Talk:Filioque/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Still too long

This article is 45 pages long, some 16 of those pages are of often tendentious and polemical footnotes in a misnamed References section. I intend to ruthlessly cut out all historical material which is not in the Historical Overview section. If I inadvertently cut out some editor's favored hobbyhorse, I suggest he restore it in the proper chronologically ordered place in the history section. Rwflammang (talk) 00:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry to see that LoveMonkey has reverted the work spoken of here, and that he has given as explanation the edit summary, "Reverted another Roman Catholic edit without conversation radically deletes information that is not in the historical section without any talkpage talk". Since Rwflammang did raise the matter on the Talk page, the correct procedure would seem to be to discuss the matter there or to follow his suggestion of restoring it "in the proper chronologically ordered place", rather than to revert with an indication of conviction that a) Rwflammang's edit was a "Roman Catholic edit" (not a good-faith one?), and b) that everything that can be called Roman Catholic is wrong! I think the reverting should be speedily undone. Esoglou (talk) 12:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry to see a WP:Tag team and mass deletion under the guise of hobby horse won't bode well as a valid excuse to blanket delete sourced information. What consensus have either of you arrived at here on the talkpage? But you both know this. It never was about one side being respected. It is about silencing. You can't provide Roman Catholic sources to refute so you edit war and Esoglou will engage in blanket deleting directly or indirectly. Either way Esoglou just endorsed and signed off on it here. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I resent your assumption of bad faith. Rwflammang (talk) 12:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Resent? So what I am entitled to feel? LoveMonkey (talk) 13:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Whatever you want. Rwflammang (talk) 13:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

That appears to apply to you and Esoglou, exclusively. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's a start

So after cutting out the obvious fluff, the article has shrunk from 40 pages to 29. Not too bad. Still it's only start; as LoveMonkey has stated in his screed above, there is some stuff that should go back in.

So what is next? I propose consolidating the references; see this article as an example. Put the references in alphabetical order with just brief notes in-line to specify the references. In the process we can eliminate the long-winded editorializing.

Rwflammang (talk) 13:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

If you keep characterizing my contributions (screed, horse hobby) in that way, how is it that you expect me to respond? Hmm how Roman Catholic of you. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that you are right. "Screed" is not the appropriate word. I should have said, "unfounded accusation accompanied by an explanation". Rwflammang (talk) 14:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Unfounded is less of a personal attack so I will at least feel that there is some progress. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Consensus to avoid repetition

I thought we had a consensus way back in July that this article was too long and that an easy way to start improving it would be to eliminate repetition. We started along that road, but I got too weary of the constant accusations of bad faith. After a while I began to imagine that my accuser was projecting and that he was acting in bad faith himself. It is then that I decided I needed a vacation from this article.

Coming back from my vacation I saw that all my previous work, difficult though it was, amounted to very little benefit. There is still way too much repetition. It really is time to be bold and insist that all historical material be placed in some sort of order, namely chronological order if reasonable (and it usually is reasonable).

In principle, it seems to me, that this really should not be too difficult. The reason it was so difficult last summer was due to an edit war which was ongoing long before I came to this article, and which shows no sign of abating. Not only does this warring make it difficult to introduce improvements, but it leads to a proliferation of unordered repetitions throughout the article, as each edit warrior keeps driving home his points. (I called this "hobbyhorsing" in my comments above. That term seems to be offensive to the more sensitive souls here, so I'll try to come up with a better word.)

Please let's not make this article even worse than it is; it's already quite bad enough. Let's work to improve it. Rwflammang (talk) 14:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes lets. Lets do that through cooperation rather than attrition. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

You just reverted for a (7th or 8th time) large chunks of the Eastern Orthodox section of this article information that was sourced and was not repetitious all. [1] What potentially was and is a far cry from the amount you deleted. How is it that you are asking for consensus after the fact as you deleted the content after I clearly objected which means you have no consensus. LoveMonkey (talk) 22:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Roman Catholic POV

This is another article that Esoglou and crew have now clearing up (theosis, theoria, Roman Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences, East-West schism) and made it so all the ugly that the Roman Catholic church has engaged in is silenced, deleted. Esoglou himself posted on the conflict noticeboard that it was somehow bad that I implied that there was some sort of a connection between Nazis and the Roman Catholic church. Now this is in light of Nazis groups like the Ustaše and their connection with the Roman Catholic church as the Serbs refer to the mass murder that the Ustase did to the newly converted Serbs from Eastern Orthodoxy to Roman Catholicism as "just so that they could go to heaven" -executed the Serbs where, by Uniatism. So let me confirm. Are people to believe that I just made this up the filioque the schism the fourth crusade, etc. etc. etc. and the Ustasha episode of World War II up? I invented Aloysius Stepinac? But look at his wikipedia page and how it is pepper with citation requests for sourcing already provided (what that all about?).Did I then also (at the obvious and very least) then go and fabricate all of this data and generate Wikipedia articles to give this idea validity? Why is it that this is still swept under the rug when I can tell you with a clear and firm truth that it is one of many ugly such events fresh in the minds of the Eastern Orthodox. One of many. And how is this situation handled in the West? It is silenced? Can you name me a famous movie depicting this evil? No are the Croates considered evil for what they did then? Did NATO bomb them for ethnically cleansing some 300,000 Serbs from Croatia? Did NATO bomb them for fighting Islamic fundamentalism? How dare I bring this up. How dare I pointed out ugly things that happened and post the history from the opposing perspective? How dare people get both sides. But let me guess this is just me, it has nothing to do with how some Eastern Orthodox perceive the actions and behavior of Roman Catholics. This article is just 1 more example of how people shut out and silence what they don't like here on Wikipedia with the distortion and abuse of policy. But tell me what I am getting wrong in what was posted and now whole sale deleted under the sarcastic editing summaries. LoveMonkey (talk) 23:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It's the same story all over, I'm afraid. Living in the UK the media and education are astonishingly anti-Orthodox, to the point where noone believes it could ever be suggested in this universe that a Serb could be a victim, and everyone gets taught in History101 that the longest lasting Empire was the Hapsburgs/"Holy Roman (lol)"/austo-hungarian, and that there is no such thing as Byzantium. It seriously skews the questionnaires that are then put to the people, e.g. do you think the 1999 bombardment of the Serbs was justified? and yet it relies on this assumption that everyone now shares that the Serbs did ethnic-cleansing alone and the KLA were innocent heroesEugene-elgato (talk) 23:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes I asked for help and all of the administrators say they don't understand. [2] But all of the sudden I get blocked for 24 hours (I think that is why? no reason was given out side of the canned "edit warring") because I restored deleted content to the Eastern Orthodox section content deleted by a Roman Catholic editor. However I REALLY THOUGHT THAT WAS POLICY since that appears to be what the consensus article is saying is part of the process i.e. reword and or Consensus-building by soliciting outside opinions rather then blanket delete Wikipedia:Consensus. I suggest that all parties go like I DID ALREADY and read the consensus article. But then if they are on the side that is already judged wrong no policy means anything as its all a ruse to give admins "reasons" to their whims. I mean look at what this editor did out of blue without warning this editor blanket deletes the content and then does it AGAIN nobody says anything to them and I when I ask why about that now I get the threat that the page is going to get protected for along time. How can that be OK? Since the 3rr rule states (which is again at the whim of administrators) Jimmy Wales introduced a "three-revert rule",[152] whereby those users who reverse the effect of others' contributions to one article more than three times in a 24-hour period may be blocked. Well I did not reverse any contribution I reversed blanket deletions. LoveMonkey (talk) 03:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, blanket deleting is not correct- each thing should be considered and appropriate weight given to each side. Everything needs justification and editors should not have a particular policy unless it is justified. Oddly enough, and this is tangential, I actually support a broad policy of using (B)CE (outside of Christian pages) because this is an ENCYCLOPEDIA. Don't know what you think of that per se...But certainly where it comes to something so massively significant as filioque there must be equal balance between the parties: it may be assumed that if there are two sides to this it is overwhelmingly apparent that they are the Vatican and the Orthodox.

Consensus on deleted content

Where is the deleted information contained in the article already? How is it not edit warring for User RWFalamming to make this comment about his blanket deleting of the data.

Don't insert a long historical essay of material already covered in the article without consensus)

The Eastern Orthodox view of the filioque

The Eastern Orthodox view the Filioque as not proper to the actual Nicene Creed. This is because according to Orthodox theologians, the Nicene Creed establishes the doctrine of the Trinity (3 persons or hypostases of God). The Nicene Creed establishes the dogma of the persons called the Trinity. The Nicene Creed was not establishing the church dogma about the other realities of God. Especially the Creed was not defining the uncreated essence of God and the economy or interrelationships of the hypostases or persons of God. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Eastern Romans, Byzantines, Greeks

The core or biggest part of the issue historically in regards to the Filioque from an Eastern perspective is that the Western church fell under the conquest of the Germans and the Franks, who used the teaching of the Filioque and Papal authority to :

1. Distinguish an anti-Greek (anti-Eastern) character within the Western Christian faith (i.e. filioque, Papal supremacy, Latin customs addressed at the Quinisext Council); and
2. Exploit that difference and then attempt to conquer the East, by starting with forcing the East to accept whatever changes the West saw fit and the rule of the West over their own domains (i.e. Filioque, Papal supremacy, Sack of Constantinople, the Northern Crusades, most importantly Frankokratia and the Latin occupation and conquest of Eastern Rome);
3. Seek primacy rather than equality and fraternity between East and West;

LoveMonkey (talk) 13:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC) These processes culminated in the teaching in the East of the Western Captivity of Orthodox Theology by scholasticism and rationalism over mysticism. Some Eastern theologians view the heart of the conflict to be the presence of modalism, in specific the Sabellian heresy of modalism, first by the Latin West using the word persona (in English person or mask) in its translation of the Greek word hypostasis. Hypostasis is sometimes translated as existence or reality. Along with the Latin West inserting the Filioque which changes the teaching of the origin or source of the Holy Spirit.

I need to understand how this can be seen as content and information already included in the article and how it reading like an essence makes it so it can not be included in the article. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

How the bullying wins

When administrators involve themselves in the conflict without getting to know about the subject and then think that it is OK to attack someone who is in a defensive posture due to protracted edit warring from an edit warring editor named Esoglou and now his fellow editor RWFlamming. I will clarify my position for the record. I am only trying to add to this article balance and the Eastern Orthodox perspective thats all I have not when into the Roman Catholic sections and tried to undermine their perspective nor silence it nor rewrite it. Unfortunately for me this editor Esoglou while at times polite is very incompetent and very insistent that things that he does not like being said about the Roman Catholic church not be posted. Esoglou has now recruited another editor to help in this task. As the above data I re-posted is not an essay is not already mentioned in the article and is but a part of a set of legitimate objections made by official and authority Eastern Orthodox sources. This is nothing not formalities and procedures and policies and the editor Esoglou/Lima has a history of edit warring. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

That sort of talk is far more likely to get you sanctioned further for edit-warring and uncivil conduct than to do anything to advance your view of the situation. If you feel Esoglou is guilty of edit-warring, meatpuppetry, etc., then report it in the proper channels. Regardless of whether you choose to do that or not, this kind of thing does not belong in an article talk page, period. You've been advised recently, by three different editors, regarding how to report problems, document your efforts at dispute resolution, etc. (see User talk:2over0#filioque). My impression is that you have a lot of positive contributions to offer on this and related topics, but if you end up getting yourself topic-banned or indef-blocked for the same kind of misbehaviour you're accusing Esoglou and Rwflammang of, your ability to benefit this project will be lost and we will all suffer. Please keep in mind that I'm not an admin or any sort of wiki-muckamuck, and that I'm neither Orthodox nor Catholic and am not trying to take sides. I'm saying this solely as a fellow editor who wants to experience less "heat" and more "light" on this and other Wikipedia subjects. Richwales (talk · contribs) 23:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

POV Whitewashing and removal of sources critical of Roman Catholic position

This article has been white washed by Roman Catholic POV pushing editors whom are editwarring in order to remove positions expressed that show the history of this type may put them in a bad light. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Removing the lead image

Sorry folks, but I have removed the lead image from this article, because it is incorrectly characterized. The image is about Abraham's encounter with three angels at Mamre, and is not a representation of the Holy Trinity. Risker (talk) 03:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it is a representation of the Trinity, at Mamre, with Abraham. Rwflammang (talk) 17:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, this icon has usually been interpreted as referring to the Holy Trinity (and I think a simple google search is enough to prove this), although, it was also interpreted as representing only Christ with two angels (and according to the following, "Russian icon painters before Rublev subscribed to the same point of view that Abraham was visited by God (in Christ's image) and two angels."). In this type of icon, Christ is usually shown in the center (but sometimes in the left) in a representation also known as the "Angel of the Great Counsel" (as the following claims "Even when the middle figure is designated by other attributes as Christ, such a depiction as an angel was thoroughly plausible, for Christ bears the honorary title of "Angel of Great Counsel"", and He is also similarily represented in some other icons known as the Holy Wisdom ("Hagia Sophia") and the Holy Silence ("Hagia Hesychia")). I would also like to mention another similar icon, showing the Appearance of the Holy Trinity to Saint Alexander of Svir (and as far as I know, this type of icon is always understood as referring to the Holy Trinity, more information about this can be found here). However, these icons should not be understood as referring to the Divine Essence (which according to "Eastern Orthodox" doctrine, cannot be described by humans), they are a more symbolical representation of the three persons of the Holy Trinity, and since the icon painted by Andrei Rublev is usually interpreted as representing the Holy Trinity, I do not see any problem if this icon is shown in the article (and obviously, the issues discussed in the article are related to the dogma of the Trinity). Cody7777777 (talk) 19:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Procession (ἐκπόρευσιν) and progression (προϊέναι)

It would be helpful - in order to avoid confusion between the Spirit's procession from the Father and His progression through the Son - to have the Greek words from the original letter to Marinus included parenthetically after the English word "procession" within the existing text. At the present time the translation of Maximus' letter to Marinus gives the false impression that the Spirit's ἐκπόρευσιν from the Father is the same as His προϊέναι from the Father through the Son. - Steven Todd Kaster (66.234.210.139), 17:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

A note

A note on the wikipedia process in articles like this: Seems like this topic is the prototypic battle field of affiniados of this or that position, that probably will never converge to anything really usable. The "sources" acceptable to both sides is the bible and a set of church councils. The combatants have a full time reverting and criticising each other, each side locked in their respective position – neutral observers will never take a footstep in, because the topic discussed is a bunch of illogics (so called "mystical dogmata") where a neutral observer will never get what the topic is about, having a full time dodging flying arguments between the aggravated combatants. The reason why the set of illogics (dogmatized mutually contradictory clauses) got through the reality filter in the first hand, was because of church policy battles. Through the millenia, the logic systems of West improved, making some more reasonings around trinity invalid, meanwhile forgetting the original context where the dogmata were formulated.

In a case like this, the Wikipedia battle won't cease before some external research (with novel historical-critical methods) illuminates the conditions and the functional context where the "dogmata" were formulated, explaining what they really mean in a pragmatic sense. Very probably not what the combatants in this article believe. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 08:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

more deleting and censoring without valid justification

We're almost to WP:3RR without the deleting editor even making a single note about it on the talkpage here. So much for policy. They could at least post citation tag requests rather than wholesale or blanket deleting my contributions. LoveMonkey (talk) 00:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Pff. Censoring, of course. I explained very carefully in my edit summaries and on your talk page (comments which you chose to remove) why I reverted your unverified and ungrammatical edits. To tag bad English with copyedit, POV, and citation needed tags is worse than removing the commentary in the first place. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
• If requiring correct and intelligible English is the same as censorship, I stand guilty as charged. But see these two examples. "As these passages speak of the operation of the Holy Spirit in the world which is economy they do not speak of the ontology (being) or the source of existence of the Holy Spirit." This is simply unintelligible. "Including changing all persons of the Trinity, into having origin in the essence of God (the heresy of Sabellianism), rather than confirming one God in Father having the essence of the Father whom is God." The whole thing is an incomplete sentence, the fist comma is incorrect, what "having the essence" modifies is unclear, the "whom" is incorrect.

  I can copyedit away, but I don't even know where to start, since the grammar is so unclear that the meaning is incomprehensible. And where should the {{cn}} tags go? After every other noun? Drmies (talk) 01:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

How strange that after you Esoglou whom is not supposed to be commenting on my edits at all makes a harassing comment on my talkpage[3]. Please post a copyedit request template at the beginning of the article if you have issues with the language of the article content. That is no excuse for whole sale and blanket deleting another editor's contribution to the article. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• I don't know if that is strange or not, you tell me. I don't think that I know Esoglou. If you wish to make any kind of accusation, please do so more clearly instead of insinuating things. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 19:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Well there is an insinuation about how Esoglou is going to try and exploit this to get rid of my contributions. As Esoglou is a POV pushing editor whom is involved with editwars on several theological articles. As is Pseudo Richard whom writes entire articles (i.e. Palamism) about subjects he refuses to read on. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

1. Assume good faith. Not every editor who contradicts or criticizes you is part of the cabal that is out to get you. Get a clue already.
2. If you have a complaint about the article on Palamism, please either state what it is or fix it yourself. Whining about my "refusal to read" is childish. The idea of Wikipedia is that people contribute what they know. Is there something actually wrong with the article content or are you just taking unjustified potshots at me because I didn't read something you wanted me to read?
3. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• LoveMonkey, I don't know if you're not answering my question purposely or not, but I accept your apology. Drmies (talk) 19:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Uh OK. If you really hate the contribution then so be it. Its gone now. And Richard is a drama queen, this is beyond goofy (Richards comments that is). Richard has made plenty of inappropriate comments so he needs to practice what he preaches. He also needs to leave Orthodox theology AND ME alone.[4] LoveMonkey (talk) 04:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I endorse DrMies' deletion of the text. Some text can be copyedited rather than deleted. The text in question is too deficient to do that. Please work on the text with other editors before reinserting it into the article. (See the section below which I created before reading this exchange.) --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Eastern Orthodox section

I've reverted LoveMonkey's recent edits because the quality of the text is too poor to leave in the article. I am NOT objecting to the content per se but the presentation of ideas is sorely deficient. Perhaps we can work on it here on this Talk Page and improve it to the point where it can be reinserted into the article. Unfortunately, my knowledge of the topic is weak and my time this morning is limited so I will simply place the deleted text here in hopes that we can engage in a dialog to fix the text.

Titus 3:6 speaks of God pouring out the Holy Spirit "through Jesus Christ our Saviour", whileActs 2:33 speaks of Jesus himself pouring out the Holy Spirit, having received the promise of the Holy Spirit from the Father. None of the bible passages noted speak to the origin of the Holy Spirit. As these passages speak of the operation of the Holy Spirit in the world which is economy they do not speak of the ontology (being) or the source of existence of the Holy Spirit. Eastern Orthodox theologians have stated that in order to resolve this obvious conflict Western theologians had to then make further changes to doctrine. Including changing all persons of the Trinity, into having origin in the essence of God (the heresy of Sabellianism). Which is a teaching of philosophical speculation rather than a teaching from experience (theoria). rather than confirming one God in Father having the essence of the Father whom is God. The Eastern Orthodox interpretation is one God in Father. The Latin West states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father andthe Son(ex Patre Filioque procedit) but that the Spirit originates only with the Father and merely spirates through the Son. This position having clarification only outside the symbol of faith, the Nicene creed.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

LoveMonkey, I volunteer to help you tighten the text up.--Taiwan boi (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Pseudo-Richard, could you be clear about exactly what the problem is here? Is it just wording and phrasing? I'd be happy to copy edit if that's the main issue.--Taiwan boi (talk) 17:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I accept and graciously thank you for your help Taiwan boi I have also asked user User talk:Capodistria also for assistance. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Taiwan boi, thanks for the offer of assistance. I only have a few minutes but I will try to hit the key issues:

1. The text prior to LM's recent edits cites Titus and Acts. I don't know who contributed this text but it relies on primary sources. Ideally, it would cite a secondary source who makes the point in the text.
2. LM's recently added text starts off with "None of the bible passages noted speak to the origin of the Holy Spirit." This seems argumentative. Wikipedia articles should not seem to be arguing with themselves. NPOV doesn't mean that POV editor A makes point #1 to which POV editor B makes rebuttal with point #2 with the result being a running dispute throughout the article where the reader starts to feel like he's watching a ping-pong match. Wikipedia articles need to step back and take a truly NPOV stance where both POV A and B are presented but not in a point/counterpoint style reminiscent of a argument.
3. "Including changing all persons of the Trinity, into having origin in the essence of God (the heresy of Sabellianism)." This is not a well-formed sentence.
4. "Which is a teaching of philosophical speculation rather than a teaching from experience (theoria)." First of all, this is not a well-formed sentence. "Which" is not a proper subject of a main clause. Secondly, this sentence is starting to launch into a rant about how Western theologians rely on philosophical speculation rather than theoria. We simply cannot launch into this line of argument every time we want to present the idea that the EO Church disagrees with the West on a point of theological doctrine. It results in a long digression from the main topic which is the EOC's stance on the Filioque. I'm not saying that this speculation/theoria point has no place in Wikipedia. I'm just saying that we can't be embarking on these long detours in every article.
5. "rather than confirming one God in Father having the essence of the Father whom is God." Uh, what? What does this have to do with the text that came before it? I have the sense that there is something valuable being said here but I'm unclear as to what it is and what it has to do with the rest of the paragraph.
6. "The Eastern Orthodox interpretation is one God in Father." Again, why does this need to be said right here? (NB: The quoted text from the source is actually better than the text that it supports. If we could present what the source says, it would be helpful.
7. "The Latin West states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father andthe Son(ex Patre Filioque procedit) but that the Spirit originates only with the Father and merely spirates through the Son." I think what's being attempted here is something along the lines of "The Latin West states... but the Eastern Orthodox believe..."
8. "This position having clarification only outside the symbol of faith, the Nicene creed." Unclear to me what is being said and what it has to do with the text that preceded it.

In general, it would be useful to have the quoted text from the sources provided so we can put together a more cogently written paragraph.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Overall, this paragraph seems to be defining the EO view by attacking the Western view. This is not good encyclopedic style. It would be better to just present the EO view and then follow that presentation with a comparison against the Western view. The current style is too dialectic in form. Better to make it expository. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 22:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clear editing direction, I'll take note. I understand what you say about it defining the EO view by attacking the Western view, but that's unfortunately how many doctrines on both sides were defined historically; as a reaction to the alternative view. However, let's see what we can do about the style and tone.--Taiwan boi (talk) 00:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You make a good point about encyclopedic style. I have been complaining about tone here for quite a while, as the archives will attest. I sense in recent edits a tone which has been at least partly removed in old deleted edits; I'll call this tone the vast Frankish conspiracy tone, which in a breathless manner seeks to accuse the Franks generally of the crime of introducing the Filioque. If the notion that the Franks should receive all the glory and the honor for this innovation is to be included at all in this article, then it will have to be included in a straightforward just-the-facts-maam way. And rather than credit a vague Frankish influence, it should state in an encyclopedic manner which Frankish king did what, and what Frankish bishop did what specifically.

The whole issue of attacking the western view is also in some part a manner of tone, and in some part a manner of undue weight, or at least so it seems to me. Am I the only one who finds it weird that a very large section of this article about a minor Latin rite liturgical practice is devoted to the Eastern reaction to it? Imagine if the article on Karma a big section on Roman Catholic opinions about it. Or imagine if the article Pillars of Islam had a major Shinto section critiquing it. Granted, the historical role of the Filioque in East-West conflict is important enough to merit considerable mention of the Eastern reaction to it, but it is not important enough, or so it seems to me, to merit an overly long section on the theological response in Eastern Orthodox mystagogy.

I hope these elucidations are more helpful than confusing. Rwflammang (talk) 23:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

From the OCA website..[5]

"

The Filioque Issue

The clash between the East and the West was not only over the mission to the Slavs. It had deeper roots in the role which the new Frankish and Germanic rulers were to play in Western Europe and in the Western Church.

In the year 800, on Christmas Day, Charlemagne was crowned emperor by the Pope of Rome. In 792 this new ruler had already sent his Carolingian Books (Libri Carolini) to Pope Hadrian I. The reason for Charlemagne's attack against the Eastern Church was that this was the only way in which he could discredit the Eastern emperor so that he himself could be recognized as the sole ruler in Christendom. In his vision of the new Holy Roman Empire Charlemagne wanted to include all of the East together with all of the West.

In 808 Pope Leo III of Rome reacted against the charges of Charlemagne against the East. He had the creed without the filioque enshrined in golden tablets on the doors of St. Peter's." LoveMonkey (talk) 16:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. These points are currently made in the Historical Overview section of the article. Rwflammang (talk) 12:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but the Filioque is historically all about attack and counter-attack. They were less about theology and more about power play. However, I note what you say about tone and weight.--Taiwan boi (talk) 00:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that that the Council of Toledo, or the Council of Hatfield, or the doctrines of Ambrose or Leo I were attacks on Easterners. Aryans maybe, but not Easterners. As far as Photius goes, I don't know; it may have all been power play so far as I know or don't know. All of which demonstrates why a just-facts encyclopedic tone is so necessary. 02:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec)

I agree with Rwflammang re the lack of encyclopedic style in LoveMonkey's recent contribution but I disagree with the point regarding "undue weight". While the West may think of the Filioque as "minor", the East sees it as a major obstacle. Thus, it is worthwhile to have a big article on the topic. What I am objecting to is not the presentation of the attack/counterattack in the real world. What I'm objecting to is the structuring of the article along those lines. If we are going to do the attack/counterattack style, we need to present specific issues and possibly a chronological presentation as well. At the risk of self-promotion, consider the article on the Hesychast controversy. In that article, a specific list of issues is presented followed by a chronology of the controversy itself. The problem (IMO) with LoveMonkey's edits is that it was written as if it was the article author's view (i.e. in this case, LoveMonkey's view). A more encyclopedic tone would say something like "Lossky launched an attack against the Filioque by re-emphasizing the pernicious influence of Frankish Arianism on Western theology" (NB: that's meant as an exemplar, I don't know enough about Lossky to write the sentence accurately.) --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 02:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I have made an initial edit. [6]See what you think]. Richard, I have moved the theoria point to the main theoria article, and included a link to it in the Filioque article.--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Taiwan boi. Thank you for your efforts; the resulting text is a big improvement. I have further issues with the text which I will present in a new section. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

A quick comment about LoveMonkey's writing style

I just want to point out that one of the problems with LoveMonkey's writing style is that he tends to edit as if he were speaking conversationally or giving a sermon. The problem here is that humans don't speak using correct grammar all the time nor do they necessarily speak in complete sentences. Unfortunately, the spoken style of sentence fragments is not appropriate encyclopedic style. I have seen LoveMonkey write quite well in certain contexts. I think what happens is that he gets caught up in the passion of explaining points of Orthodox theology and starts writing in a conversational/sermonizing style which then creates all sorts of heartburn among other editors. Another problem is that LoveMonkey sometimes gets on a roll and starts spinning out long sentences of theological points which make references to other theological concepts that are not always clear to the lay reader. These need to be untangled and clarified so that the average lay reader can make sense of it. In summary, it's not that LoveMonkey can't write well, it's that he sometimes gets carried away with what he's writing and forgets to do so. If we all (including LoveMonkey) could recognize that this is what is going on, we could be more collegial and collaborative in helping him get his ideas into articles with less heartburn for all of us. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with Pseudo-Richard. The language of the article is obviously more of a religious narrative then an academic, or encyclopedic text. --eiriklil 17:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Some further issues to attend to

My time is limited this morning but my review of the article this morning turned up some issues that we should look at and fix. Re - scope of content and organization of the article:

1. The article currently has section 1.3 Eastern Orthodoxy and 1.5 Theological contention. However 1.5 is mostly about the Eastern Orthodox view and, unless we think this section is likely to be expanded with the views of other churches, this amounts to two sections on the same topic. IMO, 1.3 and 1.5 could easily be merged.
2. We should consider whether all that is said in 1.5 needs to be in this article. As it stands, the article is heavily weighted in the direction of presenting the Orthodox view. One begins to wonder if there is enough material for an article titled Eastern Orthodox criticism of the Filioque. This is arguably a POV fork but it is one way to resolve the current imbalance. I just don't think the Roman Catholic and Anglican sections are going to be expanded to anywhere near the current size of the Theological contention section.
3. We ought to consider moving section 1.4 much earlier in the article (i.e. before any discussion of the views of differing churches)

Some other stylistic issues with the text in Section 1.5.1:

1. "In the hypostases of God as correctly expressed against the teachings considered outside the church." This is not a sentence.
2. "The Father hypostasis of the Nicene Creed is the origin of all." This sentence needs to be expanded. I know it means something but we need to spell it out for the reader.
3. "In the judgment of these Orthodox," - which Orthodox? the "Orthodox theologians (e.g. Michael Pomazansky)"? This is too vague. Is Pomazansky the leading proponent of a school of theologians who hold this view? I doubt it. So, we need to be more explicit as to which theologians we are talking about. We should probably mention Lossky and/or Romanides here. Aren't we really asserting that these views have been held by most Orthodox theologians through the centuries? If so, we need to make that explicit.
4. "They thus perceive the West as teaching through more than one type of theological Filioque a different origin and cause of the Holy Spirit." - This sentence needs help. It might help to put a comma between "theological Filioque" and "a different origin and cause of the Holy Spirit" but the meaning of the sentence is unclear and we should consider giving it a more substantial rewrite.
5. "That through the dogmatic Roman Catholic Filioque the Holy Spirit is subordinate to the Father and the Son and not a free and independent and equal to the Father as an hypostasis that receives his uncreatedness from the origin of all things, the Father hypostasis. Trinity expresses the idea of message, messenger and revealer, or mind, word and meaning." - Ouch. The first is not a sentence. Sentences should not start with "That" in the way that this and many other LoveMonkey non-sentences do. Also, even if that problem is fixed, we would wind up with a run-on sentence. This needs to be broken up into more digestible chunks.
6. "Eastern Orthodox Christians believe in one God the Father, whose person is uncaused and unoriginate, who, because He is love and communion, always exists with His Word and Spirit." - Uh, yeah... but so do most other Christians. The placement of this sentence here seems to be some kind of POV or polemic. Or, assuming good faith, it's just empty sermonizing. If we're going to say this, we need to actually make a point that links it to the topic of the section which is, after all, "Eastern Orthodox view of Roman Catholic theology". Is the text here arguing that Roman Catholics don't believe the same thing? We're skating on thin ice here.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that 1.3 and 1.5 should be merged. Rwflammang (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the article should also offer more details why Eastern Orthodox theologians (as early as the Patriarch Photius) have viewed the "Filioque" as leading to a form of modalism/sabellianism (although there are already a few mentions in the article about this, I think this issue should have a more detailed and clearer discussion). EO theologians believe that the Father (as hypostasis/person) is the only origin of existence, and they have seen the "Filioque" as implying either that there are two sources of existence (leading to "di-theism"), or that the Father and the Son are the same person/hypostasis, which leads to "modalism/sabellianism" (or as claiming that the Spirit proceeds from the Divine Essence, instead from the Father as hypostasis/person, since the west has also claimed that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle). EO theologians have also stated that this western "modalist" view (about the Persons being just inner relations within the Essence) has its roots in the works of Augustine, and was further promoted by the scholasticism of Thomas Aquinas. Some details about this issue may be found in the following sources[7][8][9][10]. Cody7777777 (talk) 23:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Removed the word "instead" as John the Confessor was earlier than the 3 other saints

I removed the word instead from the text as it did not appear to make sense grammar wise. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Major restructuring proposed

I humbly propose that that the Historical overview section come before the Present position of various churches section. This is for several reasons:

• The present position section is mess, while the historical section has recently been pruned. Let's put our best foot forward.
• Perhaps putting the historical section first might prove to obviate the felt need to have separate history sections for each church. Perhaps even the opinions of Eastern/Western saints could be moved into the historical section. This might prove to be an incentive towards cleaning up the article for the editors of the present position section.
• The contents of the present position section are the inevitable consequence of the events described in the historical section. Logic dictates that conclusions follow axioms.

Comments? Rwflammang (talk) 00:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

It would improve the article, however having a history of the filioque controversy article would be allot better so that this one could be a theologically based one. Also some of the copyeditors are just really good at what they do. This one might present a challenge but the need for a copyedit rewrite (a complete one BTW). It is very important and objective eyes would really push it to be crafted with much more frank, direct statements. LoveMonkey (talk) 02:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Not a Sentence

"As the Father is unique, as the Son is unique, as the Spirit is unique." This is not a sentence, but three clauses, with no subject or predicate. GeneCallahan (talk) 01:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for catching that and bringing it to our attention. There is an Orthodox editor who seems not to understand the idea that a well-formed sentence requires a subject and a predicate. He seems to get into a groove and write in a near "stream-of-consciousness" mode. I have gone after that section with a machete and hacked out stuff that is incoherent or otherwise poorly written. I'm sure there will be some ajidah about that. Many of the articles related to the Orthodox Church suffer from this problem and there aren't enough people policing those articles to find all of these issues, let alone correct them. BTW, next time, feel free to be bold and fix it yourself. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 02:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

More editing warring behaviour

Why is Esoglou editing Eastern Orthodox material when he agreed not to?--Taiwan boi (talk) 01:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Again how "through the Son" is understood in the East is MIA

The Nicene Creed states....

who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man.

When the Eastern fathers are saying "through Christ" or "through the Son" they are referring to this teaching, passage from the actual creed. The West has this backwards. This is completely missing from this article. As most Greek Patristic quotations say "through", which is quite a different notion than "equally" "as from one principle". LoveMonkey (talk) 04:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the following books show the Eastern Orthodox understanding of the Spirit's procession from the Father though the Son as referring to the role of the Holy Spirit in the economy of salvation. "Orthodox theologians argue that Augustine and Western theologians have confused the inner being of the Trinity, or the “ontological Trinity,” and the work of the Persons of the Trinity for human salvation, or the “economic Trinity...Therefore, the term economic Trinity refers to the work of the Persons of the Holy Trinity for the salvation of humanity. Therefore, the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father, according to an ontological understanding of the Trinity, but is sent by the Son for human salvation when the Trinity is understood economically. For this reason, some Eastern Fathers, such as St. John of Damascus, wrote that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. However, St. John is very careful to state that the Father is the “cause” of both the Son and the Holy Spirit.", "In all the cases where there can be seen ' intimations' of a doctrine of double procession in the early Latins the immediate context was of the soteriological mission of the Spirit in the world, what the Orthodox would call the 'economy' of salvation. In Latin thinkers after Augustine, however, this began to change and the Filioque started, more and more, to be referred to the eternal relations of the Divine Trinity. In the context of 'economic' or soteriological discourse about God, the Orthodox too believe that it is perfectly correct to speak of the Son sending the Spirit, just as it is to speak of the Spirit 'driving the Son into the wilderness', but that context has to be distinguished from statements that concern the eternal intra-hypostatic life of God: theologia proper, not economia." Regarding, the western claim that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle, as also mentioned in an earlier discussion, Orthodox theologians have seen this as leading to a form of "Sabellianism" or modalism([11][12][13]). Cody7777777 (talk) 13:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Theological inaccuracy

The section on Orthodox theology grounds the Orthodox rejection of the filioque partially on the idea that "the Father is the God of the Old Testament." That has nothing to do with the rejection of the filioque. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each fully God, without division, but the revelation of God in the Old Testament is, according to Orthodox theology, primarily a revelation of Christ, the Logos. If no one has any objection, I'll change it... OrthodoxLinguist (talk) 03:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)OrthodoxLinguist

Good spotting! It sounds like someone's written a straw-man into the article

Montalban (talk) 07:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Montalban, are you not rather too harsh in attributing such motives to LoveMonkey's edit? Esoglou (talk) 07:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

double standards?

On the Papal Supremacy article I was told that I could not use direct quotes from Early Church Fathers, because this was synthesis.

The whole section Views of Roman Catholic saints of East and West shows this, and in fact it is misleading in itself to say "Roman Catholic" saints of the east and west, because some many of these saints are also Orthodox saints. Montalban (talk) 09:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that to say "Roman Catholic saints" in the title is bad. If you can suggest a better title, I'd certainly be open to considering it. Are these "Church Fathers" or just "saints"? I haven't checked each quote to get a read on what the group represents.

As for "direct quotes from primary sources", the real problem is quoting a primary source and citing the work of the primary source in support of it. That is what is vulnerable to the criticism of original research and synthesis. A quick scan of the references numbered 20-39 shows a number of secondary sources such as McGuckin, Price, Bray, Schwartz. It might be preferable to mention the secondary source in the article text depending on the context of the quote and what the source is saying. For example, one might change the article text to say "According to McGuckin, Catholics argue for the Filioque by citing Church Father X's dictume '....'". Someone needs to go re-read the references and change the article text if such changes are called for. I unfortunately do not have access to the sources nor do I have the time to take on this task at the moment. If you have access to one or more of the sources, perhaps you could check the citations and determine if a change to the article text is called for.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

This selection of explicit (not interpreted) expressions of early-centuries belief that the Holy Spirit proceeds (procedere in Latin, προϊέναι in Greek, and whatever the verb is in Syriac) from the Father and the Son was inspired by the section Views of Eastern Orthodox saints. Same form of title as that objected to and now changed in the case of Roman Catholic saints. However, I am not asking for a return to the former heading. Esoglou (talk) 20:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick glance at pp. 170-171 of McGuckin (ref #20) indicates that there is a very good discussion of how the East and West came to differ on the Filioque. I would like to see more of that kind of treatment in this article. Time constraints, however, do not permit me to get more deeply involved at the moment. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's how the article is structured. Saint Hilary (c. 300 – c. 368) wrote: "Concerning the Holy Spirit I ought not to be silent, and yet I have no need to speak; still, for the sake of those who are in ignorance, I cannot refrain. There is no need to speak, because we are bound to confess Him, proceeding, as He does, from Father and Son."[21] He also said that the Holy Spirit "receives from both the Father and the Son".[22]

The quote [21] is not a secondary source. [22] is.

More later Montalban (talk) 05:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I have fixed quote [21] although by citing a very old source (1912!). I admit I was being lazy and used the first suitable source that came up via searching in Google Books. I imagine a more suitable source could be found if a bit more effort were employed. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 06:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thems that cite rules all the time have to live by those rules!

However, in the quote is the word "silent" I did a search on that google book and the word appears thrice. None of them at the page that you cite. Therefore I have to ask what is it that you think the quote is backing up?

[30] remains a primary source, so is [35]

[37] is a partisan source

[38] doesn't support the sentence it's supposed to (for e.g. it doesn't mention Leo at all)

[39] has no bearing on the filioque at all

[40] is not sufficiently referenced

Montalban (talk) 07:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

To me it seems downright silly not to accept the text of the writer as evidence that he wrote what he wrote, and to insist instead on having sources that say that he wrote what he wrote. I have added some such secondary sources for Hilary. It doesn't take all that long. Before I add similar secondary sources for others, I think it best to see if other editors insist on their demands. Esoglou (talk) 07:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It is indeed a fine line between silliness and NPOV exactitude. It may indeed be silly to require a secondary source to support the assertion that Hilary wrote "x". Where we really need a secondary source is if we assert that by writing "x", Hilary was supporting the use of the Filioque. If Hilary did not specifically reference the Filioque in his writing (highly unlikely considering that he lived in the 4th century), then we must not quote his writing in support of the Filioque. Instead, we must cite a secondary source that asserts that Hilary's writing can be used to support the use of the Filioque. I confess that a second look at Swete shows no obvious evidence that Swete is talking about the Filioque in discussing Hilary. I suspect that McGuckin is the better source in this regard.

Montalban is right. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If Wikipedia editors are not allowed to create syllogisms of original research in support of Orthodox positions, then neither are they to be allowed to do so in support of Catholic positions. Let's find the secondary sources that make these arguments. The article will be all the better for us doing the homework to support our text.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 08:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Esoglou below)

So, for example, if we do a Google Books search on "Hilary Filioque", we find this source as the first search result. "Hilary of Poitiers, the “Athanasius of the West,” is often listed, along with Augustine of Hippo, as the chief patristic source for the Latin teaching on the filioque." (Anthony Edward Siecienski - 2010). Now, we have a reliable source that links Hilary to the Filioque rather than having to rely on some anonymous Wikipedia editor whose credentials we cannot easily establish, verify or evaluate. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 09:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Hilary was not supporting (or opposing) the Filioque. The Filioque had not yet been included in the Nicene Creed. The Nicene Creed itself had not been written. But Hilary said the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. That is what Hilary is being cited for. Nothing more. You don't need a secondary source to prove Hilary said the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. He did, and so did many others, before anyone ever denied it. Esoglou (talk) 08:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know that Hilary could not have been talking specifically about the Filioque; that's what I meant by the "highly unlikely..." comment. That makes it difficult for us to cite Hilary as a primary source because we are constructing a syllogism that says that what Hilary said should be construed as an argument in favor of the Filioque. (seems obvious but it is still a leap of original research). It is much better to report what Anthony Edward Siecienski said and be impervious to charges of original research. We are not linking Hilary to the Filioque, Siecienski is the one making the linkage. If anyone wants to argue that Hilary should not be linked to the Filioque, let them provide a secondary source that explicitly says there is no such linkage.

Wikipedia editors should not argue about interpretation of primary sources. That is original research. I admit that this particular case is not a particularly good one to be getting bogged down in primary vs. secondary sources because it seems obvious that what Hilary wrote supports the Filioque. However, Montalban is right. It's better to apply the rules uniformly than to make exceptions just because we're too lazy to go find a good secondary source. And, as I showed with Siecienski, it's sometimes quite easy to find a suitable secondary source.

It's quite late here. I'm going to bed. Good night. Happy editing.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 09:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It's funny that these laws being applied here are silly, but synthesis when concerning others elsewhere. I don't know about Hilary 'not supporting the filioque' - I guess this is another case of not reading what I wrote??? Montalban (talk) 09:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

@Montalban, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that you specifically were arguing that Hilary didn't support (or, more precisely, wouldn't have supported) the filioque. What I meant was a much more general comment about the value of using a secondary source over a primary source. In using a secondary source, we are better able to deflect charges of cherry-picking and interpretation. If we just quote Hilary, all sorts of questions could be raised about how important Hilary was overall, how important his writings on the Holy Spirit were, did he mean to support the word "proceeds" to the point of including it in the Nicene Creed and so on and so forth. Esoglou says below that citing Hilary provides "important background information that from an early date in both east and west Fathers of the Church wrote that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son" and nothing else. Actually, Siecienski goes further and identifies Hilary as "the chief patristic source(s) for the Latin teaching on the filioque". This really helps to lock down the value of citing Hilary and deflects charges that the Wikipedia editor is making invalid judgments about Hilary's importance to the article topic. Of course, one might try to challenge Siecienski's assessment by providing quotations from other sources but surely you can see that the debate has shifted away from the total unreliablity of a Wikipedia editor (Esoglou in this case) to the at least arguably reliable Siecienski. As stated below, a more reliable source such as Schaff, McGuckin or Bokenkotter would be preferable but we must make do with what we have for the time being. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The article is making no syllogism leading elsewhere from the fact that Hilary and the others said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. It merely gives the surely highly important background information that from an early date in both east and west Fathers of the Church wrote that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son. It draws no conclusion from this fact.

As you know, Maximus the Confessor wrote that the Romans, who said the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, were able to cite statements by the Latin Fathers (who were unanimous on the matter) and by Cyril of Alexandria. (Is Maximus a secondary source for these?) In a way, the only thing that the other citations in the article add to what Maximus said is to show that belief that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son was also expressed by Greek-speakers other than Cyril and by a Syriac-speaker.

You say: "Wikipedia editors should not argue about interpretation of primary sources." Of course. So don't put in any interpretation of what these Fathers of the Church explicitly state. Just accept that they say what they say and no more. What Wikipedia does not allow is interpreting them in some particular way, or arguing that this or that is what they mean, or that something else is implied in what they say, synthesizing what they say so as to draw some conclusion from them, "constructing a syllogism" upon them.

It is true that many sources show that these statements by the Fathers are in fact used in support of the Filioque. What Montalban calls "quote mines" are egregious examples. I won't oppose your inserting that argument somewhere in the article, but I will not support it. If that is what you want, why not put it in just generically, without then having to apply it individually to each quotation of a Church Father?

Esoglou (talk) 12:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I would certainly prefer to have a broad, sweeping statement that applied to a group of fathers if such an assertion could be found. Is there a source that says all the Western fathers wrote in a way such that they could be assumed to be supportive of the Filioque? Is the phrase "Western fathers" well-defined? What can be said about the "Eastern fathers"? That their writings are such that they must be interpreted so as being unanimously opposed to the Filioque? These are not rhetorical questions for me. I ask these questions in all sincerity. I don't know the answers although I suspect that the Western fathers are unanimously in favor and the early Eastern fathers are less clear on the subject. There are also fathers who are probably less clearly "West" or "East". But I am truly writing as a learner in this field so please forgive any errors caused by my abject ignorance. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

There are sources that explicitly state that the Western fathers were unanimous in believing that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (if that's what you mean by "being supportive of the Filioque". Maximus the Confessor's statement is already in the article: "They [the Romans] have produced the unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers". Another source says: "In the Fourth Century and even before, belief in the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son (ex Patre Filioque—ab utroque) was held unanimously in the West." Another speaks of "the unanimity of the Western Church in receiving" the doctrine. I presume that is enough. The fact that some Eastern Fathers (Epiphanius, Ephrem, Cyril) spoke of the Holy Spirit as proceeding from the Father and the Son is surely enough to show that one cannot claim that "their writings are such that they must be interpreted so as being unanimously opposed to the Filioque". The Fathers who wrote in Latin are clearly Western Fathers. Some few of the earliest Western (living in the West) Fathers wrote in Greek, If anyone wants to classify them as Easterners, it makes no difference, since they are not cited here. Esoglou (talk) 20:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

If after having slept on it you still think secondary sources must be cited that say that each of these writers wrote what he wrote, I will undertake to add them in spite of my inability to see the logic of the demand. Esoglou (talk) 12:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think secondary sources must be cited everywhere. I just think that they should be cited in as many places as possible. Note that I haven't gone on a rampage deleting poorly sourced material.

My view is that there is a lot of unsourced or poorly sourced material in Wikipedia. If we deleted everything that was unsourced or poorly sourced, Wikipedia would shrink by 90% overnight. The trigger is when someone calls an assertion into question. If someone raises an objection to an assertion, then more and better sources should provided. Presenting what Hilary says about the Father and the Son leads the reader to a conclusion whether we state it explicitly or not. It is much better if we can provide proof that this conclusion has been reached by at least one reliable source and that important people have relied on this conclusion. This last assertion is made by Anthony Edward Siecienski. I could not have asked for a better quote than to find a source that says that "Hilary is often listed as (one of) the chief patristic source(s) for the Latin teaching on the filioque". Now, Siecienski himself is not the best of sources being a professor at Richard J Stockton College of New Jersey (Where's that, you ask? My point, exactly.) I should prefer McGuckin, Schaff or Bokenkotter but I am so far from familiar enough with any of those to know if such an assertion exists in their writings. So, for now, Siecienski will have to do until someone finds a better source. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The heading of the section is "Church fathers who wrote of procession from Father and Son". The already well-sourced information it contains is about Church Fathers who did write of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son. I don't see why anyone should draw any conclusion from it other than that belief in the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son existed among some Christians in their time. I don't see how anyone can think it can possibly mean what, you tell me, Siecienski says: that Hilary (or any other of those mentioned) is often listed, along with Augustine of Hippo, as the chief patristic source for the Latin teaching on the Filioque. (Not even by looking up mirror sites have I been able to get a glimpse of Siecienski's work on Google Books.) Siecinski's statement would fit in the "Roman Catholicism" section, where there already is the statement that belief that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son "was held in the West at an early stage". It would not fit in a section about some Fathers, Eastern as well as Western, who, obviously, cannot all be said to be listed as the chief patristic source for the Latin teaching.

Apologies for a rushed comment I made this morning as I was about to go out. I must have been thinking of Irenaeus, when I mistakenly spoke of Hilary as extremely early. Esoglou (talk) 20:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

incomplete citations

At time of writing two new sources [24] and [25] have appeared. [24] is an incomplete reference. [25] is a debatable site, and is simply a quote-mine. Montalban (talk) 09:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Facts

An editor wrote earlier The article is making no syllogism leading elsewhere from the fact that Hilary and the others said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. It merely gives the surely highly important background information that from an early date in both east and west Fathers of the Church wrote that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son. It draws no conclusion from this fact.

The filioque is not simply that the Holy Spirit comes from both the Father and the Son, becauase the Orthodox belief of from the Father THROUGH the Son is encompassed by that statement. The RCC believes in the double procession with the Son also being the cause of the Holy Spirit. This is not supported in listing Church Fathers who say that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father and the Son. It would be misleading to the reader not aware of this distinction. Montalban (talk) 21:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The statement of Orthodox belief, "from the Father through the Son", is encompassed in the statement "from the Father and the Son", and so "from the Father and the Son" is, after all, acceptable, provided it is not interpreted as meaning that the Son also (apart from the Father) is the cause of the Holy Spirit? Have we here on Wikipedia solved the centuries-old dispute? Too good to be true. 22:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• sigh* The belief that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father as the first cause and then THROUGH the Son is part of Orthodox belief. Catholic teaching however is that the Holy Spirit emanates FROM the Son as a first cause.

If only some could be prevented from editing on a subject that they know nothing about! Montalban (talk) 02:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The Son is NOT THE CAUSE of the Holy Spitit in Orthodox theology. Saying he comes from the Father and the Son does not necessarily have the meaning of coming from the Son as the first cause but only from the Son, as through him. This isn't rocket science!

The saying the Holy Spirit comes from the Father and the Son does not denote the Son as cause, therefore it is acceptable. This is why I protested because it could be used to support either the Catholic or Orthodox positions. It does not have enough detail to lend itself to either. HOWEVER the use of it in the article is such as that it's seen to support the Catholic position when some of the quotes do not say that the Son is the Cause.

Montalban (talk) 02:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

So, Montalban, according to you, "the saying the Holy Spirit comes from the Father and the Son ... is acceptable". Marvellous. So there is no Eastern Orthodox objection to the phrase "the Holy Spirit comes from the Father and the Son" (in Latin, "Spiritus Sanctus a Patre Filioque procedit") in itself, but only to (mis)interpretations of it. I make no observations myself on the idea that, after all, Mark of Ephesus should have accepted the phrase with the necessary distinction, and that, after all, there is something to be said for the view of "the Latin partizan" Bessarion and the other "real apostates of orthodoxy" (see here) who saw "from the Father and the Son" as acceptable. But I do think that you should insert your discovery into the article, citing the sources that support it. Esoglou (talk) 11:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Esoglou when you respond to what I write, and not what you'd like to read, I'll get back to you.

Montalban (talk) 11:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

It is regrettable that LoveMonkey does not agree with you: I see he has recently inserted a declaration: "Concerning the Holy Spirit, it is said not that he has existence from the Son or through the Son" - excluding not only "from the Father and the Son", but even "through the Son". In that view, both expressions that the Roman Catholic Church accepts, "and the Son" and "through the Son", are banned. It would be so much a happier situation if, as you said, the Eastern Orthodox Church also accepted both of them. Esoglou (talk) 15:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

From the Father and the Son

One editor earlier said…

The heading of the section is "Church fathers who wrote of procession from Father and Son". The already well-sourced information it contains is about Church Fathers who did write of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son. I don't see why anyone should draw any conclusion from it other than that belief in the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son existed among some Christians in their time

I'll try this one more time. No one questions that the ECFs believed that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father and the Son. However what is in dispute is what this term itself means.

From the Father and the Son could mean either

From the Father and through the Son – Orthodox belief, or;

From the Father and from the Son as so-partners and equal co-cause – Catholic belief (double procession).

To use the sayings of the Church Fathers in support of Catholic teaching is misleading.

To simply say "They believed this..." is therefore also meaningless. It is meaningless because as it stands it could mean support for either case. Montalban (talk) 02:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

But since this is the core of the dispute, both the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox views should be presented and (IMO) they should be presented side-by-side (with appropriate citations to reliable sources, of course!) --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 05:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease! They're not presented as the views of both church, but as proof of the filioque insofar as it's been accepted by ECFs since before even the filioque was thought of Montalban (talk) 05:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Montalban below)

I think you misunderstood me and, in re-reading what each of us wrote, I can see why you missed what I was tryin to say. What I meant is that the "core of the dispute" is whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and through the Son (Orthodox stance) vs. proceeding from the Father and the son (so-called "double procession" - Catholic stance). This point needs to be made early in the article and then just about everything in the article should be tied to this. You may think it is "misleading" to "use the sayings of the Church Fathers in support of Catholic teaching". Anthony Edward Siecienski doesn't think so. In his book "The filioque: history of a doctrinal controversy", he discusses what a number of ECFs wrote on the topic. As is to be expected, only part of the book is available via Google Books. (I have seen enough of the book that I am considering acquiring it for my personal library. I do not have many books on theology in my library but this one seems worth having. )Just because you think the Catholics are wrong in using the ECFs to support their teaching doesn't mean that they are totally unjustified in doing so. Once again, it is not up to Wikipedia to decide who is right and who is wrong. Even if the Catholics are wrong in citing the ECFs to support the Filioque, Wikipedia must mention that they do this. If the Orthodox think that the Catholics are wrong to do this, then Wikipedia must also mention the Orthodox criticism of the Catholics. All that is required is to find the appropriate secondary sources to back up our text.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 06:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

IF you want to preface the section to say that the statements of the ECFs cited do not support the filioque (necessarily) but can support either view, then you'd have a fair article. It's why (surprise! surprise!) writers find that the statements of these people (and popes) was not opposed in the east! Montalban (talk) 05:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I have inserted a sourced statement that asserts that Catholics use the writings of Hilary and Augustine to support the use of the filioque. I plan eventually to look for support in Siecienski's book for each of the fathers currently quoted (or, conversely, I plan to replace what is currently in the article with summaries of Siecienski's discussion of what the fathers wrote). If you wish to add to the section preface some text that summarizes what you wrote immediately above, I am OK with that as long as it is sourced.

The reason that Esoglou keeps getting into tussles with Orthodox editors is that he insists on using primary sources to argue the Catholic side. It is not Wikipedia's job to argue either the Catholic or the Orthodox side. It is Wikipedia's job to describe the Catholic side and the Orthodox side. I have not read enough of Siecienski to tell how objective and unbiased he is. If he is fairly objective and unbiased, then he should serve as a better source than the collection of primary sources that we currently have in the article. Take a look at the link provided in the reference and read a few pages. Then let me know what you think.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 06:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

PseudoRichard you've misunderstood what I wrote. I have nowhere said that Catholics are wrong to use ECF teaching. I'm saying the article is wrong because it suggests that the ECF support the Catholic position ONLY. I'm saying that those ECFs can be used by either side to support either side. However the article doesn't suggest this at all.

As I noted above:

From the Father and the Son could mean either

From the Father and through the Son – Orthodox belief, or;

From the Father and from the Son as so-partners and equal co-cause – Catholic belief (double procession).

Those ECFs saying "From the Father and the Son" could be used to support either side.

I agree with you where you say Once again, it is not up to Wikipedia to decide who is right and who is wrong. However you've missed my point. As it stands the article suggests only that the ECFs support the Catholic position AND THAT IS WRONG (to suggest this).

I'll try this another way.

I am not suggesting that Orthodox is right on this, nor am I suggesting that Catholicism is wrong. However the evidence as it is presented is misleading because although BOTH SIDES could use the same evidence, only one side here is using it to promote their one side.

The use of evidence that could support either stand, but used only to support one side IS WRONG. It is promoting only one side.

It is why I suggested that the evidence should be prefaced that the ECFs saying that the HS comes from the Father and the Son does not support either stance EXCLUSIVELY, or rather that their sayings can be used to support both stances Montalban (talk) 10:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Montalban, I am sorry that we continue to "talk past each other". I have understood your point since the first time you made it. The section in question is not currently in a "Catholic" section and so is quite amenable to the expansion that you suggest to the preface. The only reason that I have restricted the preface to the Catholic use of the ECFs is because that is the quote that I have available to me at the moment. I need to read more of Siecienski to see what he says about the Orthodox use of the ECFs. However, the support for your proposed assertion need not come from Siecienski. It could come from Schaff, Meyendorff, Romanides, Lossky or Bishop Kallistos (Ware). I don't think Esoglou would dispute that the Orthodox read these quotes from the ECFs differently wrt the procession of the Holy Spirit. What would really help is if each of us would go find secondary sources that describe how each side interprets scripture, the ECFs and later theologians. What I notice in Siecienski and Schaff is the use of a historical narrative to explain the development of thought about the procession of the Holy Spirit. This article does not provide enough of a historical approach because it is canted too much towards a Catholic vs. Orthodox conflict rather than towards documenting the ways that theologies about the procession of the Holy Spirit have evolved over time. I don't claim to understand all (or even much) of this. What I can tell is that structuring the article (Catholic vs. Orthodox) is leading towards a polarized understanding of the issue rather than an integrated one. I should like to move towards a more historical outline rather than keeping a "us vs. them" structure. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Ugh... I think I may have confused the structure of Primacy of the Roman Pontiff with the structure of this article thus calling into question some of what I wrote immediately above. I just took a look at the entire article and noticed that there already is a "Historical Overview" section and that the current section in question is outside the "Historical Overview" section. While I am removing my foot from my mouth, I will contemplate how to resolve the issues we are discussing in light of the "Historical Overview" section. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Richard, do you think Montalban is right in saying that Eastern Orthodox accept that, in the phrase "the Holy Spirit comes from the Father and the Son", the words "from the Father and the Son" (what he calls "this term", and which in Latin is "ex Patre Filioque") can mean, as he says, "from the Father and through the Son", as some have understand the Council of Florence to have equivalently (though not expressly) said? I have suggested that he put this claim into the article, supported by the necessary citations. As you know, I don't want to make any edits myself about Eastern Orthodox beliefs. But I am convinced that what he calls Orthodox belief, that the Holy Spirit proceeds "from the Father and through the Son" (emphasis added) is not Eastern Orthodox belief. I think it would be rejected also by the Roman Catholic Church, since it suggests that the Father and the Son are two distinct principles in the procession of the Holy Spirit, which is contrary to Catholic belief. What the Roman Catholic Church does hold, as shown for instance in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, is that the Holy Spirit proceeds "from the Father through the Son". Whether the Eastern Orthodox Church accepts even "from the Father through the Son" (without "and") in the intra-Trinitarian relationships of the Hypostases seems to be disputed. I think Schaff is not alone in saying that some Eastern Orthodox either reject the phrases outright as being too like "from the Father and the Son" or refer it only to the mission or sending of the Holy Spirit, the relationship of the Holy Spirit to Christians in time, to the exclusion of any reference to the eternal relationship within the Trinity. Indeed, I see now that LoveMonkey has [14] inserted into the article a denial of the acceptability of "through the Son".

I am disappointed that you still have the idea that I use primary sources to prove anything other than what they explicitly state or to suggest anything other than what they explicitly state. In view of how you understand as an argument for something or other the information given that Church Fathers spoke of the procession of the Holy Spirit and in view of your insertion of a link between Hilary and Latin theology with the declared intention of doing the same for the other Fathers cited (I am intrigued at the idea of how you intend to make the connection in the case of Ephrem and Epiphanius), I have myself added a link to Latin theology. If Montalban is right in saying that the Eastern Orthodox consider it acceptable to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds "from the Father and the Son", he or someone else should insert also that link to Eastern theology. However, even without a link or links to Western/Eastern theology, the information about the early use in both East and West of "and the Son" in relation to the procession of the Holy Spirit is undeniably relevant to an article on "and the Son" (Filioque). Esoglou (talk) 12:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Esoglou, even the use of primary sources to prove something they explicitly state can lead to issues if what they explicitly state forms part of a syllogism. It is admittedly a fine line and I would not want to say that primary sources should never be used but I think they should be used very carefully and, wherever possible, they should be accompanied with secondary sources that make the point that you wish to make rather than be presented "naked" as it were.

I wish you could see Siecienski's book via Google Books. Chapter 1 is titled "The Procession of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament". Chapter 2, the Greek Fathers. Chapter 3, the Latin Fathers. Chapter 4, Maximus the Confessor. Chapter 5. 7-11th centuries Chapter 6 11-13th centuries Chapter 7 Council of Lyons to Council of Ferrara-Florence and so on up to the 21st century.

In Chapters 2 and 3, Siecienski presents not just what various fathers say but discusses what they might have meant and what others have interpreted them to mean. I think a summary of his treatment would be preferable to the "naked" presentation that you and Montalban have been indulging in.

Now, I'm not suddenly arguing that Siecienski is the indisputable expert on the filioque. However, he qualifies as a reliable source by Wikipedia standards as does Schaff. Montalban and Esoglou do not qualify as reliable sources and so we need to stop working with what they (or I, for that matter) think and start working with what reliable sources such as Siecienski, Schaff et al. think.

We really need to stop presenting what we know (what novice Wikipedians do) and start presenting what reliable sources know (what Wikipedians are supposed to do).

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, I have not been proposing the evidence about what the Fathers said about the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son as evidence about anything else. I have not been saying that there views were right or wrong. I have not used the fact of what they said as a premise, major or minor, of any syllogism. If I did any of those things, it would not be permitted in Wikipedia to use them for those purposes. But as evidence of the views of any person (not about the persons themselves), no secondary source is as good as what the person himself wrote.

"Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals." "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says..." In what way have I supposedly violated these Wikipedia rules about reliable sources?

I presume you are not now going to rule out the Catechism of the Catholic Church as a reliable source for the teaching of the Catholic on the grounds that it is in itself the teaching of the Catholic Church. In the same way, you should not rule out what Ephrem the Syrian said as a reliable source for the views of Ephrem the Syrian.

Montalban was presenting primary sources as evidence that papal infallibility (in some wide sense of his choosing) was false. He was presenting them as evidence for a conclusion outside themselves. He was doing so sometimes by enunciating an argument for papal infallibility and then bringing evidence against that argument, not against papal infallibility in itself. In what way have I been using the views of Ephrem and the others as evidence for or against anything?

You, not I, seem to have wished to use the views of these Fathers of the Church as the basis for some argument (which I suppose you can, in a loose sense, call a syllogism). You were right to use instead another source, such as Siecienski, for that purpose: for the view that Hilary and Augustine were the two chief sources of Latin belief on the matter. As I already said, whether Ephrem can be used as the basis for an argument (by some reliable source, not by us) for some conclusion or other, or whether no such argument has been proposed or could be proposed by anybody, what a 4th-century Syrian such as Ephrem says about the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father "and the Son" is of itself of interest in an article on belief in the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father "and the Son". I myself don't see what conclusion can be drawn from Ephrem's expression, other than that this is the view of one 4th-century Syrian. I don't think he can be said to the basis for the belief either of the Latins (who must have known next to nothing about him) or of the Greeks (who took to a contrary view) or of the Syrians (who I think are not much troubled about the question).

I have not been presenting in the article "what I know".

I have nothing whatever against Siecienski and the like, and I would use them and do use them for statements of the kind that you have in mind, such as the conclusions that can be drawn from what a particular writer said and how influential his writings have been.

However, in spite of all that, I will, in view of your insistence, begin to add secondary sources that say that these writers did actually (surprise!) write what they did write. Not, I think, this evening, but I may find time tomorrow. Esoglou (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I have not time for a long response so I will say briefly that it would be best to use the writings of the ECFs as part of a general discussion of the history of the development of the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit as Schaff, Siecienski and no doubt others have written. If they are not discussed in that context, I don't understand why they are being quoted here at all. It seems as if you have a point you want to make but yet do not want to make explicitly in the article text. If you want to say that the phrase "from the Father and the Son" was used by the ECFs, then say so explicitly in the article text and leave the quotes for the footnotes. This and other articles have way too many quotes leading them to be quotefarms. Montalban will no doubt want to insert text to say that the Orthodox also use "from the Father and the Son" but with a different meaning. Let us seek secondary sources that discuss how the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox differ in their interpretation of this phrase. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I have of course no objection to discussion of whether these writings were part of the development of doctrine. It is easy to find sources that say the quoted Latin Church Fathers were part of the development of doctrine in the West. It would be much harder to find any that say that Ephrem, Epiphanius and Cyril were part of a development towards either of the two doctrines: "from the Father and the Son" and its variant "from the Father through the Son" on the one hand, and "from the Father alone" on the other: I doubt that they were well enough known (except perhaps for Cyril) in the area where the first doctrine that I mentioned developed, and it would be nonsense to say that they influenced development of the doctrine that contradicted them. So I cannot see how you are going to fit the non-Latin Church Fathers into the discussion that you envisage. Esoglou (talk) 20:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Montalban

Montalban inserted this comment in a text written by me, making the preceding part of my text appear to be his, since his was the signature that followed it:

-Pseudo-Richard it is in a Catholic section insofar as the article itself is about belief in the filioque - as Catholics believe it. As you choose not to re-write this, I will have to. As it stands the article is geared to support the Catholic viewpoint Montalban (talk) 04:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I have responded to this point in my comment in the longer section below titled "Catholic viewpoint". In brief, I don't think this article should be viewed as a "Catholic article" any more than the article on "Iconoclasm" should be viewed as a Catholic or an Orthodox article. It is an article about a Catholic doctrine but viewpoints from all religions should be included. (Besides, Protestants use the Nicene Creed also and AFAIK they include the filioque in it when they recite it.) --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)