes the concept of the "filioque" (i.e., of a hypostatic procession of origin of the Spirit from the Son); and so, the "filioque" can legitimately be described as "alien" to the teachings of the Eastern Church, for as St. John himself explained: ". . . we do not speak of the Spirit as from the Son; but yet we call Him the Spirit of the Son." Thus, while the taxonomy of the persons of the Trinity allows us to speak of the Spirit as the Spirit of the Son, it nevertheless does not allow us to say that He (i.e., the Spirit) "proceeds" from the Son (See the other quotations taken from St. John Damascene's writings in my essay above). Steven Todd Kaster (12:38, 9 January 2008).

Filioque is NOT the only cause of the Schism[edit]

Both Patriarch Photius in 862 and Patriarch Cerularius in 1054 accused the West of heresy for introducing the filioque in the Creed. In general, except for reconciliatory pauses in 1274 and 1439, at the Second Council of Lyons and the Council of Florence, many Orthodox have repeated the charge of heresy, up to the present day.

From the above quote it seems to me like this is the only or at least the main cause of the Schism.

Quoting from the East-West Schism from Wikipedia also:

Disputes over whether the Patriarch of Rome, the Pope, should be considered a higher authority than the other Patriarchs.

The designation of the Patriarch of Constantinople as ecumenical patriarch, which was understood by Rome as universal patriarch and therefore disputed.

Certain liturgical practices in the West that the East believed represented innovation: the use of unleavened bread for the Eucharist, for example.

Celibacy among Western priests (both monastic and parish), as opposed to the Eastern discipline whereby parish priests could be married men whose marriage had taken place when they were still laymen, before their ordination to the diaconate.

thus filioque cause doesn't seem that big, although it is one of the main reasons.

First there was the problem of the Patriarch of Rome who wanted to be more equal than the others while all the Orthodox Churches have kept the tradition of all autonomus Churches being equal disregarding size - something considered great modern thinking at the time of the American Revolution.

Second in the light of the above the Patriarch of Rome was unwilling to allow the Patriarch of Constantinopole to be ecumenical patriarch (this does not mean supremacy over the others like with the first issue).

Third was the change of the Holy Mass by changing the use of leavened bread with the use of unleavened bread. And this is an issue at least as large and important as the filioque cause and the arguments go both ways as well.

Fourth were a list of issues like celibacy for the parish priests that were strongly dabated later on and lead to another big schism with the protestants and fueled the arguments against the Catholic Church that are raised now. 82.240.243.35 17:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is imo pretty good by wikistandards, but somewhat limited in scope. The "per filium vs. filioque" issue is not an isolated one. It embodies and exemplifies deep differences between Roman and Orthodox approaches and spiritualities. Addressing them is admittedly difficult, but it may also be fruitful. L'omo del batocio (talk) 10:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The position of the Eastern Orthodox Church[edit]

This article makes the claim that:

"While the Eastern Orthodox Church has never formally declared the "Filioque" phrase to be heretical, some of its saints have so qualified it, including Photios I of Constantinople, Mark of Ephesus, and Gregory Palamas, who have been called the Three Pillars of Orthodoxy."

And yet the article on the Fourth Council of Constantinople (879-880) says this:

"The council also condemned any alteration whatsoever to the original Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, thereby condemning the addition of the Filioque clause to the creed as heretical — a view strongly espoused by Photius in his polemics against Rome."

This being a council that included representatives from Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and probably a number of other particular churches. Given that statement, it's quite clear that the latter article establishes that the Eastern Orthodox Church has formally declared the filioque to be heretical, especially given that we have stood by this as one of our councils, and not turned our backs on it and retroactively declared the 869-870 council to be the Eighth Council, unlike Rome.

So which of these claims to the objective reality of the position of the EOC should wikipedia stand by? Deusveritasest (talk) 03:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the statement in the article needs to be sourced. (So does the statement about the 879-880 council, so as to make clear whether that council did more than repeat what the Council of Ephesus said, when it ruled out composing a faith different from that expressed by the Council of Nicaea, whose Creed did not include "proceeds from the Father". However, that is a question for that other article, not for here.) Lima (talk) 08:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that one could even find a source such a negating statement such as "the Eastern Orthodox Church has never officially taught x". Unless it was the Eastern Orthodox Church officially claiming such. Deusveritasest (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First Council of Toledo[edit]

«Credimus in unum verum Deum Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum ... sed a Patre Filioque procedens.»

JMCC1, wiki.es --83.52.226.128 (talk) 06:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-que rather than et[edit]

I am wondering whether it is relevent to point out that -que and et have different connotations. -que is use where equality between the items is intended while et is used when there is no such overtone. ...qui ex Patre et Filio procedit would therefore mean from the father and from the son but not imply equality, while ...qui ex Patre Filioque procedit implies such equality. I suspect the Greeks where (and still are) aware of this fact and that it forms a sustantial part of their objection. Jubilee♫clipman 10:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC) Addendum: this may be especially worth pointing out considering that the next part reads: Qui cum Patre et Filio simul adoratur, et conglorificatur... Jubilee♫clipman 10:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to cast doubt on what you say, but to be enable myself to answer any objection if I were to repeat it to others, I ask you to be so good as to indicate a reference to some Latin grammar or similar source that says what you say. I am unable to draw this inference from the many examples of -que and et given in Lewis and Short. Lima (talk) 14:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not best grammar, I know but the only one I can find immeadiately: Betts, Gavin (1986). Teach Yourself Latin. UK: Hodder and Stoughton. pp. 16–17. ISBN 0-340-38481-6. - Latin has four words meaning and: ac, atque, et, and -que... Et simply means and, eg Caesar et Brutus... -que "and", which is even less emphatic than et... eg Caesar Brutusque ... must be translated "Ceasar and Brutus".... I'll try to find an on line source. Latin scholars welcome to comment! ;) Jubilee♫clipman 12:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To really discuss this, you're also going to need to consider what stage of latin, dialect, etc., you're talking about, the usage by those in particular using it (meaning a survey of their writings, whether or not they considered or upheld such fineties of distinction in usage, etc.): or if "et" and "qui" can have such significances if intended to be used that way, but otherwise not mattering; I'm no expert or scholar, but I have some books on latin, and thus far they never mention such subtleties. If such subtleties existed, perhaps only if someone intended to use them as such, or only in certain situations, and etc..

tooMuchData

13:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheResearchPersona (talk • contribs)

I suspect that the preference for filioque over et filio and ac filio has more to do with maintaining the creed's singability rather than introducing any fine distinctions in meaning. None of the distinctions I'm aware of (which are small indeed) alter the meaning in this context at all. Et filio, depending on context, could be construed to mean "thus from the son", or "from the son too", or "even from the son", none of which really apply here. Ac filio in a different context could be construed to mean "since from the son" as well as "and from the son". Filioque can pretty much just mean "and from the son" in any context; it cannot ever imply any "thus" or "since". When que, et, and ac are mixed together, generally et has higher precedence than ac, which has higher precedence than que, but in the creed issues of precedence don't come up since these are not mixed together into one phrase. So far as I can see, the only distinction between one choice of conjunction or another in this context would be entirely aesthetic. Rwflammang (talk) 18:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again attempting dialog with Lima to advert a revert war on article[edit]

So lets clarify some of the parts of the article that Lima finds fault with and like to censure out the Eastern perspective one. I request that Lima come here and discuss changes rather then inviserate the article has he has done on the East-West Schism. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What did I censure out? (I can easily wait until tomorrow to read your reply.) Lima (talk) 20:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heres where you first did a whole revision via deletion [3] including removing the very explicit statement that the uncreated origin of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit comes from the Father hypostasis, which is the very heart of the issue. Rather then say the God as uncreated in essence manifests as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, which is modalism. Or that each hypostasis manifests each other via the merging of any individual two, which also appears to be the teaching of the Roman Catholic church. But at least the manifestion of the Father not being from either Christ nor the Holy Spirit as yet to be taught so there is some optimism to be had. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware only of having moved a two paragraphs that you had inserted, making nonsense of the following phrase "Western theologians counter ...", since it wasn't your insertion that they were countering. If I did delete what you say, it was inadvertently. I cannot identify the passage that you say I deleted. Would you please quote it exactly, so that I can see. Certainly, the first word that you use here, "uncreated", is found in the section neither before nor after I edited it. Thanks. Lima (talk) 08:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This edit [4] removed this entry and it's sourcing completely from article.

"Although the Western teaching speaks of the procession of the Holy Spirit from 

he Persons of the Father and the Son, it has been accused of making the divine
 
essence itself the source of deity in God", pgs 50-53 The Mystical 

Theology of the Eastern Church, by Vladimir Lossky SVS Press, 1997. 

(ISBN 0-913836-31-1) James Clarke & Co Ltd, 1991. (ISBN 0-227-67919-9)

thereby suggesting a form of Semi-Sabellian that the Holy Spirit proceeds from himself, since he is certainly not separate from the divine essence.LoveMonkey (talk) 14:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LM, you seem to be mistaken: use the "Find" (Ctrl-F) function on your computer, and you will find the passage you just quoted both on the before and after forms of the article. Lima (talk) 15:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's in the article now since I reverted it. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And it was still kept in the edit that you referred to twice above, the edit in which I was accused of "censuring it out". Thank you. Lima (talk) 20:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[5] Here again is the edit where you removed it. You removed the statement and the source. You are edit warring. This is but one tiny little example. You are also denying that you removed the statement. But again I have since restored it to the article. Your unwillingness to acknowledge your deletion is not in good faith and is not fostering collaboration between us. I can only perceive your responses as attempts to frustate. You have yet to admit to the fact that you removed the passage.

Please, LM, look at the edit again. The left-hand column is the text before I edited it, right? And the right-hand column is the text as I edited it, is it not? Well then, look at the right-hand column, and find the ninth paragraph from the top, which is the seventh from the bottom. You will see there the passage that you say I omitted, exactly, word for word, as in the fourth paragraph from the bottom in the left-hand column. Lima (talk) 16:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fact tags[edit]

Here is now a second issue. Why is Lima asking me to source that the sky is blue and that blood exposed to air is red? Why am I having to find a scholar who has to state such a thing? This is against wikipedia policy.

The West however does so outside of the Creed, which appears then as confused.^{[citation needed]}

Please pretty please explain how it is that all of the things that the Roman Catholic church has said about their alteration of the creed is now in the creed. If those clarifications are not in the creed then it is obvious to state that. Hence "outside the Creed". Now to ask someone to source that those clarifications are missing from the creed is asking them to source the obvious. Such a request is in bad faith and is but another tactic of edit warring in order to frustate. Next Lima will be asking me to source that grass is green. This is not a way to foster collaboration.

LoveMonkey (talk) 15:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that the West does so (does what?) requires explanation, ever since you inserted other material ahead of it, making the "does so" refer to something other than what it originally meant. What does it mean now?

Saying that what the West does (whatever it is) "appears then as confused" is an unsourced personal editorial comment.

I think these two points need attention. Lima (talk) 16:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Lord talk about circular logic. The Creed is a declaration of faith as a symbol. For people who can not and could not read for example. The creed is an overview of what a Christian is by community tradition (East and West, not just East Lima). IF the Roman Catholic church has to, after the Creed- explain the Creed and in other works explain what it changed so that it can explain, its alternations (in light of say the Macedocians) to the Creed this whole process then appears confused. It means you have to explain your explaination (Creed). That's confusion Lima not POV not commentary. Pure confusion. If someone gives a definition of a concept and explains the meaning as such they should not then go back and change it after the agreement is understood and or is made without believing that "to change something" is to change it. Confusion Lima, confusion. LoveMonkey (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even more clearly the two churches agreed on the text of the Creed in two Ecumenical councils. The West made changes outside and after the councils. But then states that it didn't (change the Creed) and that does not seems even just a little bit confusing. Not even a little Lima?

LoveMonkey (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I refuse to follow the red herrings of claims such as that the West "states that it didn't change the Creed". You still have not clarified what is meant by "the West does so" (whose meaning must have changed because of the different material you inserted just before this phrase), nor have you justified your further insertion of a personal editorial comment. So both tags stay. Lima (talk) 05:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Portion of article dedicated to the potential effects of reconcillation[edit]

I think that a section of the article should address what a reconcillation would do to both church communities. I mean it appears that the Roman Catholic church will not only be validated for whatever it did by both the past (Council of Florence) and now a future reconcillation, but many Orthodox Christians will simply leave the Orthodox church. I don't see the Roman Catholics losing any significate membership at all by such a move however. I can say that the Orthodox church will definitely lose members if not be almost destroyed since all of it's defiance seems to be well.... This is not a personal thing, but if one wants to be Roman Catholic they can got convert to it without the need of reconcillation. In reconcillation it also seems that many who have fought (in the East) for knot. This aside from the fact that the mystical theology that the East has fought for will have to be compromised (in the least) and or completely removed as many different groups in the West who had like practices where labeled heretics (i.e. quetism). Reconcillation should by God not the minds of Men. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose this would be a matter not for here but for the East-West Schism article. Wouldn't it be mere speculation? By the way, the professor whose work you banned from Wikipedia, though he was invited to speak at the headquarters of the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece and his talk was then published in that Church's official bulletin, said something that has some bearing on this matter. He observed that, even if dialogue were to show there are no real theological differences with what he called the Prechalcedonian Churches, the ecclesiastical problem would remain: "Either we would have to accept as saints those whom we have hitherto anathematized, and I mean Dioscurus and Severus, and condemn Pope Leo of Rome, or they would have to have to declare the latter orthodox and anathematize the former." Lima (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW your contention I supposedly banned anyone or anything is speculation. BTW, your BTW speculation does not belong here. Since it has zero to do with the heading and appears as nothing but a distraction from the topic and the topic heading. Or more directly does this need to be addressed either here or the East-West Schism article or not (the topic Lima)? As for your theological points given however, they are not banned and they do appear valid. So which article should they be added too, and what exactly do you suggest that they say? LoveMonkey (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enough said. Lima (talk) 20:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on now, I am trying to collaborate. You even rebuff me after I finish with "As for your theological points given however, they are not banned and they do appear valid. So which article should they be added too, and what exactly do you suggest that they say?" So again those last two questions. Could you maybe answer? LoveMonkey (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If they were to be added to any article, it would be East-West Schism. However, they should not be added to any article as they are speculation. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The one possible loophole would be if a notable personage (such as Patriarch Kirill of Moscow) were to say "We will not consider reconciliation because of the effect on the number of our adherents." Most of the speculation that I have seen on this topic has tended to be on blogs which are not admissible as reliable sources anyway. Now, if you can enlighten me with scholarly sources who have done serious academic work on these speculations, perhaps that would be another story. --Richard (talk) 05:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits by Cody7777[edit]

This article was changed recently from stating that the Orthodox church has never formally declared the Filioque heretical to saying that this was done at the Eighth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople. This is cited to what can only be described as a primary source. Can we find a secondary source for it, please? Maybe one that includes the word "filioque". LOL ^thulu 18:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cody7777 quotes an 1848 encyclical (meaning, circular letter) that quotes, presumably accurately, what some Eastern Orthodox call the Eighth Ecumenical Council. (I think most Orthodox would say that the ecumenical councils were seven.) The 1848 letter is a secondary source for the decision of the 879 council. However, the letter does not justify calling that council ecumenical. It explicitly speaks of the ecumenical councils as seven. I think Cody should be given first chance to correct this point. Lima (talk) 04:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I smelled a problem with it, but I guess it was the wrong one. Documents issued by the Orthodox Church about itself generally aren't secondary sources, though, are they? LOL ^thulu 05:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in response, I haven't noticed this section until now, I quoted the "Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848 A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns"" because it is stated there the following, "xi. It was subjected to anathema, as a novelty and augmentation of the Creed, by the eighth Ecumenical Council, congregated at Constantinople for the pacification of the Eastern and Western Churches. " You are correct, that is speaks a lot of times about "seven ecumenical councils", but it doesn't say anywhere (at least, I didn't seen this) that there were only seven ecumenical councils. About the 8th ecumenical council please check the following as well. Cody7777777 (talk) 05:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the one that is being discussed by the encyclical. --Richard (talk) 06:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the 1848 encyclical, does speak (twice) of the 879-880 council as the eighth ecumenical council, although, curiously, the same letter speaks four times of "the seven ecumenical councils". Many books do say the Eastern Orthodox hold that the ecumenical councils were seven: try "only seven ecumenical councils" on Google Books, or, if you want only Orthodox sources, Google "επτα οικουμενικες συνοδοι" and you will get Orthodox for and against it, with the "for"s including one Metropolitan; but that is only by the way. The important thing is that I was simply wrong in saying, after a cursory glance, that the letter did not justify using the term "eighth ecumenical council". Now that I have looked at the letter more carefully, I find that the letter does not say that the 879-880 council declared Filioque to be heretical. It only says that the council anathematized Filioque "as a novelty and augmentation of the Creed", not as heretical; and my reading of the text of the council seems to show that what the letter says is accurate. Am I wrong? If I am not wrong, we can't keep the phrase, "The Eastern Orthodox Church formally declared the 'Filioque' phrase to be heretical during the 8th Ecumenial Council of Constantinople in 879". We could say that in their reply to Pope Pius IX the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs did call it a heresy: "This heresy, which has united to itself many innovations, as has been said, appeared about the middle of the seventh century ..." But we can scarcely say that the EOC formally declared the "Filioque" phrase to be heretical. So, even on reflection, I think the phrase should be rewritten. What does Cody think? Defteri (talk) 20:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I knew, anathemas are given to heretics (however, you may use the word "anathematized" if you like). Cody7777777 (talk) 21:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the following statement "On the other hand Saint Maximus the Confessor held that it was not heretical," deserves a citation. Cody7777777 (talk) 21:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I notice there is already something cited there: "However, as the document points out, the distinction between εκπορεύεσθαι (ekporeuesthai) and προείναι (proeinai) was not made in Latin theology, which used the same term, procedere, to denote both realities. Is this enough to explain the insistence of the Latin tradition on the Filioque? Saint Maximus the Confessor seems to think so. For him the Filioque was not heretical because its intention was to denote not the εκπορεύεσθαι (ekporeuesthai) but the προείναι (proeinai) of the Spirit.". But I still believe a more explicit citation should be found (or Maximus' view should be made more clear. Cody7777777 (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for authorizing me to retouch your edit. We may think that anathemas are given only to heretics for heresies, but the source does not actually say that the EOC formally declared Filioque heretical. Defteri (talk) 06:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits by Defteri[edit]

Why was the entire section of Michael Pomazansky deleted? [6] Why was this completely confusing and incoherent sentence put into the article "Though Pope Leo III (795-816) objected to the addition of the Filioque phrase to the Creed, he affirmed the orthodoxy of the doctrine it expressed." Right after the mention of Pope John VIII who was in favour of reciting the Creed without the filioque? As from the wording of the above the same opinion was then held by Leo- recite the creed without the filioque. Is this not very very confused to say the least? Also this segment-"In the acts of the Council of Ephesus of 431 it is the original text of the Creed as established at Nicaea in 325 that appears,(what does that mean? What?) without the alterations made at the First Council of Constantinople of 381: the Creed used by the Council of Ephesus thus ends, as that of Nicaea, but not that of Constantinople, with "And in the Holy Ghost", and is followed, again as in the Creed of Nicaea, but not in that of Constantinople, by an anathema against "those that say, There was a time when he was not, and, before he was begotten he was not..." is bloody incoherent. And I keep getting thrashed for my poor writing ability. Hey wherez Richard now? I may need improvement but that does not mean I have to endorse the behaviour in others. I am at least trying to collaborate. And again here to--- The differences between the original Nicene Creed, approved at Ephesus, and the now familiar Niceno-Constantinopolitan form (mostly additions, but with some omissions) include the addition of "who proceeds from the Father", and the omission of "God from God",See comparison between the two version which was preserved in the Latin text of the Creed ("Deum de Deo")." What are you trying to say man. I thought what I added "The text of the Creed as now used in both East and West differs from that of Nicaea but the final agree text by both East and West from the Council of Ephesus is still used in the East. The East and West both accepted the changes of the Council of Ephesus(mostly additions, but with some omissions) made at the First Council of Constantinople 381, including the addition of "who proceeds from the Father" was pretty start forward clear and on topic with the issue of the filioque. But with all due respect tell me what I got wrong and I'll change it. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LoveMonkey asked "Hey wherez Richard now?" This article is on my watchlist but I'm not really in the mood to get involved right now. See if the two of you can work this issue out. If not, I'll try to wade in and help but this is not an area of expertise for me.

--Richard (talk) 21:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't removed a single word of LM's. I have sourced what I have put in. Would LM please clean up his text and/or provide citations where requested. Then I will endeavour to do the same with my text.

As regards the sample he gave here, would he clarify which council made the changes that he attributes simultaneously to Ephesus ("the changes of the Council of Ephesus") and to Constantinople ("made at ..."). The Council of Ephesus did not use the form adopted at Constantinople, but instead used the original text of Nicaea. Defteri (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what's hard to understand about "It is the original text of the Creed as established at Nicaea in 325 that appears in the acts of the Council of Ephesus of 431". It is indeed the Creed adopted at Nicaea, not the longer Creed attributed to the Council of 381, that you find in the acts of the Council of Ephesus. Is there a problem about the word "acts" (the record of the Council's deliberations)? That is a perfectly good word and is the word used by the cited source, rather than "minutes" or any other such word. These other words aren't normally used of the acts of an ecumenical council. And the anathema that the Council of Nicaea tacked on to its Creed is indeed repeated in the acts of the Council of Ephesus. Platia (talk) 08:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even better what's wrong with what was removed.

The Council of Ephesus then declared that "it is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different (ἑτέραν) Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicæa".<refCanon VII of the Council of Ephesus/ref> The text of the Creed as now used in both East and West differs from that of Nicaea but the final agree text by both East and West from the Council of Ephesus is still used in the East. The East and West both accepted the changes of the Council of Ephesus(mostly additions, but with some omissions) made at the First Council of Constantinople 381, including the addition of "who proceeds from the Father".^{[dubious – discuss]} As East and West both where then at the Council of Constantinople and had agreed again as they had in the Council of Nicaea on the creed, where as no ecumenical council was held to make the addition of the filioque. This also implies that the Council of Ephesus 431 in making its statement was invalid as well<re>Apart from the dogmatic side, by introducing a new dogma the Roman Church violated the decree of the Third and subsequent Ecumenical Councils (4th to 7th centuries), which forbade the introduction of any kind of change into the Nicaean Symbol of Faith after the Second Ecumenical Council had given it its final form. Thus, the Roman Church also performed a serious canonical violation.pg [7] Orthodox dogmatic theology by Michael Pomazansky Part I. God in Himself -2. The dogma of the Holy Trinity-On the procession of the Holy Spirit./ref>

Lets work on fixing this instead. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Should we begin with the problems I have already indicated within the article and here above? For a start, does today's usual form of the Creed come "from the Council of Ephesus", as you say? The acts of that Council show it used the original Nicene Creed, not the one we are familiar with. Defteri (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since LoveMonkey, who has made a total of 2016 edits on Wikipedia since the above was written, has not responded, may I remove his unsourced statements some day soon? Defteri (talk) 10:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to try and rewrite the entire section to make it consistent with the various wikipedia articles and the Orthodox wiki. I am not going to rewrite the entire article on the different views sections. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orthodoxwiki[edit]

I know we cannot cite articles in Wikipedia as sources for statements to put in other Wikipedia articles. Can we attribute greater authority to articles in other wikis than we do to articles in Wikipedia? I think we cannot. And so Orthodoxwiki (and the like) cannot be used as reliable sources in Wikipedia. Defteri (talk) 18:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restore if sourceable[edit]

"It is also of critical importance to remember within the Creed it is stated that Christ is incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary. This causing a more complicated point of contention." Off-topic and unsourced remark. Has nothing to do with Filioque. Lima (talk) 16:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anglicanism[edit]

I don't think any of those sources you cited are authoritative and representative of Anglicanism as a whole, Lima. Deusveritasest (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be hard to find anything more authoritative and representative on Anglican belief in this matter than the words of the creed in the traditional Book of Common Prayer, in the 1979 Book of Common Prayer of the Episcopal Church in the United States, and in Common Worship adopted by the Church of England in 2000. Lima (talk) 04:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are strictly provincial. The Lambeth Conference has far more weight. Deusveritasest (talk) 05:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Lambeth Conferences make recommendations. The churches of the communion make the decisions. Not even one of them has rejected "and the Son" (nor did any Lambeth Conference). They have kept it in the Creed, their profession of faith, which means that they positively accept it. (Even if they had decided to omit the phrase from the Creed, which they haven't, that would not mean that they rejected it.) Lima (talk) 07:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Nicene Creed in the Book of Alternative Services of the Anglican Church of Canada omits the filioque clause in the liturgy beginning page 185, but the BAS also includes the 1962 version of the liturgy, which includes the filioque clause. I have only experiential evidence for that just now, but it should be easily verifiable. Stevebeck (talk) 17:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear section[edit]

I cannot follow what the Recent Discussion section is trying to say. It seems to try to make distinctions between various Greek words, but I cannot follow the argument. Could a Greek scholar or theologian with a clear writing style please clarify this section? Thanks. Jubilee♫clipman 04:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In particticular, the following seems to be contradictory:
...the verb ἐκπορεύεσθαι, which is used in the Greek text. It quoted Saint Gregory of Nazianzus, who used the Greek word to distinguish the Spirit's form of coming from the Father from that of the Son from the Father, for both forms of which he used the Greek verb προϊέναι....
Which Greek word did he use, ἐκπορεύεσθαι or προϊέναι? Jubilee♫clipman 04:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes[edit]

I'm not sure that we should have all those footnotes here, especially since they appear under the "References" section and many of them appear to be POV personal reflections by editors. If they are relevent should they not be in the text? Thoughts? Jubilee♫clipman 04:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Addendum: much of the section (Differences in views) that these refer from appears to be rather POV and is written in broken English.[reply]
E.g. Eastern theologians have said that, the Latin church was at the Council of Nicaea 325, (and also the First Council of Constantinople 381 and the Council of Ephesus 431). That the East and West both agreed on the original wording of Creed, against the Arians then. Eastern theologians content that the Latin Church then later acted unilaterally, without council or consent with the East and added the filioque. Which is an alteration of the faith in such a way as to show that the Eastern Churches are not equal with the West but are rather subordinate to the Western Church.
This needs rewriting anyway, therefore, IMO. Jubilee♫clipman 05:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Lima for rewriting this section. I've had a go too, but it is not really my field. Most of the section reads like personal reflection rather than factual retelling, especially since the vast majority of the ref tags lead to footnotes rather than actual references. The footnotes seem to be yet more personal reflection, biased at that, as I pointed out above. More people need to get involved! Jubilee♫clipman 23:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've tried to tidy up this section by moving some footnotes back into article and putting quote marks around those footnotes that appear to be direct quotes from various people. If they are indeed quotes (and not POV reflections) then I was mistaken: there are references here. Still enormous work to be done to tidy up, though. Jubilee♫clipman 00:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The long and irrelevant addition of the Armenia creed into this conflict[edit]

If neither the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox are in communion with the Armenia church why is the Armenian Creed relevant to an issue or discussion. On a subject that divides the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox churches? And why is this given an entire paragraph and in the conclusion of a section it is confusing and very misleading and even more so to the uninformed. As the article mentions this twice I only removed one instance of the irrelevant and repetitive assertion.LoveMonkey (talk) 01:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photius[edit]

Please define here and source what is meant by "Photius' course". What is that? That is not a term I've ever heard. This section is missing sourcing big time. From its conspiratorial tone against Photius, I bet its sourcing will be biased. Also the sentence " Photius' importance endured in regard to relations between East and West, as he was the first theologian to make the Filioque a contentious issue and to accuse Rome of heresy in the matter." This is a contradiction on many levels. For starters Photius was around 800AD. If he was the first to do such then why was Maximus of 500AD and John of Damascus of 600AD addressing the filioque at all? That seems abit Euro-centric revisionism and that is not historically valid. Euro-centric is blatant POV. LoveMonkey (talk) 01:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC),[reply]

Maximus was indeed prescient, addressing the "Filioque" before it first appeared at the Third Council of Toledo, and John of Damascus too was quick off the mark. Lima (talk) 20:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maximus the Confessor and John of Damascus certainly did address the issue of the procession of the Holy Spirit, but that doesn't mean that they made it an issue of controversy. Photios, on the other hand, clearly made it an issue of controversy. Deusveritasest (talk) 02:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maximus the Confessor and John of Damascus certainly addressed it as a controversy. Thats why they were talking about it. Photius is not the boogieman at fault here this reads like a conspiracy headed by Photius. And thats POV its also against how Maximus is taught in Orthodox dogma theology. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The repetitiveness of this article[edit]

For a B scale article this article has lots of repetition. How many time does the article need to mention Metropolitan John Zizioulas? Why is he given prominence? Over say Patriarch Kirill's position on the matter. Which is against Zizioulas' position. Also the way John of Damascus is used he too appears to be contradiction himself. LoveMonkey (talk) 02:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV-This article is one sided[edit]

This article is terrible and completely one sided. There is no Orthodox side clarified from Orthodox dogmatic theology about filioque [8] in this article. There is no mention of the position by itself, no statement about it to let the reader try and draw their own conclusions. There is edit warring and reverting and censuring but not the clear Orthodox opinion. There is judgment in the wording of this article that implies something other then the Orthodox position. The Church Fathers section of this article is POV and useless and it implies that the Orthodox are liars. It is a reduction of the Orthodox position to wrong and without merit. It is also a historical distortion as it does not address that St Cyril's works are one of the basis of the schism between the Orient Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox.[9][10][11] It is a very nice Roman Catholic article it is not however a balanced article that states both positions of the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic. Also it is useless historically as it does nothing to tell the reader which Pope (Pope Clement II) first stated and used the filioque nor does it explain how that Pope was allowed, justified to modify or change the Creed without council with the Eastern Churches, nor does it say any of this and or why that would or could be an issue for the Popes other "equals" in the East.LoveMonkey (talk) 14:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of sourced information[edit]

LoveMonkey, please explain how you justify deleting the information about who interpreted Maximus the Confessor in ways that you seem to disagree with. Simply deleting without explanation sourced information that was inserted precisely because you put in a "who" query does not seem justified (or polite).

And while you are at it, please indicate what source you have for saying that Pomazansky "has stated that Maximus' position does not defend the actual way the Roman Catholic church justifies and teaches the filioque". The reference given says nothing (at least explicitly) about "the actual way the Roman Catholic church justifies and teaches the filioque". So is what you say an Original Research addition by you rather than a verifiable statement by Pomazansky? Esoglou (talk) 20:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are depicting Michael Pomazansky as saying that the filioque is justified. He says "The ancient Orthodox teaching of the personal attributes of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit was distorted in the Latin Church by the creation of a teaching of the procession, outside of timeand from all eternity, of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son — the Filioque."[12]LoveMonkey (talk) 21:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have said nothing about Pomazansky's own view. What I am questioning is your attribution to him of a statement about Maximus's view. What is your source for that alleged statement a about Maximus? I hope to read your answer tomorrow. Esoglou (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1st edit [13]-Were is it that St Maximus says - Saint Maximus the Confessor declared that it was wrong to condemn the Roman use of Filioque LoveMonkey (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you answer the question: What source have you for your claim that Pomazansky "has stated that Maximus' position does not defend the actual way the Roman Catholic church justifies and teaches the filioque"? You know that unverified information may be deleted. Esoglou (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"St. Maximus the Confessor himself held strictly to the teaching of the Eastern Church concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and wrote a special treatise about this dogma."[14]LoveMonkey (talk) 22:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"St Maximus himself held strictly to the teaching of the Eastern Church concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father" and defended the Westerners' teaching as not contradicting what he held to. So you have not supported with a citation your claim that Pomazansky "has stated that Maximus's psoition does not defend the actual way the Roman Catholic Church justifies and teaches the filioque". Being naturally optimistic, I thought for a while that you had removed your still unjustified claim and thanked you for doing so. I find now that you have not done so. So I must repeat my request to you to give a supporting citation, or else remove your unjustified statement. And please reply also to my major request: that you give an explanation of your repeated deletion of sourced information. Esoglou (talk) 07:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lima/Esoglou stated

"St Maximus himself held strictly to the teaching of the Eastern Church concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father"

LoveMonkey's Response
Agreed.

Lima/Esoglou stated
and defended the Westerners' teaching as not contradicting what he held to.

LoveMonkey's Response
No, he didn't he held the Eastern view and you had better be able to find a secondary source per Wikipedia to say otherwise and it should not be in the section of this article dedicated to the Eastern Christian position ANYWAY.

Lima/Esoglou stated
So you have not supported with a citation your claim that Pomazansky "has stated that Maximus's psoition does not defend the actual way the Roman Catholic Church justifies and teaches the filioque".

LoveMonkey's Response
Yes I did as Pomazansky's statement on Maximus and the Roman Catholic church is quite clear. I will post what Pomazanky says again. "St. Maximus the Confessor himself held strictly to the teaching of the Eastern Church concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and wrote a special treatise about this dogma."[15]

Lima/Esoglou stated
Being naturally optimistic, I thought for a while that you had removed your still unjustified claim and thanked you for doing so.

LoveMonkey's Response
You posted a complete distortion of all of this when you posted. That Pomazansky stated that Maximus justified the filioque and the Roman Catholic position. This is what you put into the Eastern Orthodox section of the article.

"Modern Orthodox theologian Michael Pomazansky says that Saint Maximus justified the Westerners "precisely by saying that by the words 'from the Son' they intended to indicate that the Holy Spirit is given to creatures through the Son, that He is manifested, that He is sent — but not that the Holy Spirit has His existence from Him"

dif -[16]
This contradicts what Pomazansky says by taking a tiny passage from his work out context and it directly implies.

1) that Pomazansky via Maximus says that the Roman Catholics teaching on filioque is correct. Which I have shown from the opening passage of the filioque section in his book he does not.
2) It indicates that you have not read it or did and purposely are distorting his words.
3)It also indicates that you do not and will not allow editing to this article that challenges your conceptions of what you are willing accept at all, as content in the article. You are not the sole authority on the filioque, you are not an authority on it all. You are not an authority on the Eastern Orthodox position and have no right misrepresenting it and then edit warring over your mess. Leave the section alone.
4) You also showed that you are willing to edit war rather then attempt to correct your poor articulation skills as the passage "Modern Orthodox theologian Michael Pomazansky says that Saint Maximus justified the Westerners "precisely by saying that by the words 'from the Son' they intended to indicate that the Holy Spirit is given to creatures through the Son, that He is manifested, that He is sent — but not that the Holy Spirit has His existence from Him" is incredibly bad misrepresentation of Pomazansky, Maximus, and the Eastern Orthodox.

Lima/Esoglou stated
1)And while you are at it, please indicate what source you have for saying that Pomazansky "has stated that Maximus' position does not defend the actual way the Roman Catholic church justifies and teaches the filioque". 2)Why don't you answer the question: What source have you for your claim that Pomazansky "has stated that Maximus' position does not defend the actual way the Roman Catholic church justifies and teaches the filioque"? You know that unverified information may be deleted. 3)So you have not supported with a citation your claim that Pomazansky "has stated that Maximus's psoition does not defend the actual way the Roman Catholic Church justifies and teaches the filioque".

LoveMonkey's response
"St. Maximus the Confessor himself held strictly to the teaching of the Eastern Church concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and wrote a special treatise about this dogma."[17]
1)This above statement from Pomazansky says that Maximus did not teach the filioque. 2)This above statement from Pomazansky says that Maximus does not teach that the Holy Spirit process from the Father and the Son.3)This above statement from Pomazansky says that Maximus held the Eastern Orthodox position not the Roman Catholic one. And finally as Romanidies very clearly shows and which someone who actually know even alittle bit about the Eastern position, that this article is poor and biased toward the Roman Catholic church and any attempt by editors to deviate from the Roman Catholic position will not be allowed. As Lima/Esoglou who does not know or even understand the Eastern Christian position on the filioque is editing and attempt establish himself as the authority whom must give authorization on what is put in this article under the Eastern Christian position that Lima/Esoglou doesn't even know.[18]

Lima/Esoglou stated
Being naturally optimistic, I thought for a while that you had removed your still unjustified claim and thanked you for doing so.

LoveMonkey's response.
Edit warring is not a sign of WP:AGF. No matter how many times you say it, just because Lima/Esoglou says something does not make it true. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LoveMonkey, you have read what Pomazansky wrote, haven't you? In the quotation from him that you have admitted to the article (your reference 21), he wrote : "St. Maximus the Confessor (in the 7th century), desiring to defend the Westerners, justified them ..." How then can you deny that Pomazansky said that Saint Maximus justified the Westerners? It is verifiably true that "Michael Pomazansky says that Saint Maximus justified the Westerners 'precisely by saying that by the words "from the Son" they intended to indicate that the Holy Spirit is given to creatures through the Son, that He is manifested, that He is sent — but not that the Holy Spirit has His existence from Him'". That is exactly what Pomazansky wrote. And yet you find the statement that he said it objectionable!

In all your time editing Wikipedia, surely you have read WP:SYN. Yet here you have been making a synthesis between Pomazansky's statement, "St. Maximus the Confessor himself held strictly to the teaching of the Eastern Church concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and wrote a special treatise about this dogma", and a view that the Western and Eastern expressions about the procession of the Holy Spirit (processio/προϊέναι from the Father and the Son, and πορεύεσθαι from the Father alone) are irreconcilable. Such a synthesis is not allowable on Wikipedia, which excludes original research. Now, once again, what Wikipedia-citable source (not a synthesis) do you have for your claim that Pomazansky "has stated that Maximus's position does not defend the actual way the Roman Catholic Church justifies and teaches the filioque"? Where did Pomazansky state that?

If you can't find such a source, why not consider rephrasing your statement and writing something that is verifiable? Esoglou (talk) 17:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No you can not take his quote out of context and expect people to read his section in his book and not clearly see that. I don't have to convince you I only have to convince an administrator. As you continue to use the excuse that you can't seem to grasp the point that people are making.

"St. Maximus the Confessor himself held strictly to the teaching of the Eastern Church concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and wrote a special treatise about this dogma."[19]

1)This above statement from Pomazansky says that Maximus did not teach the filioque.
2)This above statement from Pomazansky says that Maximus does not teach that the Holy Spirit process from the Father and the Son.
3)This above statement from Pomazansky says that Maximus held the Eastern Orthodox position not the Roman Catholic one. And finally as Romanidies very clearly shows and which someone who actually knows even alittle bit about the Eastern position, that this article is poor and biased toward the Roman Catholic church and any attempt by editors to deviate from the Roman Catholic position will not be allowed. As Lima/Esoglou who does not know or even understand the Eastern Christian position on the filioque is editing and attempts to establish himself as the authority whom must give authorization on what is put in this article under the Eastern Christian position that Lima/Esoglou doesn't even know.[20] LoveMonkey (talk) 14:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether Maximus (the saint who defended the Western use of the Filioque) did or did not teach the Filioque is immaterial. The question is not about Saint Maximus's ideas. The question is about an alleged statement by Pomazansky. Where did Pomazansky state that Maximus's position does not defend the actual way the Roman Catholic Church justifies and teaches the Filioque? Did he state this? Or are you only presenting a synthesis by yourself. If he did state it, quote his statement. Esoglou (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is your statement copied and pasted.

"Modern Orthodox theologian Michael Pomazansky says that Saint Maximus justified the Westerners "precisely by saying that by the words 'from the Son' they intended to indicate that the Holy Spirit is given to creatures through the Son, that He is manifested, that He is sent — but not that the Holy Spirit has His existence from Him"

What do you mean by "justified the Westerners?"LoveMonkey (talk) 23:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't my expression. It's Pomazansky's, who wrote: "St. Maximus the Confessor (in the 7th century), desiring to defend the Westerners, justified them ..." I have thus simply quoted Pomazansky, without making a synthesis of my own. So would you, please, do the same, and quote where Pomazansky states what you attribute to him (if he really does state it)? Esoglou (talk) 07:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And then he wrote that Maximus kept the Easter position not the Western one.LoveMonkey (talk) 16:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant: the clearly verifiable fact remains that Pomazansky did write: "St. Maximus the Confessor (in the 7th century), desiring to defend the Westerners, justified them..." Esoglou (talk) 15:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pomazansky's passage[edit]

"To this one should add that the expression, “through the Son,” which is found in certain Holy Fathers, in the majority of cases refers definitely to the manifestations of the Holy Spirit in the world, that is, to the providential actions of the Holy Trinity, and not to the life of God in Himself. When the Eastern Church first noticed a distortion of the dogma of the Holy Spirit in the West and began to reproach the Western theologians for their innovations, St. Maximus the Confessor (in the 7th century), desiring to defend the Westerners, justified them precisely by saying that by the words “from the Son” they intended to indicate that the Holy Spirit is given to creatures through the Son, that He is manifested, that He is sent — but not that the Holy Spirit has His existence from Him. St. Maximus the Confessor himself held strictly to the teaching of the Eastern Church concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and wrote a special treatise about this dogma."

This passage is saying that Maximus will justify the use of the filioque by the West only if the West 1)is not saying that the Holy Spirit has His existence from the Father and the Son. And 2)only if the West does this teaching outside the creed since Pomazansky also states "The expression “through the Son” does not at all comprise a dogma of the Orthodox Church." LoveMonkey (talk) 01:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, in this passage Pomazansky states that Maximus did justify the Westerners by saying what they actually intended (which was not what their opponents both of Maximus's time and later accuse them of intending). Now please lay aside your synthesizing of these words with your own idea of what the Catholic Church actually teaches, and quote Pomazansky's alleged statement "that Maximus's position does not defend the actual way the Roman Catholic Church justifies and teaches the Filioque". Or else just rephrase your claim. Doing so should be a rather simple operation. Esoglou (talk) 07:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pomazansky teaches Orthodox theology. His book is Orthodox theology. In the book Pomazanky says that "St. Maximus the Confessor himself held strictly to the teaching of the Eastern Church concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father". The Roman Catholic church does not teach that with the filioque. Maximus was saying how it could be taught as acceptable outside the creed. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again your usual synthesis of your own "The Roman Catholic church does not teach that with the filioque" with what Pomazansky actually wrote. You have failed and doubtless will continue to fail to cite where Pomazansky is supposed to state that Maximus's position does not defend the actual way the Roman Catholic Church justifies and teaches the Filioque". Where is this statement of his (not yours)? Esoglou (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zizioulas[edit]

As for Zizioulas he is not without opposition and controversy....
This is the respected assessment of Metropolitan John (Zizioulas): Another important point in the Vatican document is the emphasis it lays on the distinction between ἐκπόρευσις and processio. It is historically true that in the Greek tradition a clear distinction was always made between εκπορεύεσθαι and προείναι, the first of these two terms denoting exclusively the Spirit’s derivation from the Father alone, whereas προείναι was used to denote the Holy Spirit’s dependence on the Son owing to the common substance or ουσία which the Spirit in deriving from the Father alone as Person or υπόστασις receives from the Son, too, as ουσιωδώς that is, with regard to the one ουσία common to all three persons (Cyril of Alexandria, Maximus the Confessor et al). On the basis of this distinction one might argue that there is a kind of Filioque on the level of ουσία, but not of υπόστασις.

However, as the document points out, the distinction between εκπορεύεσθαι and προείναι was not made in Latin theology, which used the same term, procedere, to denote both realities. Is this enough to explain the insistence of the Latin tradition on the Filioque? Saint Maximus the Confessor seems to think so. For him the Filioque was not heretical because its intention was to denote not the εκπορεύεσθαι but the προείναι of the Spirit.
Since Zizioulas refers to St. Maximus the Confessor, it will useful to hear from the respected Father how the filioque could have an orthodox meaning.[21]]LoveMonkey (talk) 16:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pomazansky is not known to have deviated from Orthodoxy theology's position on the filioque where Zizioulas is this document is being called to task for that very thing. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that Zizioulas, who is delegated by the Ecumenical Patriarch of New Rome to speak on his behalf at various meetings is more representative of the Orthodox Church than this Pomazansky, but we can let that pass. What Zizioulas writes interests us here only as providing a personal view (not necessarily the view also of the Orthodox Church) on Saint Maximus's defence of the Westerners' use of "Filioque". Esoglou (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Zizioulas is already controversial for more then just his misquoted and misused statements here ([http://www.amazon.com/Being-God-Apophaticism-Divine-Human-Communion/dp/0268038317/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1272128107&sr=8-1]). Also you did not read the source of the bullet points I added to the article as the Broken Body is from the Ecumenical Patriarch's officer.LoveMonkey (talk) 16:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lima/Esoglou needs to write better sentences for this article and stop attacking the opposing position to his opinion by rewriting it to contradict itself[edit]

Lima/Esoglu should stay away from the Eastern Orthodox section of this article as he is not allowing that position be posted without going in and rewording it so it looks that it is wrong to his Roman Catholic position. His recent editing reflects this very thing.LoveMonkey (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why this article sucks and how it is greatly misinforming Wikipedia users[edit]

1)This article has an article owner whom edit wars. WP:OWN The editor has pals whom help out WP:TAGTEAM but the editor Lima/Esoglou is the primary antagonist.
2)This article does not give even a partial Eastern sourced perspective. Ever attempt to try is reworded to distort that actual position or even something close to that position.
3)This article is missing allot of history. As Romanides shows that there is more then one filioque position in the West and that the West has overtime more and more change what the filioque is taught as and what it means theologically. This whole entire persepctive of the subject is missing from an article that is supposed to be and have that very thing. It can't be authoritative if it only allows one point of view.
4)Why is it that this article dedicates itself to almost exclusively the Western Churches and their view of the subject but has a very small section dedicated to those whom oppose it. I am not saying that there should be word for word number count that matches one to the other. I am however saying that as the article stands it is not even partially informative as it does nothing but repost the Western position in dominance.
5)It appears that if a point is made by the Eastern side in the section of the article dedicated to that perspective that edits are then done to counter the point in the section. Sometimes midpoint. This leads to an unreadable article and also breaks points up and does not allow the reader to see or understand each point as it stands by itself. This causing a confused and distorted article.
6)Not mentioning the council of 867. I have since attempted to remedy this.

LoveMonkey (talk) 23:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Separate subsection on Maximus?[edit]

LoveMonkey, would you agree to a rearrangement of the "Eastern Orthodoxy" section as follows:

===Eastern Orthodoxy===

Information on Eastern view of the Filioque.

====Saint Maximus the Confessor ====

Quotation of what he wrote.

=====Interpretation as rejecting Roman Catholic teaching=====

Views upholding this interpretation.

=====Interpretation as seeing Western and Eastern teaching as compatible=====

Views upholding this interpretatio.

I think it would be useful to deal separately with the interpretation of what Saint Maximus wrote, since it takes up so much of the space under the "Eastern Orthodoxy" heading. But I fear that you may just revert any intervention by me. I also think it would be better to expound first the compatibility interpretation, but I have put the rejection interpretation first in case that is what you would prefer. Esoglou (talk) 19:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Common ground[edit]

As the Orthodox are told by the clergy of the church very specific things about the Roman Catholic those are, say for example, the content of this article. Some of the things that are not said and are "universally" frowned upon (said by laity not the clergy) about the Roman Catholic church in the Orthodox church are... the Roman Catholic church is not evil and it is not tolerated to say that the Western Christians are such a thing. Sometimes things the West does are explicitly stated as evil (i.e. bombing Serbs for their war on terrorism in the Serbian providence of Kosovo) but the West is not allowed to be called evil. There is no conspiracy theory, people want power, people want to win, that's everyone, so to say the Roman Catholic church or the Pope is the head of a conspiracy (though very popular in Russia) is frowned upon.

What is common and acceptable by both clergy and laity is too say that Roman Catholic's are good people who love God and the Mother of God, and that one is not contested. We love all in Christ and this article is to give both sides clearly thus relieving past frustration and cultivating mutual respect. However theosis works when ones theology works. The Roman Catholic church (and the West) has replaced mysticism with metaphysics and this an unacceptable alteration to original Christianity. We are not to rationalize about God, people need to see and experience God so to be healthy. The Orthodox have this through our theology and that must not be compromised at any cost. Here is what is the truest mode of contention between East and West.-theoria

"Byzantine Orthodox personalism liberated the grown-up person from compulsory ritual and moral discipline - for free, personal communion with God. This was the same freedom that is born from truth, freedom in the Spirit of God, freedom as the revelation of the deep potential in God-created human nature. The powerful development of theology, on the one hand, and the thousand years of monastic practice of "cultivating the soul" by prayer - these were the two unshakeable foundations of this freedom in Christ, unheard of since Apostolic times.

This is the highest maturity of the religious personality that has been reached in the whole history of mankind: deeply rooted in tradition and yet (or rather, thanks to this) unprecedentedly daring, liberated "boldly striving for God". After receiving a firm moral upbringing in the family, then an all-round humanitarian education, the young Byzantine retired for a few years to a mountain monastery where, under the guidance of experienced "elders'" he learnt "to renounce the world", "to cut off his thoughts" and to concentrate himself entirely in the "clever heart", the center of human being. Here in this center, he met God: his heart became a vessel for the "Divine Energy", a receptacle for the "Divine Light". After acquiring the habits of "synergism", co-dwelling, co-feeling, joint wishing and acting with God, the believer returned to the world. For him church theology was now personal knowledge based on the inner experience of contemplating the Divine Light and communing with God.

Theology and mystical experience are impossible without each other. Divorced from experience theology turns into rationalist philosophizing; mystical exercises without the firm guidance of Orthodox thought inevitably lead to "temptation", the mistaking of earthly, natural energies for Divine ones. On the one hand, there is rationalist scholastics, that "straw" about which the great Thomas Aquinas spoke on his death-bed; on the other, the line of mystic-heretics with no idea about the True God, which runs through the whole of Christian history. Such are the fruits of the severance of church theology from personal spiritual experience.

The mistaking of earthly, natural energies for Divine ones is called metaphysics. [22] LoveMonkey (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fulgentius of Ruspe[edit]

I was reading Fulgentius, and ran across Letter to Peter on the Faith II. 45: "Hold most firmly and never doubt that the same Holy Spirit, who is the one Spirit of the Father and the Son, proceeds from the Father and the Son."

Somebody should add this if they can find a place for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.102.206 (talk • contribs)

One verification at a time[edit]

diff Esoglou. Source states the council of 867 was declared null by John VIII not the council of 879.
"It would remain far from clear that Hadrian actually ratified the Council of 867-870. In any event it was declared null by Pope John VIII.pg 170"
"The subsequent letters of Pope John VIII to the Emperor Basil indicated that while he accepted the council's decision, he remained unhappy at the version of council." pg 176 [23] LoveMonkey (talk) 01:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, LoveMonkey. We should now be able to work together constructively. Thanks for pointing out my mistaken inference from the statement on page 170 and for giving the reference to page 176. I withdraw my citation request. That same page 176 unfortunately has raised another question for me. It says the term or concept Filioque is never spelled out in the Acts of the Council of 879 and only says that "the Roman legates cheerfully agreed that no addition might be made to the 'Nicene' creed". This suggests that the Council of 879 condemned the addition of "Filioque" to the creed, but not the "Filioque" phrase itself, in spite of what the text of the Wikipedia article says at present. Perhaps you can clarify that matter too. Esoglou (talk) 08:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Schaff-"It annulled the Council of 869 as a fraud; it readopted the Nicene Creed with an anathema against the Filioque, and all other changes by addition or omission, and it closed with a eulogy on the unrivalled virtues and learning of Photius. To the Greek acts was afterwards added a (pretended) letter of Pope John VIII to Photius, declaring the Filioque to be an addition which is rejected by the church of Rome, and a blasphemy which must be abolished calmly, and by degrees."---The Roman Catholic historians regard this letter as a Greek fraud. "Ich kann nicht glauben," says Hefele (IV. 482), "dass je ein Papst seine Stellung so sehr vergessen habe, wie es Johann VIII. gethan haben müsste, wenn dieser Brief ächt wäre. Es ist in demselben auch keine Spur des Papalbewusstseins, vielmehr ist die Superiorität des Photius fast ausdrücklich anerkannt."

[24]
And Romanidies-"The Roman Popes fully accepted the dogmatic and legal authority of all Roman Ecumenical Councils, including the eighth of 879 which condemned the Filioque in the Nicene Creed and annulled the Council of 869 by accepting the restoration of Photius as Patriarch of the New Rome. The Franks and Germans rejected this Council because it condemned their addition to the Creed. They of course could not accept Photius since he had been attacking their Filioque. So they continued accepting the Council of 869."LoveMonkey (talk) 14:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again. I have added to the article the Schaff reference. I see you have already added that of Romanides. Esoglou (talk) 16:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2nd verification-Lossky[edit]

Why is it within the Orthodox community V. Lossky's paper I posted as a source is talked about as having refuted the filioque as a double-procession of the Holy Spirit [25]? And a non-Orthodox editor is not only editwarring and attempting to frustrate (cause they haven't come here to the talkpage to collaborate) they are also not really checking into information and sources and also deleting contribution under unacceptable edit summaries? LoveMonkey (talk) 01:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing request abuse as potential edit warring[edit]

Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue
I have not problem being asked to source my contributions. What I do have a problem with is when editors remove my contributions without dialog here without requesting sources etc. etc. on the talkpage and then justify the deletion with policy violations. WP:Source states that one does not have source the obvious. I can contribute to the article that the sky is blue. I do not have source such a thing. That's actual common sense policy called WP:Common Sense. So for example if I put in the article the obvious statement:

"As the Latin filioque means "and the Son" not "through the Son", which would a different set of Latin words."[26]

It is not only a sign of bad faith that it was deleted out of the article it also shows in this additional edit [27] a pattern of policy abuse. It assumes that something obvious does not belong in the article. And if not obvious then that the statement is personal and can not be sourced. I guess the question that is raised is that if 'proceeds from the Father and the Son', means 'proceeds from the Father through the Son' why has the Roman Catholic church not changed the English text over these hundreds of years? Why can that not be reflected in the article? Something that obvious is missing from an article that should have as much information on all of the possible position (including that one) why was such a thing removed without requesting a source at all. I can imagine what kind of nonsense will incur once Pope Benedict VII gets entered into the article content. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, "and (from) the Son" and "through the Son" are not the same words. That is obvious. What is not obvious is that the two phrases are incompatible, as you are suggesting. Dulles says: "Some, such as Maximus the Confessor, a seventh-century Byzantine monk, defended it (the Filioque) as a legitimate variation of the Eastern formula that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son." Indeed Maximus himself, speaking of the Filioque phrase, wrote: "They (the Romans) have manifested the procession through him (the Son)" (emphasis added). In the context in which it was placed, the inserted comment goes against the obvious meaning of the very words of Saint Maximus.

The whole of that paragraph belongs earlier, in the section that deals with the attitude of the Eastern Orthodox Church towards the Filioque. What, if anything, in the paragraph is really a commentary (except by yourself) on what Saint Maximus wrote? The Lossky passage speaks of Saint Maximus, but says absolutely nothing about what the Saint said about the Filioque. The second source talks about Lossky's ideas as expressed in a chapter of a book by him: it says nothing whatever about what Saint Maximus wrote about the Filioque. The whole paragraph is out of place in a section dealing with the meaning of the statement by which, to quote Romanides, Saint Maximus sought to defend the Westerners and justified them in some way.

Your latest edit summary seems to agree. You wrote: "passage validates Orthodox position on double-procession regardless of Maximus" (emphasis added). Then logically it should be put in the section that deals with the Orthodox position, not the section that deals with Maximus. Esoglou (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, "and (from) the Son" and "through the Son" are not the same words. That is obvious. What is not obvious is that the two phrases are incompatible, as you are suggesting.

This is begging the question as a logical fallacy that is not an acceptable way to validate an argument here on Wikipedia. If it is a matter of fact or history and it is pertinent to the article it belongs in the article. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the view that they are not incompatible is sourced. The view that they are incompatible has only your support. Esoglou (talk) 22:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making this issue personal. No I am not Romanides, Lossky, Mark of Ephesus. Again- Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue.LoveMonkey (talk) 04:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for giving you grounds for thinking I was making the issue personal. I only meant that, while there is a sourced view that Saint Maximus held that the Western Filioque was compatible with his own teaching that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, I was unaware (and still am) that the three writers you mention stated that he considered the expressions incompatible. I know of course that they themselves viewed them as incommpatble, but did they really say that this was Maximus's judgement also? Esoglou (talk) 08:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your sourcing requests in all, along with the rash of ones you added lately appear that you are using the sourcing requests to frustrated and discourage contributions. Not what your saying, what your doing. The large amount and your continued persistence to ask that not just sentences but parts of sentences are to be sourced gives the appearance of edit warring. You are giving the appearance of obsession. And I have already good grounds to post a complaint on the edit warring notice board. If for anything then for your continued disruptive deletion without discussion, rewording without discussion, making and insisting I engage in copyright violations and copy and paste into the article because you can't understand what the sources are saying. Your playing dumb as justification to edit war on the side of the argument you are against. You shouldnt even be touching the Eastern Orthodox section as you obviously don't want it to be have a legitimate and coherent representation. Next you'll be putting in a sourcing request for me to source the word "the". Your behavior again is not the behavior of someone trying to develop an encyclopedia article respectful to all perspectives involved in this dispute.LoveMonkey (talk) 18:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, I just can't see how any of the above is a response to my request for a statement by Romanides, Lossky, Mark of Ephesus or anybody else that Saint Maximus considered Filioque incompatible with his own "through the Son". If he had considered Filioque incompatible with his own belief, it would be indeed strange that he said it was wrong to make accusations against the Romans for using it. Esoglou (talk) 20:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the West was using it outside dogma as this was not a universal thing. But rather a local thing a Latin thing. And was correct as an understanding of status of the use of filioque during Maximus' lifetime of around 600 AD. As something Western and Latin and not for the Greek or Eastern Churches, since it is only possible to use the argument if one states that to be against the filioque is strictly an argument of linguistics. You seem to forget the even filioque is a Latin phrase not a Greek one. Maximus had no idea that Roman was going to insist that the phrase be made dogma and that the West would insist that the East accept it as a dogma for the WHOLE church East and West. As Maximus was only talking about it as something that happens in Latin and stays in Latin. Why can you not understand this? Look at the quotes I posted from the Council of Florence. Where the East tried to use Maximus as a basis of Union and this was rebuffed by the West because it meant that the phrase would have be changed from "from the Son" to "through the Son". Maximus would not agree that an English speaking person should use the filioque at all. But rather that whatever English version was rendered that the Greek and original version should be the basis for any other language translation. Other wise your saying that the Nicene Creed in Latin should be the basis of all language translations and not the original Greek.LoveMonkey (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The letter of Saint Maximus was in Greek, not Latin. He uses ἐκπορεύεσθαι when quoting the Roman letter that was objected to in Constantinople, and προϊέναι when giving his own take on what the Romans meant by "Filioque procedit". He obviously knew Latin. And he said that the phrase the Roman used was not heretical, that it was compatible with what he believed. The Council of Florence was considerably later, was it not? And by then the Greeks – Did they know Latin? Well, maybe some of them did – considered that the phrase that the Romans used was heretical., that it was incompatible. But they didn't say, did they, that Maximus himself had said it was heretical and incompatible?

I think I had better end the conversation on this topic, which has become merely repetitive. Esoglou (talk) 19:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The letter of Saint Maximus was in Greek, not Latin." Source states it had to be translated into Latin. Source from Maximus where he stated what your saying. The Eastern Romans (Greeks) stated as dogma for the whole church it was as from the Son instead of through the Son. And also that it was done without Ecumenical Council.LoveMonkey (talk) 13:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth are you saying? "Source states it had to be translated into Latin" - so you agree he wrote it in Greek! Isn't that what I said? And what do you mean by saying that the Greeks stated as dogma it was "from the Son" instead of "through the Son"? Isn't that what the Latins were supposed to have said? Esoglou (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rearrangement[edit]

Following on your rearrangement, I have moved the above-referenced paragraph up to the general section on the view of the Orthodox Church, so that the final part may be truly about the ways in which what Saint Maximus wrote has been interpreted. I have omitted nothing, but have added some more information.

I disagree with your presentation of the first seven ecumenical councils as relevant to the Filioque question; but if, as I suppose, you are determined to preserve what readers are likely to view as quite far-fetched, I do not think it worthwhile to argue the case for omitting it. Esoglou (talk) 22:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did Saint Maximus propose a compromise?[edit]

A novelty has been introduced into the article, presenting as fact the unsourced idea that Saint Maximus proposed some compromise between the Western and the Eastern formulations of the procession of the Holy Spirit. This idea is presented as fact even in a section heading, to which, in the opinion of another editor, I am not allowed to add a tag. Didn't Saint Maximus instead defend the use of "from the Son" by the Latins, a use that he said was found also in Greek-speaking Saint Cyril of Alexandria (who in fact did use it, with the verb προϊέναι, not with ἐκπορεύεσθαι)? What grounds are there for saying that Maximus proposed that the Latins should stop saying "from the Son" and say something else instead? Esoglou (talk) 08:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[28] I have repeatedly posted this very point as Romanides presented it to the World Council of Churches. I am almost posting word for word. For you to make this post means you understand what the Roman Catholic Church states is the Eastern Orthodox opinion as you obviously are by making your comment ignoring even what Zizilious is saying. You don't understand the Eastern position and if what is posted counters the Roman Catholic distortion you assume it must be wrong and war against it. Have you actually read anything by or on John Zizioulas or Vladimir Lossky or John Romanides or Michael Pomazansky or John Behr or Dumitru Stăniloae or George Metallinos. Would you even know who they are if I hadn't posted them? To an article that should have mentioned them more then when they key-toe to your position. Why is it you can't seem to understand that at the time of Maximus' argument the filioque wasnt dogma? As a local and or strictly Latin thing it wasn't necessarily an issue. But it has been carried over to other languages. As it was not even needed in Latin. As if you had read of of the sources I have posted you'd notice they are sourcing your eit warring requests and you just can't stop missing them. Things like this..

"However, as the document points out, the distinction between εκπορεύεσθαι (ekporeuesthai) and προείναι (proeinai) was not made in Latin theology, which used the same term, procedere, to denote both realities. Is this enough to explain the insistence of the Latin tradition on the Filioque? Saint Maximus the Confessor seems to think so. 'For him the Filioque was not heretical because its intention was to denote not the εκπορεύεσθαι (ekporeuesthai) but the προείναι (proeinai) of the Spirit. This remains a valid point, although the subsequent history seems to have ignored it. The Vatican statement underlines this by referring to the fact that in the Roman Catholic Church today the Filioque is omitted whenever the Creed is used in its Greek original which contains the word εκπορεύεσθαι (ekporeuesthai)."[29] LoveMonkey (talk) 19:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)LoveMonkey (talk) 19:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to first paragraph: Please post the terms of the compromise that you say Saint Maximos proposed. I can't find it in the blog you have given here in response to my request. As far as I can see, none of the contributors to the whole thread on that blog even mentions a compromise proposed by Saint Maximus. So please be kind enough to set aside for a moment questions of Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox views and just point out at what point the blog supports your contention that Saint Maximus (who seems to say that the Romans have been accused of things of which it is wrong to accuse them) actually proposed a compromise between what the Romans said and what their critics maintained they should say.

Response to second paragraph: Here Ioannes of Pergamon says subsequent history (later than the time of Maximus the Confessor, and so unknown to him) seems to have ignored a point that Maximus the Confessor made. Ioannes does not say that Saint Maximus proposed something else in place of "Filioque": he even says that for Saint Maximus the Filioque "was not heretical". If you read the whole of what Saint Maximus wrote you will find that he "thought that part of the reason why the Latin teaching sounded odd to Greek ears was that the Latin phrase had been translated into Greek in a misleading way: by using the Greek term ἐκπορεύεσθαι to translate the Latin procedere, the translators of Pope Martin’s document had given the impression to their Greek-speaking readers that the Latins regarded the Son as an originating cause of the Spirit in the same sense that the Father is. In Maximus’s own restatement of the Latin teaching, the word προϊέναι (“coming-forth”) is used instead" (cf. another blog). So the only "compromise" that he seems to suggest is to translate procedere, by using the Greek verb προϊέναι, not the verb ἐκπορεύεσθαι, while continuing to use procedere in Latin. Am I wrong in thinking that this is not what you have in mind? I fear that it is too much to hope that I am wrong. Esoglou (talk) 20:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Esoglou/Lima posted

Response to first paragraph: Please post the terms of the compromise that you say Saint Maximos proposed. I can't find it in the blog you have given here in response to my request. As far as I can see, none of the contributors to the whole thread on that blog even mentions a compromise proposed by Saint Maximus. So please be kind enough to set aside for a moment questions of Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox views and just point out at what point the blog supports your contention that Saint Maximus (who seems to say that the Romans have been accused of things of which it is wrong to accuse them) actually proposed a compromise between what the Romans said and what their critics maintained they should say.

LoveMonkey's response
I will again post Romanides statement.
"At this union council of Florence the East Romans insisted that the Latins remove the Filioque from the Creed and accept the teaching of the Fathers. The Latins unexpectedly sprung the Maximus text upon the council to prove that the "Greeks" had always accepted the Filioque in the Creed of Rome, but, since Photius, had changed their position for non doctrinal reasons. The East Romans picked up the text and made it their own. After it was shown and accepted that the text had been mistranslated, the East Romans proposed it as the basis of union. This they had already planned to do, but hesitated since the context of the text had not survived. Now the Latins themselves gave them the opening they were waiting for. But the Latins flatly refused and went on demanding that the East Romans accept the Son as one "cause" with the Father of the Holy Spirit's existence. On how to determine the genuineness of the Latin manuscripts being used as proof texts, Mark of Ephesus suggested that only what is in agreement with Maximus' description of the papal filioque should be accepted as genuine. But he did not agree that Latin acceptance of this text is sufficient for union, since there are other essential differences. Most of the East Romans finally accepted the Son as "one cause" with the Father and signed the union. Some like Mark refused. Neither Mark nor any of the others proposed a theologoumenon as "the" dogma of union, nor a kind of Filoque buried in a book. They had proposed the old west Roman Orthodox Filioque defended by such Popes as Leo III which is an integral part of the Orthodox tradition."[30] -the East Romans proposed it as the basis of union-What Maximus where the Eastern Romans referring to here? Why am I having to repeat this to you? Why do you not have an understanding of this as a basis of your editing before you touch the section dedicated to the Eastern Orthodox position on the matter. Why do I have to continue to have to educate you on this?LoveMonkey (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The quotation from Romanides is an improvement on the blog that you posted in your previous first paragraph. Thank you for giving it. I think that it shows that what you really intend to say may be that, at the Council of Florence, the East proposed Maximus's letter as the basis of agreement. I leave aside the ambiguity arising from the statement by Romanides that Mark of Ephesus opposed a union on the basis of Maximus's text alone, which might be thought to contradict the statement that "the East Romans proposed it as the basis of union". This point is not worth raising, if you would just be satisfied with (at least part of) what Romanides does say. Romanides does not say that Saint Maximus proposed a compromise. And in fact Saint Maximus did not propose a compromise between what he saw as the West's view and some other view: he simply reported (favourably) his interpretation of what the West did mean by "Filioque procedit". So please rephrase what you want to say, and state no more than what Romanides states. Just say that, nearly eight centuries after the time of Saint Maximus, the East proposed his letter as a basis for union, not that Saint Maximus himself proposed something as a compromise. Esoglou (talk) 19:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was already throughout the article. Maximus' was the position taken that kept the churches from separating to begin with. What caused the separation was the rejection of this approach and the insistence that the Eastern Romans had removed the filioque from the Creed. Which then made it so the Latin understanding was one that was to be accepted by all peoples and languages and all of the churches as correct over what was already done. This position is not one of compromise. It was a position and the forcing of its accpetance, including the specific wording of the filioque, was supposedly justified because "the Pope said so".LoveMonkey (talk) 15:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only when, long after the time of Saint Maximus, some people considered the Latins' expression to be heretical, did they propose an orthodox "compromise". Saint Maximus himself considered the Latins' expression to be orthodox, and didn't dream of proposing a compromise between what was orthodox (the Latins' expression) and - what else? something heterodox? Please just give what Romanides states and not some synthesis of your own manufacture. Esoglou (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, Maximus does not. That is not what Maximus is saying. What he is saying is that as a Latin linguistics thing the issue for the Creed in Latin might be OK to say. Maximus then qualifies when it would be OK to use it.

1)Maximus is not telling anyone that the filioque should be dogma for the whole entire church that means people in the West whom speak something other then Latin also.
2)Nor does he ever say that the Creed should be permanently modified for the whole church in all of it's languages to include the filioque.
3)Nor is Maximus saying that the filioque should be in any language other then Latin, this would include Greek, French and English.
4)Nor is Maximus stating that as the Roman Catholic claim, that the addition speaks correctly for all Christians and all Christianity.
5)Nor is Maximus saying that the Latins should keep the filioque at the expense of Ecumenical Councils and unity with the East.
6)Nor is Maximus saying that the addition of the filioque is more correct then the Ecumenical Councils. No where does he state that.
7)Nor is Maximus saying that the Latin West should insist upon keeping the filioque and force it's acceptance against the other four parent churches and their respective patriarchs.
8)Nor is Maximus saying that the East should then modify their creed in Greek to include the filioque. Or to hold Council without Western representation.
9)Nor is Maximus saying that the the Western church has primacy and control and rule over the Eastern Churches.
10)Nor is Maximus saying that the Holy Spirit the Lord the giver of life proceeds from the Father and the Son. He does not say that. Maximus says the that Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. There is a difference.
11)Nor is Maximus saying that the filioque is righter or more correct then the Creed as was accepted in the East and West.
12)Nor is Maximus saying that the Pope has primacy over all of the churches and final say on what is accepted as dogma for all of the churches and what is not.
13)Nor is Maximus telling the Eastern Churches that the Latins should be allowed to make changes to church dogma and not hold Ecumenical Councils.
14)Nor is Maximus saying that the Egyptians should modify the Creed in Coptic to also include either from the Son and or Through the Son.
15)Nor is Maximus saying he has the right to define church dogma and that only he knows the absolute truth on the matter.
16)Nor is Maximus saying that he was speaking to justify that argument that the East was wrong. Wrong for maintaining it's teaching in the Creed that the Father is the hypostasis of God that is the origin of all things.LoveMonkey (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, what on earth are you talking about? Seventh-century Saint Maximus said none of these things, and nobody says he did. And he also did not propose a compromise between what, in the middle of that century, was in Pope Saint Martin I's letter, and which Saint Maximus considered to be orthodox, and something else. Why do you say he did something so pointless?

Don't you realize that Saint Maximus was talking about a phrase in Pope Saint Martin's letter about the Holy Spirit proceeding (unfortunately translated into Greek with the verb ἐκπορεύεσθαι, instead of with προϊέναι) from the Father and the Son? Don't you realize he was not talking about an insertion into the Creed? At the time of Saint Martin and Saint Maximus, the insertion in the Creed was probably spreading from Spain into France, but it didn't reach Rome until centuries later. So what on earth makes you imagine that Saint Maximus was proposing a compromise against Saint Martin, his ally in resisting Monthelitism? Esoglou (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

7)Nor is Maximus saying that the Latin West should insist upon keeping the filioque and force it's acceptance against the other four parent churches and their respective patriarchs.

Parents, brothers not off-spring not "sons" like Pope Damasus I did. The Eastern Churches were never the children of the Western Latin church. Your context for your above statement is too Roman Catholic centric and again you are talking about the section of the article dedicated to the Eastern Orthodox position. There was allot more going on then just a letter that was between the churches and how and who had authority. Why argue if the addition is right if it is at the expense of unity? Well only so for power over all the Church. As it is very much in the model of the East that Europe is big enough to have multiple Patriarchs and not just on Pope. Maximus never saw any of this. He did not argue that the Creed should be change to include the filioque he only argued that when in Latin one says through the Son (not from the Son) that the addition would not be against Orthodox theology.LoveMonkey (talk) 12:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What has this got to do with the question whether Saint Maximus "proposed a compromise"? He did not do any of the things you mention. They are only samples of the far more numerous things that he did not do. One of the many things that he did not do was to propose a compromise. What he did do you have been good enough to indicate below, by quoting (and italicizing): "St. Maximus the Confessor calmed Greek suspicions by translating it (the Filioque) into Greek categories". That is what he did do. Instead of proposing to the Latins some "compromise" or other, he explained to the Greeks the real meaning of the Latins' statement that the Holy Spirit proceeds (in the sense of the Latin procedit, a sense that fits within the Greek category of προϊέναι, not in the ἐκπορεύεσθαι category) from the Father and the Son. So on what grounds are you insisting that Saint Maximus himself proposed some compromise or other? Esoglou (talk) 16:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What he did do is give the basis for compromise in his own time. You are again being inappropriate with your insistence on words as it is just as easy to say basis for reconciliation or point of agreement as it is to say compromise. As this yourself you are using in the article as justification for the Roman Catholic use of the filioque. However as Maximus conveyed it and as the Roman Catholic made it dogma the filioque changed. None of that was expressed in the article before I took out massive amounts of person time to come here and fight you over it. Why did I have to do that? You are supposed to know the Eastern Position and you have edit warred and added inappropriate interpolations. To Maximus, to Pomazansky, to Romanides. Why is it that you are not adding at least these well known and published in the English worlds, Eastern theologians positions, but are rather insisting that I fight you over them? Can you not see how wrong you were in how you misused Pomazansky's teaching on Maximus for example.LoveMonkey (talk) 19:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Romanides rejects the filioque[edit]

I removed this misrepresentation of Romanides' position.

"John Romanides too has stated that the Filioque in itself "did not teach that the Son is 'cause' or 'co-cause' of the existence of the Holy Spirit", but that it could not be added to the Creed, "where 'procession'^[1] means 'cause' of existence of the Holy Spirit".^[2]"

Where in the link does he accept the filioque? What is it that is stated in the article that prompted the comment above? As this appears to again misrepresent the Orthodox position.LoveMonkey (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems properly sourced. "Neither the Roman papacy, nor the East Romans ever interpreted the council of 879 as a condemnation of the west Roman Filioque outside the Creed, since it did not teach that the Son is "cause" or "co-cause" of the existence of the Holy Spirit. This could not be added to the Creed where "procession" means "cause" of existence of the Holy Spirit." Esoglou (talk) 16:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Post the entire passage not just the above out of context. Meaning what is Romanides text over all message, what is the paper you are quoting specifically about. This above is again proof that you are here not to write a good article on this conflict and to have that article present all of the positions correctly. No this shows just how short sighted you are about insisting upon including in the Eastern Orthodox section your Roman Catholic bias and POV. That fact that you read that the way you did and do (and possibly can not) see just how completely distorted and wrong and the opposite of what was being said. This is one of the things you keep doing over and over and over again to Eastern Orthodox theologians and what they are stating. As Romanides is not talking about condemning how things are being taught outside the Creed where there is no limit and or a fixed message of dogma. But rather that the filoque is inside the Creed and is wrong in how it is inside the Creed. Why can you not see something that obvious?LoveMonkey (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Throughout the text Romanides makes clear that he is against the use of Filioque inside the Creed. Does anybody deny that he rejects the Filioque as part of the Creed? That is what his paper is about. But in the short passage quoted, he also makes clear, in the same paper, that the council that he may consider to be the eighth ecumenical council did not condemn the Filioque outside the Creed. He says so expressly. What on earth makes you think it impossible for him to make both these statements? Are you again making some synthesis of your own, combining some idea of yours with what Romanides actually says? Far from being contradictory, the two statements reinforce each other. And they are both statements by Romanides. Esoglou (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth are you talking about. Do you really think (I am positive you don't even know) that Romanides would want to be used at all to counter his own position?

"John Romanides too has stated that the Filioque in itself "did not teach that the Son is 'cause' or 'co-cause' of the existence of the Holy Spirit", but that it could not be added to the Creed, "where 'procession'

The only synthesis here is yours, taking Romanides position and words and stating ::"John Romanides too has stated that the Filioque in itself "did not teach that the Son is 'cause' or 'co-cause' of the existence of the Holy Spirit", but that it could not be added to the Creed, "where 'procession'."
You made no mention of inside, outside as you originally posted it. I am not at fault for your poor choice of words or placement of inappropriate content. You used "in itself" and then claimed that thats supposed to mean that Romanides says that the filioque is ok here but not ok there? Are you that blinded? The passage is still misleading and inappropriate as again it leads people to believe something about not only Romanides but also the Eastern position. Something that is inaccurate. Still what you claim is clear from what Romanides wrote is not what you have posted nor is it what you are saying nor would those whom are still alive and knew Romanides and what he did agree with how you have portrayed him in doing this. You are attempting to use Romanides own words against him and that is a grievous and unethical thing to do.LoveMonkey (talk) 12:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been helpful if you had indicated what exactly you think is inaccurate in my presentation of what Romanides wrote. Since you have merely made generic complaints, perhaps the only way I can put your mind at ease is to put the exact words of Romanides in the article. Then you won't be able to keep up your complaint, I hope.

Discussion is supposed to assist in reaching an agreed text. I changed my first wording to take account of your earlier comments, and I am prepared to do so again. It would be helpful if you too would be good enough to rephrase your own statements in view of my comments. Esoglou (talk) 16:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is more then words it is the position in the discussion of text which gives the appearance that Romanides is saying that the filioque in itself is acceptable and that this statment ends the section. It does not belong in the article. It distracts from the larger picture and appears as an afterthought on Romandies position.LoveMonkey (talk) 19:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Romanides East and West[edit]

What is completely missing and is being exploited either through ignorance or malice about Romanides here. Is that Romanides has stated and made his position that the Pope and the Western Church was forced to accept the filioque under pressure from the European Franks. So Romanides will say things about the Western Romans that run counter to what would be considered expected by someone against the Western use of the filioque.[31] Counter to the myth that only the Eastern Church felt pressure from kings and monarchs (see Caesaropapism).

The most important single factor which seriously deteriorated relations between Latin and Greek Christianity during the middle ages was the claim of Latin theologians that they understood the doctrines of the early Greek Ecumenical Councils better than the Greeks themselves. The controversy revolved around the Latin addition of the Filioque clause to the creed - a seemingly harmless statement that the Holy Spirit proceeds not only from the Father but also from the Son. The Greeks rejected the addition because it completely contradicted the Trinitarian categories common in the East and incorporated into the discussions and decisions of the First Ecumenical Council of Nicea in 325, the Council of Alexandria in 362, and the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 381. The Latins accepted the decisions of these Greek councils, but without fully understanding the categories dominating the lengthy debates which provided background. One calls to mind St. Augustine's complaint that he could not understand what the Greeks meant by distinguishing between essence and hypostasis in the Trinity (De Trinitate, v, 8, 10), and this happens to be one of the foundation stones of Greek Trinitarian theology. When difficulties first arose about the Filioque, the seventh century Greek theologian, St. Maximus the Confessor, calmed Greek suspicions by translating it into Greek categories. At this early stage each side realized that the other was professing the same faith but by the use of different terms. However, the enthusiasm of later Frankish theologians led the West to the claim that the Filioque is not only an admissible way of speaking about the Trinity, but an article of faith necessary for the salvation of the soul. In a council of 809 Charlemagne had his bishops declare an excommunication against anyone who did not accept the Filioque. In reaction to this, the Greeks laid aside St. Maximus translation of the Filioque and joined the Germans in incorporating this theological point into the political power struggle between themselves and the Germans over control of Italy and the Slavic world. The Germans won the struggle in Italy and the Greeks won most of it among the Slavs. The result has been that the Church and Europe have been badly divided ever since.

[32]LoveMonkey (talk) 13:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. "St. Maximus the Confessor calmed Greek suspicions by translating it (the Filioque) into Greek categories". Instead of "proposing a compromise", he considered what the Latins were really saying, and explained it to the Greeks, without asking the Latins to change it. (It is unfortunate that others do not imitate him.) So where do you get the idea that Saint Maximus proposed some compromise or other?

Romanides is doubtless right also in saying that the Greeks "laid aside St. Maximus' translation of the Filioque". What a pity they did so! It would have spared much trouble if they had accepted his translation as correct.

You are complaining, it seems, that what Romanides says about the Franks is missing from the article. Perhaps it is. I haven't checked. Why don't you put it in? In verifiable form, of course.

Perhaps you should at the same time also insert what Romanides says about the Greeks reacting to the Franks by themselves too using the Filioque point as an element in a political power struggle. Esoglou (talk)

The whole idea of the Pope is to take politics and power and have them become front and center in the church. I should not even have to post such an obvious thing. Why is the Eastern side in a vacuum?LoveMonkey (talk) 19:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to LoveMonkey[edit]

I see that LoveMonkey has at last agreed to remove (at least from the heading - I can check the rest of the text later) the claim that Saint Maximus proposed some compromise or other. I thank him for that. Can we now consider the above discussion(s) on that question closed? Esoglou (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I trust that LoveMonkey will alter also his "Eastern Orthodox representatives starting in the 8th century have attempted the Maximus compromise". I will return later, after LoveMonkey has completed his present series of changes, to see the result. Esoglou (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Eastern Orthodox representatives starting in the 8th century have attempted the Maximus compromise" there is an issue with this. Since there is a strand in the East in the Ecumenical movement to further this and it is called a compromise. Since you are involved why not make a proposal as to how to say it in a way that is stated but that it is not misrepresented. Here on the talkpage. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are, I think, multiple problems. What it is that has been attempted is not clearly indicated. That it was something that Maximos had proposed is even more unclear: in his letter he makes no proposal. That it (whatever it was) was a compromise is also unclear. What "attempts" were made in the eighth century is very unclear: wasn't it quite late in that century that, according to Romanides, the acceptance by both sides that in spite of the difference in terminology they professed the same faith first began to be broken. Esoglou (talk) 21:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again you have shown that you can not allow the Eastern Orthodox position to speak for itself. Your recent additions are confusing and show either you lack understanding (which means that you should leave the section alone) or you are attempting to frustrate.LoveMonkey (talk) 12:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Roman Catholic refutations to the Eastern Orthodox section[edit]

I have removed the Dulles passage from the Eastern Orthodox section I am not going into the Roman Catholic section and adding Orthodox refutations. The passage does not clarify why there is a conflict and what that conflict is it confuses the issue and is not a reflection of the Orthodox from the Orthodox. It does not belong in the Orthodox section. Please reply here before attempting to restore the passage.LoveMonkey (talk) 00:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not from the Eastern Orthodox section, but from the section about the significance of the statement by Saint Maximus (which, Romanides said, was laid aside by the East). Perhaps this had better be made clearer. Esoglou (talk) 09:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps your edit warring and adding in text that does not belong in the section. You have no justifiable reason to revert my removal. Dulles is not significant. Dulles is not saying anything to clarify the Orthodox position you have reverted out of no reason to improve the article but rather to edit war.LoveMonkey (talk) 12:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are constantly quoting at length what Eastern theologians have written about the Western teaching on the Filioque. Even if Dulles were speaking about the "Orthodox position", which he is not, he has as much right to do so as your favourite Eastern writers have to speak about the Western position.

Let us leave aside the lack of logic in the demand that you have expressed. Let us get instead to the practical question. Dulles, you say, is not saying anything to clarify the Orthodox position. So what? What he is doing is saying something about Saint Maximus's defence of the Filioque. Kindly restore that sourced statement to the section of the article that deals with what the saint said. Esoglou (talk) 13:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"So What?" As much content as you attack why are you asking me to not do the same? How many thousands of Roman Catholic clergy and layman have comments about this topic in such a general way? And why should any of them be included in the Eastern Orthodox Section of the article? Why should they, well for the sake of being concise they should not. Thats completely logical. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that there are thousands of Roman Catholic clergy who know what Saint Maximus wrote in defence of the Filioque. Only specialists like Dulles know of it. I don't see why what these say about Maximus should be included in the Eastern Orthodox section, but I do see why they should be put in the Saint Maximus section. Esoglou (talk) 15:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is again of no bearing to this article as this article is not about what you do or do not doubt. If Dulles is an expert for the Roman Catholic position then me moving him to the Roman Catholic section twice now, seems fair and logical. Why would anyone try and write a overview of a particular groups position involved in a conflict and include random comments from opposition in the groups statements? That makes no sense. You appear to be trying to counter positions, points of contention before even allowing the group to make their case and fully articulate their entire reasons and overview of those reasons. It makes the read a confused one that is constantly more about countering statements (which should be in another section) then clarifying exactly what one group is trying to say. I am just repeating what I have already stated.LoveMonkey (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that my opinion does not count for Wikipedia. I hope you agree that the same holds for yours. Dulles, on the other hand, is a recognized expert. The quotations come from his study on the history of the Filioque dispute and on present opinions (not just Roman Catholic). It was hosted by a Lutheran publication, not a Catholic one, which is not without significance. It was no "overview of a particular group's opinion" - what on earth made you think it was? - and the part quoted from it is about what Saint Maximus wrote, not about the Eastern Church's view. What logical reason can you give for not letting the quotation stay in the section that deals with what Saint Maximus wrote? Esoglou (talk) 18:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More Esoglou edit warring[edit]

1)[33] You did a revert of a completely unneeded piece of content. You then falsified an Orthodox source. You then rewrote the "2) option" of compromise as if it reflects a specific time when it is a general statement (making it impossible to source Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue). You continue to refuse sourcing because the sourcing does not say exactly how and what you want it to say and then argue over what the different words mean. Even then you still refuse to remove your falsification tags. I have to copyedit as Wikipedia gets in copyright trouble if its content is nothing more then allot of copies and pastes. Also from appearances you have tact onto my original source stating that Mark of Ephesus proposed Maximus' position as a compromise, another statement by Romanides from somewhere else, that is confusing. Its getting to the point that you are now asking me to source single words in the article body. You are engaging in pedantry, over-tagging, over-citing without possible justification in how that might improve the article, rather it does nothing but cause a great deal of time consumption on my part in an attempt to please your opinion and to convince and educate Esoglou. As to please your opinion, is not what the Wikipedia project is here for. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2)[34]Here is another example of edit warring and engaging in disruptive behavior. How is that the link to the text of the council does not confirm it's acceptance? How is it that the link does not reflect that the council is binding? Why are you making such a statement? That the text does not reflect that the council is binding? What part of the statement is not in the source and or is not validated by the source?LoveMonkey (talk) 14:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3)[35] The source and the weblink have the following passage. "Ignatius' supports were horrified by the reconciliation. But as Ignatius' sickened with old age, he received kind pastoral visits from Photius. Without difficulty he assented to Basil's wish that after his demise Photius should once again resume office as patriach." How is it that this is not enough to validate and or source the sentence in the article. How is it that this fails verification and does not verify -"Ignatius remained Patriarch until his death seven years later, where Ignatius himself confirmed Photius"?LoveMonkey (talk) 14:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4)[36]I can not continue to educate Esoglou on church history. Esoglou is again not trying to collaborate but is rather trying to frustrate. i.e. Esoglou's statement -"there were no patriarchs in early Christianity, i.e. before the First Council of Nicaea, and before the establishment of Constantinople"- Esoglou/Lima's denial of the pentarchy and the very least the Patriarch of Antioch is so beyond my grasp, I wonder what to do. I have given sources and either Esoglou refuses them outright or refuses to actually read them and then later I have to fight Esoglou and even then only occasionally and reluctantly Esoglou capitulates. I have to reword and conform the article not to the sources but to Esoglou's whim. Look at this one citation request from Esoglou as a prime example -Where as there were the four other Patriarchs (equivalent in rank to the Pope)^{[citation needed]} of the East whom themselves were to be appointed by the Patriarch of Constantinople- Esoglou is asking that an already sourced statement be source now in two parts even though the entire statement is sourced in the source given. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) The mention of what Dulles wrote about Saint Maximus's statement can scarcely, even in your own judgement, be "unneeded". You kept it in the article, moving it boldly to the Roman Catholicism section and then refusing to accept the WP:BRD process. Experience teaches that I cannot get you to accept the BRD process. I can only discuss your move here, while provisionally leaving the moved text in a section where it is quite out of place, using "quoted above" as a reference to the statement on which Dulles is commenting and that is found many paragraphs further down! Furthermore, it would be helpful if you would kindly explain what it is you mean by your option 2, which is parallel to your option 1 (remove "Filioque") and your option 3 (keep "Filioque"). In that context, it might be thought to mean: "Replace 'and the Son' with 'through the Son'". That would be something concrete that we could discuss. But now you say that option 2 "is a generic statement". I'm sorry, I find this quite the opposite of enlightening. You also say that Mark of Ephesus proposed Maximus's position, and that he proposed it as a compromise. Obviously, you don't mean that Mark of Ephesus proposed acceptance of Saint Maximus's actual statement, i.e., that the Westerners "have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit", a statement for which he gave an explanation that Romanides says was (later, not immediately) cast aside by the East. Do you mean a demand by the Easterners at the council, rather than by Mark of Ephesus, that the Latins state expressly that they did not believe the Son to be in any sense a cause (not just not the originating cause) of the Holy Spirit? Whatever Mark of Ephesus was proposing, he did not propose it as a compromise, since "he did not agree that Latin acceptance of this text is sufficient for union".

2) The source given does not state what you claim. If you had given no citation, there probably would have been no reason to add any tag whatever. It would be good if you would either give the correct source or omit the citation entirely.

3) I only asked for the page number of the source. Would it not have been a good and helpful idea to indicate the number?

4) What source can you cite that the title of "patriarch" and the pentarchy theory were formulated by the time of the First Council of Nicaea? What source can you give that the Patriarch of Constantinople appointed the other patriarchs even at a later period? Esoglou (talk) 15:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5) Why do you object to my saying that what Romanides says is what Romanides says? In the same passage he himself says there is a widespread contrary view! Neither Romanides nor anyone else (except yourself) says that Mark of Ephesus proposed that Westerners should recite the Creed with "through the Son" in place of "and the Son", a most odd idea! You ask about possible options other than the three of your own invention. I suggest that you read Dulles's study. He gives three basic ones, to which he adds a fourth. None of these is the nonsense one of getting the Westerners to recite the Creed with "per Filium" in place of "Filioque". And it is utter nonsense to claim that I am "directly saying" that, when Roman Catholics recite or sing the Creed with "and the Son", they are not really saying that! Of course they are! They are in fact saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds (procedit) from the Father and the Son. Just as Greek-speaking Saint Cyril of Alexandria (and Saint Maximus the Confessor) did in fact say that the Holy Spirit proceeds (προϊέναι verb) from the Father and the Son. It is no illusion that these Greek-speaking saints said that. And it is no illusion that the Westerners say the same. Esoglou (talk) 18:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5)[37]This set of diffs has a whole litany of edit warring. For starters I posted the Romanides repeatedly and then only when I pointed it out here on the talkpage did you acknowledge it. However you still insist that what Romanides is saying is invalid when Romanides was the representative of the Orthodox church to the World Council of Churches. Which in the Orthodox world is viewed as a group put together to resolve conflicts (Ecumenical) between the participating groups. You obviously don't know this and don't care to know it. However you do like to distort what Romanides is trying to say on behalf of the Orthodox church. As the diff for this statement I posted shows even when Romanides shows that the Eastern Orthodox church tried to compromise (via Mark of Ephesus at the Council of Florence) and suggest that the Roman Catholics simply say "from the Father through the Son" rather then as they say right now "from the Father and the Son" -that the Latins rejected this. Also if there is any other possible approach to this issue then 1)To hold to the tradition 2)compromise 3)accept it as it is and completely abandon any opposition, please please please pretty please tell what other options to the dispute and for that matter any other conflict that there might be. Again why am I having to source the obvious. You are directly saying that when the Roman Catholics recite the Creed in English and or in Latin that what people are hearing and seeing and reading them reciting is an illusion and instead what they are hearing and seeing and reading the Roman Catholics do is not what they are doing but instead everyone has gotten it wrong. If a person goes to services in a Roman Catholic church and hears, sees, and reads there the Creed it clearly will be said, heard, and read to say "From the Father and the Son" and not either simply "from the Father" or "From the Father through the Son". Why would such a thing have to be sourced? LoveMonkey (talk) 18:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Esoglou[edit]

Esoglou wrote
1) The mention of what Dulles wrote about Saint Maximus's statement can scarcely, even in your own judgement, be "unneeded". You kept it in the article, moving it boldly to the Roman Catholicism section and then refusing to accept the WP:BRD process. Experience teaches that I cannot get you to accept the BRD process. I can only discuss your move here, while provisionally leaving the moved text in a section where it is quite out of place, using "quoted above" as a reference to the statement on which Dulles is commenting and that is found many paragraphs further down!

LoveMonkey's response
As for Maximus there is a section called Church fathers where no specific side's opinion is indicated. Maybe it's too obvious for you to add the Roman Catholic commentary there. What I just pointed out is just one option in contrast to reverting and edit warring to insist that the Roman Catholic commentary on the filioque be added to the section called Eastern Orthodox.

Why should elucidation of the statement by Maximus be put in the section on the Church Fathers rather than in the section on the statement?! Dulles wasn't giving a Roman Catholic commentary, or a Lutheran one for that matter, but his own personal expert view. Esoglou (talk) 21:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dulles was not giving an Eastern Orthodox commentary either so maybe him being completely removed from the article was the correct action.LoveMonkey (talk) 01:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You surely don't mean, do you, that only Eastern Orthodox commentaries are allowed in the section on what Maximus wrote, or perhaps even in the article as a whole? Esoglou (talk) 09:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again the obvious is lost on you so I will state it for understanding by outside observers. This is a big article with lots of parts and sections to it. There is an Eastern Orthodox section to the article. That section is dedicated to the Eastern Orthodox perspective. Which I am trying to develop in such a way that people whom know nothing of the subject can in as a concise way as possible (compressing at least 1600 years of a groups perspective into a tiny article section is in itself more than abit ambitious) get a quick overview of that perspective. No one can really understand that position if every point in that perspective is being constantly countered and challenged before a complete overview, which ties each of those points into a complete perspective, is established. Sorry you just don't get that.LoveMonkey (talk) 13:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a section on Eastern Orthodox views. There is also a section on the statement made by Maximus the Confessor, recognized in both East and West as a saint who suffered for standing up for the truth. Esoglou (talk) 15:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Esoglou wrote
Furthermore, it would be helpful if you would kindly explain what it is you mean by your option 2, which is parallel to your option 1 (remove "Filioque") and your option 3 (keep "Filioque"). In that context, it might be thought to mean: "Replace 'and the Son' with 'through the Son'". That would be something concrete that we could discuss. But now you say that option 2 "is a generic statement". I'm sorry, I find this quite the opposite of enlightening.

LoveMonkey's response
The number 2 option is strict to compromise in contrast to capitulate or do nothing. Maximus'is but one such compromise. Nowhere is a specific date nessarray in order to clarify the point. As the Mark of Ephesus is just one example.

The declaration by Maximus that the Filioque was orthodox was a compromise between what and what? Esoglou (talk) 21:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maximus' position was rejected by the West when they insisted that one of the sources of origin of the Holy Spirit was the Christ, along with that accepting this teaching was necessary for ones salvation. Others like Mark of Ephesus tried to use Maximus' theology to get a compromise with the West whom refused Maximus' position. Thats sourced in the article.LoveMonkey (talk) 01:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maximus considered Filioque to be orthodox and proposed no "compromise" between orthodoxy and something non-orthodox. The East, Romanides said, later cast aside his explanation. 09:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Maximus considered the filioque to be Orthodox only in Latin and then only if it is explicit that people are taught it means through the Son not from the Son. Maximus did not ever teach that the Greeks should go into the Creed in Greek and revise the Creed to say "from the Father and the Son". In order for Maximus to be Orthodox as you have pointed out here Maximus would have had to have taken just such a position. As there is no justification to believe that Maximus would have been for the addition (the filioque) to then be carried over to other language translations of the Creed like say English, French, German. Point in English-If I throw a baseball through a window that is not the same as if a throw a baseball from a window. I have sourced where authorities of the East have made that clarification and yet you still don't get it.LoveMonkey (talk) 14:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

English, like Latin, does not make the ἐκπορεύεσθαι/προϊέναι distinction that Greek makes: English "proceeds", like Latin "procedit", may stand in for either of the two Greek verbs. Saint Maximus would judge "and the Son" in English to be orthodox for the same reason that he judged "Filioque" in Latin to be orthodox. Esoglou (talk) 15:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Esoglou wrote
You also say that Mark of Ephesus proposed Maximus's position, and that he proposed it as a compromise. Obviously, you don't mean that Mark of Ephesus proposed acceptance of Saint Maximus's actual statement, i.e., that the Westerners "have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit", a statement for which he gave an explanation that Romanides says was (later, not immediately) cast aside by the East.

LoveMonkey's response
Romanides states that the Eastern Romans (Orthodox) came prepared to compromise. You can not accept this wording obviously. The passage says "But the Latins flatly refused and went on demanding that the East Romans accept the Son as one "cause" with the Father of the Holy Spirit's existence." You don't like the wording as it does not say what you believe, rather you like it or not the wording of what Romanides stated is his. It is completely against everything here on Wikipedia for you to say you disagree with this statement and are going to edit war over it. Romanides made the statement as a representative for the Orthodox position. It is not up to Esoglou what the Orthodox position is. It is not up to Esoglou is distort and attack it. I can not be a contributor to an article and then say I have to stop and ignore policy because an editor just doesn't get it or doesnt like it. I can only post what I have read about the position from sources from that position. You have no justification to second quess nor to edit war,by over source requesting and nitpicking. Sourcing can't fix that you can't understand. Nor is it wikipedia's job to make people smart or dumb or all of the sudden to give them the appitude of a brain surgeon. That fact that you are giving this appearance should alarming in and of itself. As for Cast aside, in the context of Romanides that is from another article about a different time period you know that, you know what your doing you took a comment that Romanides made about the council 809 AD and tact it onto the end of a passage he was writing about 1438AD.

So it was as a representative for the Orthodox position that Romanides wrote his "The Filioque in the Dublin Agreed Statement 1984"! Really? And we are to take it that, unlike him, those who took part in the discussions were not doing so as representatives for the Orthodox position? Esoglou (talk) 21:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This comment shows how impossible it is for you to tolerate and or respect the Orthodox position, because aside from your obvious edit warring and sarcasm, Romanides is not and was not alone. But how ironic he was for union and was the mouth piece of the largest ecumenism movement from his era. Boy don't he now look stupid for that. Thanks to you that is.LoveMonkey (talk) 01:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No further comment needed. Esoglou (talk) 09:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Esoglou wrote
Whatever Mark of Ephesus was proposing, he did not propose it as a compromise, since "he did not agree that Latin acceptance of this text is sufficient for union" (Romanides).

LoveMonkey's response
Again having to point out to you that the sky is blue. So here again Esoglou the sky is blue, this is an article called the filioque St Mark of Ephesus can disagree with resolving the whole East-West Schism (yes thats actually another topic and article) and yet St Mark of Ephesus can say of the single issue of the filioque that he finds a way to resolve that single issue. Thats not that hard Esoglou as a matter of fact thats very obvious.

Saying "You must agree to this, but even if you do, that is not enough" is offering a compromise? Esoglou (talk) 21:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again I wonder at just how obvious or simple it has to get for you to understand. I think that no matter what you will edit war unless you are stopped. The East West Schism is about more then just the filioque so if the schism was to be resolved each of it points of contention one at a time had to be resolved. Why is it so hard for you to possibly understand that someone could agree on some points but disagree on others? LoveMonkey(talk) 01:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No further comment needed. Esoglou (talk) 09:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Esoglou wrote
2) The source given does not state what you claim. If you had given no citation, there probably would have been no reason to add any tag whatever. It would be good if you would either give the correct source or omit the citation entirely.

LoveMonkey's response
Source says "The Latins unexpectedly sprung the Maximus text upon the council to prove that the "Greeks" had always accepted the Filioque in the Creed of Rome, but, since Photius, had changed their position for non doctrinal reasons. The East Romans picked up the text and made it their own. After it was shown and accepted that the text had been mistranslated, the East Romans proposed it as the basis of union. This they had already planned to do, but hesitated since the context of the text had not survived. Now the Latins themselves gave them the opening they were waiting for. But the Latins flatly refused and went on demanding that the East Romans accept the Son as one "cause" with the Father of the Holy Spirit's existence." Yes the source says that the East Romans (Orthodox) proposed Maximus' position as a compromise and basis for union between East and West and the Latins refused it. Thats what the source says.

The source given was the one you referred to in your No. 2 above, concerning this edit. Esoglou (talk) 21:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, over-citation request Esoglou.LoveMonkey (talk) 01:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rather, over-citation. Where there was perhaps no need for any citation, an invalid citation was particularly unhelpful. Esoglou (talk) 09:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Esoglou your not listening. Click on the link you posted [38]. That link is not about the above and has nothing to do with what I posted.LoveMonkey (talk) 14:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My comment, "The source given does not state what you claim. …" (this edit), was marked with the number 2, indicating that it was my reply to the complaint that you marked with the same number 2: "Here is another example of edit warring and engaging in disruptive behavior. How is that the link to the text of the council does not confirm it's acceptance? How is it that the link does not reflect that the council is binding? Why are you making such a statement? That the text does not reflect that the council is binding? What part of the statement is not in the source and or is not validated by the source?" (this edit). The tag you were complaining about was [this, as I have already pointed out. How is it that you are again saying that my comment was on something else? Esoglou (talk) 15:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the link you originally posted is to another section of the article that you are edit warring in and to another part of the article that you asked to be sourced. And that link is a passage from the article that I linked to the actual notes of the council and you completely ignore that. As for your comments on the list of options under the rejection of Maximus again. You Esoglou have taken two different statements from John Romanides from two different articles, two different times and to different interactions between East and West at two different points and tacted them together to make it appear that Romanides is contradicting himself. And is a grievous and slanderous thing to do to John Romanides creditability. I have tried to remedy this with my recent edits to the section [39]. Which you then deleted/revert and restore your distortion [40] because you are edit warring and don't care about the group of people you are offending. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps LoveMonkey wants to open elsewhere a discussion on a different intervention of mine, but here no further comment is required by me. Esoglou (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Esoglou wrote
3) I only asked for the page number of the source. Would it not have been a good and helpful idea to indicate the number?

LoveMonkey's response
Why would a page number be needed on a citation that contains the text for you to read? Why did you not just read the source and then if you felt the need for a page number not just add it yourself? Unless you don't care and are making lots of "mistakes" so that you can frustate editors who have to then take away from their time to contribute to then argue with you instead.

That's what Template:pn is for. Esoglou (talk) 21:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No thats what your for. You could have added the page number, my source did not fail verification and you had not justification (other then to frustrated or edit war) to put a verification tag on my source like you did.[41]. Note I have added the page number but for all your attention to every little detail you've still not removed verification tag.LoveMonkey (talk) 01:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No further comment needed. Esoglou (talk) 09:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Esoglou wrote
4) What source can you cite that the title of "patriarch" and the pentarchy theory were formulated by the time of the First Council of Nicaea?

LoveMonkey's response
As the head of the Sanhedrin [42] dating from 180B.C. to 429 A.D. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So it's Jewish patriarchs you were referring to?! Esoglou (talk) 21:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

St. Gregory of Nazianzus 329-389 says: "the elder bishops, or more rightly, the patriarchs" (Orat., xlii, 23). So the word was not in the old testament? Nobody used until the year 400AD? Nobody used it until it got written down somewhere, really? As fathers of the church the title was just invented from thin air at a specific date and time? Really? So people did not do things until they first made sure that it was very specifically written down in Latin or English first? So James the first Patriarch of Jerusalem wasn't Jewish and people are to believe that Pope Linus was held in higher regard then James the Just brother of Jesus Christ? The same James the adelphoi of whom wrote the Epistle of James.LoveMonkey (talk) 01:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are we agreed then that no source can be cited for use by the time of the First Council of Nicaea (325, not 400) of the title "Patriarch" exclusively for the bishops of a select few sees? Besides, at the time of the Council, the bishop of Jerusalem did not have even metropolitan authority, and Constantinople, which had not yet been founded, was also not even a metropolitan see. Esoglou (talk) 09:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Paul of Samosata is and was referred to as Patriarch [43]. Officially does not mean the same as traditionally. And your argument holds no water when dealing with that history i.e. the Patriarch of Antioch, Patriarchs (Bible). Nor does it address the outrageous claim that Pope Linus would have been revered as more important in the Church then James the Just or John the Apostle whom lived during his life or very close to it (since the Roman Catholic are revising Irenaeus as wrong).

As the Metropolitan authority is also a misnomer, your implying that James the Just and the church of Jerusalem in general NEVER had that authority because it was not official. That might be partially true AFTER the city was destroyed by the Romans. Which you are implying. As it pits the role of bishop against the very apostles whom founded the church. As they are now not allowed to be called the fathers (Patriarchs in Hebrew) of their respective communities that they founded because no one had made such a thing "official". Now that Official is more important than traditional everyone whom lived as a Christian before the Official Cannon of the bible, must have went to hell because there was no valid official scripture established yet to save them as they could not as of yet refer to the bible, officially. Yet I think it is a matter of history to state that the biblical text was around before someone made it "official" just like the word Patriarch was around and used before someone made it "official". LoveMonkey (talk) 13:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are attributing to me what I have not said. I repeat my question: "What source can you cite that the title of "patriarch" and the pentarchy theory were formulated by the time of the First Council of Nicaea?" (I presumed that, especially because of the reference to the pentarchy, you would understand "patriarch" in its ecclesiastical sense, and I hope you will be good enough to interpret it in that sense now.) People now speak of "Pope" Linus and "Patriarch" Paul of Samosata; but you will find no record of them being given those titles in their lifetimes or at any time down to and including the First Council of Nicaea. As for the notion that the theory of the pentarchy existed at that time, the question what were the five sees that were then supposed to compose the pentarchy shows how ridiculous the notion is. Esoglou (talk) 15:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No I am not but your are being completely disingenuous. Since you have attributed to Pomazansky and Romanides things that they did not say. And then attempt to use their own words to source your strange distortions.

"People now speak of "Pope" Linus and "Patriarch" Paul of Samosata; but you will find no record of them being given those titles in their lifetimes or at any time down to and including the First Council of Nicaea."

So we would both agree that you are using an argument from silence. The argument from silence is rightly called a fallacy. So you would agree that the argument from silence is a fallacy and can not be used as the basis for any valid argument?LoveMonkey (talk) 16:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is somewhat more demanding than you with regard to inserting statements about pentarchy and patriarchates existing in early Christian times. Esoglou (talk) 16:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surprise. you are going to continue to justify your behavior even after it has been pointed out that you are trying to use a fallacy to justify your edit warring..LoveMonkey (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need for further comment. Esoglou (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes since you have made it abundantly clear that you are going to edit war on the Eastern Orthodox section and position in this article by any means you can.LoveMonkey (talk)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Filioque/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Filioque, a part of the Creed, should get a high ranking on the importance scale--Ambrosius007 (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 19:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 20:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

^ ἐκπορευόμενον
^ John S. Romanides, The Filioque in the Dublin Agreed Statement 1984

[1] ἐκπορευόμενον

[2] John S. Romanides, The Filioque in the Dublin Agreed Statement 1984

[1]

[2]