Talk:Filioque

Icon

I don't think that the illustration for this topic is appropriate. Rublev's icon illustrates an event from the Old Testament. It is a stretch to conclude that the angels in the painting are related to the "filioque" controversy. Guastafeste (talk) 14:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The beautiful icon Rublev's Trinity adds nothing to the substance of the article. The article is about the nature, meaning, purpose, history and implications of the Filioque Clause. A more apposite image may be the image of Benedict and Bartholomew holding hands at a meeting where they recited the creed together - without the Filioque Clause in the effort to move to repair the great schism.

Philip Barrington (talk) 03:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC) May 16, 2015. Philip Barrington.

I removed the image from the article. It really has no connection to the Filioque controversy. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Undue weight

As this currently 42 page long article stands, it has 3 pages on the current Western positions, and 7 pages on the current Eastern position. Is this nuts? Last time I checked, this was a Western doctrine, and not an Eastern one. Or does anyone think that the Incarnation of Christ article could be improved by a seven page digression on the Islamic position? Rwflammang (talk) 23:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Balance is called for, yes. But the real point is that it is a western doctrine, and not an eastern one. It was divisive, and had consequences that helped cause the separation of east and west. Surely balance calls for adequate coverage of the divergent views (and even the ones that can be held in common). If the article is out of balance, I see nothing to prevent it being edited to bring it into balance. But page count is not the base metric I would use. The real measure lies in what it takes to give a complete coverage. A balanced view comes from understanding diverse views. When the article does that, it's good. If it doesn't now, let's edit. Evensteven (talk) 02:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

And yet the doctrine of purgatory is also divisive, yet I do not see that the Protestant section of that article is twice as long as the Catholic section. The Incarnation of Christ is also a divisive doctrine, still I don't see an Islamic section which is twice as long as the Christian section. The page count needed to give a complete coverage of a doctrine for a church which does not believe in it should be very short indeed. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, and not an argument for or against a theological doctrine. Rwflammang (talk) 19:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

You're just arguing size in a vacuum with no facts to back them up. Perhaps you should count Catholic sources vs. Orthodox sources and see how due/undue the weight really is, rather than just making vague accusations? Elizium23 (talk) 19:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing vague about my accusations. This article sucks because it goes on and on about the Eastern views of this Western doctrine, without ever convincing the reader of the relevance of such views. I am not complaining about source counts, but page counts, and that is because page counts are most definitely the problem here. Rwflammang (talk) 22:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I render no opinion about the current state of the article. I do render the opinion that page count is not the proper metric. A section needs to be as long as it needs to be in order to cover its area. Filioque has many implications, and it is not easy to describe either Catholic or Orthodox positions (in and of themselves) much less to cover their responses to the others' positions. I will argue that the proper length is that length that covers the topic, not some artificial quantity of words. If we can find ways of saying the same things more concisely, that's a job to do just by editing, and well and good. If there is anything POV in there, including arguments for or against, it needs to be neutralized. And solid proper coverage of Catholic and Orthodox positions in and of themselves ought to do much to diminish any need for "point / counterpoint" (in other words, arguments). Once one understands the primary issues, it takes much less effort to contrast the positions. And I am very much in favor of minimizing the infamous "debate/argument/controversy/belief/opposition" contention that abounds both here on WP and in the world in general. The very nature of that continual dissent and scoring of points drains the content of the writing, whereas we are trying to be informative. No one is informed by an argument, except to the idea that people like to fight. It is my opinion that this business of page count is a bit of score-keeping. I would rather that we focus on the article's information, keeping it neutral, presenting a mass of information as concisely as possible. For there is little known in the west about Orthodoxy in general, making that job all the more difficult. Difficult, maybe, but that doesn't necessarily mean it needs to take up more room for that reason. All the writing in the article should be kept to the same standards of brevity, and that should be possible. But nothing should be suppressed just because someone doesn't want to hear it. I think we have plenty of WP guidelines to provide the standards we need, including undue weight. However, I will not agree that weight ought to measured by page count. Rwflammang, I have yet to hear what you would like to do to improve the article. Let's see some edits. Or let's hear (here) about some passage(s) that you feel throw things out of balance. (What to cut? What is argumentative? What is wordy?) Pick the spots and point out their flaws. Then we'll have something to work on. Evensteven (talk) 21:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

One more thing. It is not doctrines that are so divisive. It is people. Let us do what we can to work together despite having different opinions, and express that attitude in the article, and then we will help to show that it is normal for people to have different opinions, but that they need not divide themselves over them. I think that would also be a useful piece of information to reveal to those who don't understand it. Evensteven (talk) 21:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

@Rwflammang, Evensteven, and Elizium23: I think Filioque § Summary should just be in a good lede. ... and a beginning at trimming the history out of this article. Moreover, there is a History of the Filioque controversy that should contain most of the content instead of this article.

There is too little political background, e.g. Michael III the Drunkard's influence over the church and uncanonical deposition by an enraged Michael of the legitimate Patriarch Ignatius I of Constantinople (ultimately for not giving communion to Michael's drinking buddy who had seduced a relative) and the uncanonical replacement with Patriarch Photios I of Constantinople, who was already a great layman who studied at Abbasid Bagdad. Photios had specific practical reasons to argue about papal authority, i.e. that the papacy has no authority to tell Photios that his appointment was clearly uncanonical – since Photios could not argue that his appointment was in any way canonical – Photios needed to legitimize himself. Photios died in union with the papacy but left a legacy of a culturally anti-Latin theological rationale, that was used by a then culturally and linguistically homogenous (since the 7th century Muslim conquests) Byzantine monastic hierarchy from within a geographically much smaller Eastern Roman Empire, of anything that deviated from standard Byzantine ideas in later centuries to rationalize schism and accept imposition of caesaropapism.

I agree with Evensteven that "solid proper coverage of Catholic and Orthodox positions in and of themselves ought to do much [...] Once one understands the primary issues, it takes much less effort to contrast the positions"; in this and the history article.

Removing the content by Cleenewerck, who is in my opinion a questionable WP:SELFPUBLISHED WP:FRINGE author (see "The catholic Church as a hologram" in the referenced work His broken body talk and was involved with a pseudo-state with "sort of a camouflage passport" talk), and content sourced from geocities etc.; reducing the extensive quotes in references from websites. E.g. romanity.org which seems questionable to me – it includes pages such as "Examples of the science of the ethnic cleaning of Roman history and a vision of the future United States of Franco-Romania" which is fringe revisionist history about such things as "the real name of France is Franco-Romania. This should be the name of not only of United Europe, but also of her descendants in the Americas, Australia and New Zealand. So this reality should give us The Real United States of Franco-Romania with [...] one united currency." Also on the same page, "an electrical short circuit between the blood system [...] and the spinal fluid" causes certain behaviors. Yes, those are the kinds of authors that populate this article and should be removed. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 03:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC); modified 03:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, BoBoMisiu, for your diagnosis. I think it is spot on. Given the obvious superiority of the article History of the Filioque controversy, I think we can delete a big chunk of this over-big article. I think removing all references to Cleenewerck will result in an improved article, and I will be happy to help you also in de-romanidifying this article, which will give it a far less cranky tone. Rwflammang (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

There is an enormous amount of sources that more-or-less duplicate almost identical content. For example, this article doesn't need primary Greek or Latin sources that are contained in scholarly secondary sources with translations. The article is not, in my opinion, "count Catholic sources vs. Orthodox sources" but a source over-weight problem. I cleaned up quite a bit but there is still over 90 references not wrapped with citation templates – some are links with a title that will easily WP:LINKROT. There are over 250 cited works – an uninformed reader has no hope of understanding the basics, e.g. that there are two theologies and each has a different interpretation of the phrase. I have a fair understanding and I was left with a headache after reading this article. It has many good references and much good information, but it fails to just explain. It needs a radical pruning. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 20:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@LoveMonkey: look carefully at what I did before you trash the sources. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 21:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand. I don't know what you mean by "trash the sources" please clarify. Also this does not appear to be assuming good faith. I find Wikipedia a hostile work environment and as such I dread coming here and contributing. Your post just re-enforced that. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@LoveMonkey: sorry, when I wrote that I didn't think it was hostile. I did assume good faith, I did some intricate changes and wanted you to be aware of that. For example, adding the Yannaras reference did not change that LaDue 2003 did not connect these people. I was also removing duplicate wikilinks as with duplicate highlighter. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 01:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

On a separate note, I removed the Romanides cruft (which remains in the Eastern Orthodox teaching regarding the Filioque fork). –BoBoMisiu (talk) 01:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

@BoBoMisiu: Please be aware that I have not looked at any specific editing. I am away from WP at this time. However, having encountered "trash the sources", I need to let you know that, at least from my perspective, that implies someone else was deliberately damaging something, definitely not good faith behavior. I think there might have been a better way for you to express yourself. Evensteven (talk) 03:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@Evensteven: thank you for your concern, I am not implying anything, as I wrote previously. Look over what I did – which is almost completely improving references and some copy edit. I created Talk:Filioque/dumping-ground as a WP:Dumping-ground page for new content if you care to look. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 03:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Dialogues of Pope Gregory I may be pseudepigraphical

Relevant discussion at

→ Talk:Pope Gregory I#Dialogues pseudepigraphical

Dialogues of Pope Gregory I may be pseudepigraphical according to a scholarly source (see reference).

Content based on a 2004 conference paper, written in Italian, that quoted from Dialogues was added in 2015. The content is about how Gregory (or pseudo-Gregory?) uses the language of double procession: "The text proposes an eternal procession from both Father and the Son by the use of the word "always" (semper). Gregory's use of recessurum and recedit is also significant for the divine procession since although the Spirit always proceeds (semper procedat) from the Father and the Son, the Spirit never leavex (numquam recedit) the Son by such this eternal procession." Should it be included since it is based on potentially spurious pseudepigrapha? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 18:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

It's hard to say why the author of the dialogues would matter, the only that matters is how influential the dialogues were in the history of the dispute. That said, I don't have a problem with the wholesale removal of the history section, so I'm hardly going to argue for the inclusion of this one little piece. Rwflammang (talk) 19:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Council of Toledo in 400

An IP user added: "Though The First Council of Toledo (397 - 400 AD) didn't use the Creed formula of Constantinople, the statement of Faith of the First council of Toledo does include a proclamation of the proecesion of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son" and added a bare url to a poor source as a reference. The poor reference was improved, but not replaced with a reliable reference.

That combination eventually morphed into: "The erroneous idea that the First Council of Toledo (400 AD) adopted a profession of faith that included a repeated statement that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son is based on a forged collection of canons."

I replaced the reference and reworded that factoid. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 02:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Perception in neo-Palamite synthesis

Cardinal Walter Kasper wrote in 2003 that Protestant and "authoritative Orthodox theologians, especially those of the neo-Palamitic School," argue that the Filioque affects their "understanding of the Church" since, according to Kasper, the Filioque for them "seems to link the efficiency of the Holy Spirit fully to the person and work of Jesus Christ, leaving no room for the freedom of the Spirit."

This Orthodox and Protestant interpretation of the Filioque "represents the roots of" their perception, according to Kasper, that "the Holy Spirit is [...] chained up to the institutions established by Christ" through the Catholic "submission of":

1. the "charisma to the institution"
2. the "individual freedom to the authority of the Church"
3. "the prophetic to the juridical"
4. "the mysticism to the scholasticism"
5. "the common priesthood to the hierarchical priesthood"
6. "the episcopal collegiality to the Roman primacy"

Kasper wrote that Protestant Churches generally keep the Filioque clause and "affirm [...] that the Spirit is Jesus Christ’s Spirit and is tied to Word and Sacrament. But for them, [...] it is a question of the sovereignty of God’s Word in and above the Church, and with it of the Christian human being’s free will, as against a – real or supposed – unilateral juridical-institutional view of the Church."

The article lacks discussion about these perceptions in an organized systematic way. For example, the article cites and quotes Russian neo-palamite theologian Vladimir Lossky but the theology does not have a separate section to help a reader understand that 20th century perception. The article doesn't group those people of the neo-Palamite school into a coherent section or even link to Palamism. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 02:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Well a good bit of why, is what you posted, is a Roman Catholic mischaracterization. As the Philokalia pre dates Palamis as it does this then so hesychasm pre-dates Palamis so to call the Eastern Orthodox Palamite or neo palamite is indeed a mischaracterization. Also theology is in the East is allot like learning to swim, as it is learned by way of ascetic labor (Orthopraxis) and experience (the theoria of theosis) and not by study or the study and then rationalization of the different theological concepts. This is the essential difference between the scholastic West and the mystical (gnosiological) East. Therefore Eastern Orthodox theology is not systematic. The best thing even close to such a thing would be books like Orthodox Dogmatic Theology: A Concise Exposition by Michael Pomazansk. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@LoveMonkey: I don't think using many primary sources that are not cited in other works is good in an overview. I'm looking at an overviews that agree with these points about 19th and 20th century Orthodox trends such as neo-Palamite and also Sophiology of the people curently found in the article, particularly:

• Demacopoulos, George E.; Papanikolaou, Aristotle, eds. (2013). Orthodox constructions of the West. Orthodox Christianity and contemporary thought. New York: Fordham University Press. ISBN 9780823251926.

particularly this chapter:

• Demacopoulos, George E.; Papanikolaou, Aristotle. "Orthodox naming of the other: a postcolonial approach". In Demacopoulos & Papanikolaou (2013).

about which also addresses other parts of the article. Such as Greek language Christians who also wrote about the role of the Son in the procession of the Holy Spirit.(p4)

While Lossky is the a protagonist "of the contemporary Orthodox theological antipathy to Western philosophy and reason," Demacopoulos & Papanikolaou categorize that, he "cannot be identified with the form of extreme anti-Westernism" of his proponents, "especially John Romanides and Christos Yannaras."(p14)

Lossky divided theology, based on the role of reason, between an Eastern Orthodox internal and apophatic "encounter of mystical union" in a process of theosis and a Western Christian external and cataphatic "philosophically justified" neo-Scholasticism.(p14)

Rationalism in theology is, for Lossky, the error of Western Christianity, both Catholic and Protestant.(p15)

20th century Eastern Orthodox theologians, such as Bulgakov, Florovsky, Staniloae, Ware, and Zizioulas, according to Demacopoulos & Papanikolaou, express a consensus about the Western Christianity. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 18:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

There are problems with these points. One Aristotle Papanikolaou can say whatever he wants and this does not change that he is not say like John Zizioulas or even Romanides and Yannaras as Papanikolaou is not clergy Papanikolaou is not even someone teaching theology in Greece. He's a professor at Fordham. I mean Yannaras teaches the theology in Greece. So Papanikolaou and even David Bentley Hart would not be appropriate. There is allot of projecting and misconstruing in Western sources (like Adrian Fortescue). This is why these articles get tagged as biased. Better to just post each side and their respective voices and let people read the whole of it and decide for themselves. You can use primary sources I understand that Wikipedia would prefer secondary sources but you can use primary ones. WP:RS is something we can talk about. I have sources though that might fit your request but again don't consider them as valid as the Church representatives themselves. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@LoveMonkey: I don't understand. Why wouldn't analyses of groupings of people not be appropriate to use to group the people in the article? Scholars do study and add insight to what these people – already included in this article – wrote. You think scholarship published by academics has WP:RS problems? What do you think is currently biased about this article or the other two filioque forks? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

These are all very good and valid questions I will as an equal contributor try and answer each one. Just understand I am looking mostly here to provide you with sources that you can use and since I have already had a most protracted and fruitless history on this article I am every bit reluctant to help.

Here is a very limited generalization of the conflict as best as I can express my understanding of it..

In the East there is a distinction made between what something does (energy) and what something is in itself per se (essence).

The filioque is based on the idea that God in Father is different than God in essence it is a different distinction and in conflict with the Eastern distinction. As in the East all including the Holy Spirit come from (receive their existence from) God the Father ALONE.

In the East when one says God, they mean God the Father as Father is the same as God in essence. Father is not what is meant in the West by God in essence. The West makes a distinction between God the Father and God in essence. As the West calls to task distinctions but only to further its own distinctions.

In the West God in essence is pure energy (actus purus) where as in the East God is Father and God the Father in essence is incomprehensible.

God the Father is the origin of all things (in essence) and the origin of his hypostases, the uncreated Godman and uncreated Spirit (that which animates life).

To say that Jesus Christs creates the Holy Spirit or commands the Holy Spirit (to be breathed or sent into the world) or any such teaching that would imply that, appears to mean one does not understand theology through experiencing God but rather through reading other peoples works and rationalizing those teachings to speak about something they do not know of first hand. I hope you can see that gnosiology is not an academic pursuit it is an ascetic one and one done by way of not having sources or text but rather practising prayer (hesychasm) as a means to reconcile with God and get to know God.

The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God it was here in existence before Jesus Christ was born, the Spirit that animates life did not die on the Cross nor go into the underworld for 3 days and then come back to life and ascend into heaven. All of these things are implied by the teaching of the filioque and it confuses the teaching of the church on the entire trinity even the Roman Catholic church understands this on some level and has worked to confirm the primacy of God the Father where as the Roman Catholic church has prided itself in the past on the filioque by putting this teaching on armour that was used in battle (see Shield of the Trinity).

Now why the teaching is rejected is that it has caused conflict and death and not because anyone is closed minded or intolerant but because the church is the means to reconciliation to God in this life leading to salvation. These variations of teaching lead to sectarians using war and violence to impose their correct way like say the followers of Islam. This all leads to people not being able to experience God and then that leads to nihilism. As it is not the nature of water to seek vengeance on those that have not learned to swim. It is also that God is merciful and allows that one might experience their life as a means to work out and discover what is good and what is evil and to also learn discover "why" something is good and something is evil. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Now that I have posted the above I will state why I did. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia it is made to reduce all, to "information, data or knowledge" and then post and express that knowledge. The mode by which Wikipedia does this is scholastic. The same problems the East has with scholasticism are the same ones you are expressing as coming across here. In that all of existence can not be reduced to knowledge and then shared by way of language or symbols to "the other". This is limited by the participating parties all have like experience to couple with their knowledge in order to bring about understanding. However I need to get common ground on your goals to try and help you make that happen. Part of that is to state my side of it so as to then give you as best I can what I can, to help. For it is the nature of the world that as long as something is successful then it is considered correct. It is only when it begins to fail does one see that the power (the success of it) as having corruption in it. [1] LoveMonkey (talk) 16:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I have to disagree that "The same problems the East has with scholasticism are the same ones you are expressing as coming across here." Every written language has dictionaries so people can use a common vocabulary about everything – including how to pray (I disagree with the blogpost too). That is the entire point of communication and culturally relevant imagery, metaphor, etc.

To "get common ground on your goals": my goal is to first improve and reduce the volume of references and then to reduce the volume of content and reduce duplication in the three filioque articles.

So, again, what do you think is currently biased about this article or the other two filioque forks?

Also, I still do not understand why wouldn't analyses of groupings of people not be appropriate to use to group the people in the article? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Well this is all more than the lost in translation of it. Again the bias is that scholasticism is the ONLY way to understand one side of it (the Eastern). This kind of thing is what has lead to articles like this one Eastern Orthodox teaching regarding the Filioque LoveMonkey (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Those who say "things are implied by the teaching of the filioque" are, in my opinion, just victims of centuries of religious speculation and political manipulation, e.g. in-group vs out-group, and have read little about the history of that manipulation. Those groups are conditioned to fear the light of reason by xenophobes throughout history, like Romanides and Yannaras, and so they react emotionally for centuries.

Yes, knights had symbols on there shields just like clergy today have engolpions.

To say that in Western Christianity "Jesus Christs creates the Holy Spirit or commands the Holy Spirit" is to spread misinformation. It is not so, read some of the Catholic sources or the many quotes already in the article.

You are misinformed about Actus Purus. Actus Purus is discussed in a book already cited in this article – Balthasar (2005), "'it is in the Holy Spirit, the We in Person, that the Actus Purus attains its plenitude' In him [the Holy Spirit] it reaches 'its ultimate fullness'" (p56).

So "the teaching is rejected is that it has caused conflict and death" – no, rigid thinking caused the conflict not the term filioque.

"As it is not the nature of water to seek vengeance on those that have not learned to swim." The language below is less Western but the message is the same. A book – already cited in the article – quotes John Chrysostom, a Doctor of the Roman Catholic Church: "Strange, isn't it, how we were so drowned in wickedness that we could not be purified? We needed a new birth!" (p56). Ephrem the Syrian, a Doctor of the Roman Catholic Church, wrote: "In them [the waters of baptism], see how the people have life; In them, see how the people perishes: for all that are not baptized, in the waters that give life to all, are dead invisibly" (p56). Cyril of Jerusalem wrote: "it is God's part to plant and to water, so it is yours to bear fruit" (p128). Gregory of Narek, a Doctor of the Roman Catholic Church, lamented: "Treat me like a physician, rather than examining me like a judge. [...] In battles of the mind, he is always defeated by details. [...] like the useless servant I buried the honorable gifts received [...] If I am put to trial by water, I will drown" (here).

Knowledge is good and its opposite is not, a "standard for valid epistemology" about faith is introspection and reason – e.g. most Orthodox are unaware of how the Catechism of the Catholic Church says why the Logos became incarnate:

The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature": "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God." "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God." "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods." –n.460

It is in the Body of Christ that the fullness of humanity is revealed. In a way, we are elevated above our biological instincts and passions. We are the icons of God. These are the words of four great theologians: Peter, Irenaeus, Athanasius, and Aquinas; you will notice that not one Western Father and no one between Nicaea and Aquinas is in this statement. The first verse is from 2 Peter 1:4 and the last verse is from Aquinas. Scholasticism is not your enemy. 2 Peter 1:5 points out "For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, virtue with knowledge," according to the Apostle Peter in the 1st-century. Or you words, that God "allows that one might experience their life as a means to work out and discover what is good and what is evil and to also learn discover 'why' something is good and something is evil". And in the words of John Paul II: "Let us express our desire for the divine life offered in Christ in the [... words of] Gregory of Narek [...]: 'It is not for his gifts, but for the Giver that I always long [...] It is not rest that I seek, but the face of the One who gives rest that I implore'." (here). John Paul II in that speech quoted from Veritatis splendor: "Sharing in the Eucharist, [...] is the culmination of our assimilation to Christ, [...]"; and quoted from Cyril of Alexandria: "Christ forms us in his image so that the features of his divine nature will shine in us through sanctification, justice and a good life in conformity with virtue."

But the above language is not encyclopedic and almost unreadable and practically off-topic – it should be found by following the links and reading the sources – I would never add content in that way since and it should not be found in the article about filioque and not in the article about the history of the filioque. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Your comment "Those groups are conditioned to fear the light of reason by xenophobes throughout history, like Romanides and Yannaras, and so they react emotionally for centuries." Means that you are uninformed and biased and you should not be editing the content of this article. One does not obtain salvation through reason. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

This comment is inserted out of chronological order – It is not a bias but an observation. "The impact of the fall of Constantinople on the Greek psyche is of utmost importance as it conditioned the Greeks against reunion with the west"[2]. There is scholarship about the sociology, and there is scholarship about Romanides and Yannaras. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

From this comment "You are misinformed about Actus Purus. Actus Purus is discussed in a book already cited in this article – Balthasar (2005), "'it is in the Holy Spirit, the We in Person, that the Actus Purus attains its plenitude' In him [the Holy Spirit] it reaches 'its ultimate fullness'" (p56)."

I now understand you are here to promote ecumenism. I also understand your dated perspective on Aristotelian scholarship. So by this statement I can glean that you are not really up to date on where scholasticism has went on this subject (as Balthasar died in 1988). As my comment about actus purus most certainly is not my own. As I have pointed out before on wiki Professor David Bradshaw wrote a book about and held a conference to debate that very point you claim the Greek Orthodox have wrong. Bradshaw was not refuted. His book that states what I posted and the Eastern Orthodox have said on the teaching of Actus purus is indeed (by Bradshaw's scholarship) a validate interpretation of that teaching by Aquinas [3]. Since you insist on the scholastic standard as such then ok. Then by your own standard you must admit you are not completely informed. I will again discuss this book however I wonder if because people like Bradshaw indeed hold to the theology of Aristotelian metaphysics being not Greek Orthodox Christian theology if you will ad hominem attack him like you did Romanides and Yannaras. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the Bradshaw suggestion, but I'm reading works found in the article and browsing other works about how to reduce the choppiness of the article – I will focus on what is already in the article. There is scholarship that discusses both Romanides and Yannaras, it is not my ad hominem, have you thought about how to group the people based on Orthodox trends? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@BoBoMisiu:, what LoveMonkey has been saying about Orthodox theology all along is right on target, and to the extent that western scholarship is saying otherwise is the extent to which that scholarship has Orthodox theology wrong. In addition, one sometimes finds that western scholars refuse to admit that any kind of scholarship can exist unless it is patterned upon the western model. It's nothing more than a kind of cultural (or religious) snobbery, similar to the attitudes of the British in 19th c. India towards those cultures. The east has always had a fully functioning valid model of scholarship, but it is different from the west. The Orthodox Church has not only used that model, but it has also differed from the western church as regards various points of how one comes to know theology. These two things comprise what amounts to a paradigm shift in approach, and it's not hard to see why there is so much misunderstanding. Two points here: first, eastern scholarship counts as scholarship here on WP, just as western scholarship does; second, the western definition of theology applies to western churches, but the eastern one to the eastern churches. One big problem with filioque has always been "precedit" (language differences between Latin and Greek) just to begin with. And that difficulty only multiplies when east and west get to talking about the theological impacts of those language differences. I wouldn't ask you to omit whatever accepted western scholastic sources say here, and I don't think LoveMonkey was doing so either. However, you must understand that Romanides and Yannaras stand as accepted eastern scholastic sources, despite whatever western critics might say, and you are not permitted to apply a western bias in deciding which sources stay in the article any more than an eastern bias would be acceptable. Your comments containing words like xenophobes, rigid thinking, and attributing eastern viewpoints to they react emotionally for centuries are simply illustrations of western misinterpretations, whether they come from you or from western scholars. It should be no surprise that there remains a lot of antagonism between Catholic and Orthodox over filioque, and that cannot be allowed to dominate either the article or the talk page. I still think contrasting the views in the article best awaits good descriptions of each view in its own terms. I also think that those viewpoint descriptions are going to be much more valuable as information points for the reader than coverage of criticisms or disagreements, because point/counterpoint does a lot more to generate emotionalism and degrade neutrality. Evensteven (talk) 16:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

@Evensteven: I have no doubt that "LoveMonkey has been saying about Orthodox theology all along is right on target". But I also know that there is no single Orthodox opinion about the term, filioque, or the doctrine of double procession in the 20th and 21st century. Secularization, the internet, and improving machine translation are a "paradigm shift" that guarantee more people will be informed about the actual translation problems and other facts; they will eventually make their own conclusions about the term filioque, and the doctrine of double procession, and about how the facts were shaped for centuries. They will eventually distance themselves from the rigid thinking of extreme elements and they will share their opinions about the extreme elements with their children. It is just a matter of time in a world where anyone can check disinformation for facts on there cell phone.

There is scholarship about Romanides and Yannaras. My comments are well grounded, e.g. Yannaras is analyzed: "despite Yannaras's own denial of anti-Westernism, his approach is ultimately one that polarizes and thus obstructs encounter and dialogue", i.e. he acts like a xenophobe. These types of claims are according to Vasilios Makrides, writing in 2014, "in fact a compensation mechanism" and those "claims of absolute certainty and superiority are critically viewed in today's tolerant, pluralistic, and relativistic social context and have no real chance to be taken seriously into account."

A quick way to verify the veracity of Romanides's fringe ideas is for you to add a few sentences referencing Romanides to the Australia and New Zealand Wikipedia articles about how they should really be called Franco-Romania and see how long it takes before it is removed. Another quick way is to add a few sentences referencing Romanides to a medical article about how the interaction between the blood and spinal fluid affects behavior and see how long it takes before it is removed. Then argue for his opinions and against western bias on those talk pages, you will see that what I think is reasonable to think about Romanides. Then try the same on a foreign language Wikipedia. I will guess that Romanides's fringe ideas will be removed there also.

I think the article includes lots of 19th, 20th, and 21st century synthesis about the term and about the doctrine by Orthodox authors. I think it could be better grouped into, e.g. the neo-Palamite and neo-Photian opinions (or some other way). Another problem regrouping will solve is that duplicate content within the article is fragmented and not chronological.

• What is biased about the current article?
• What are specific points of contention about the article that can be addressed?
• How would you improve content about "the theological impacts of those language differences"?

I want to WP:REFACTOR/regroup the Romanides and Yannaras discussions into separate sections and get a wider opinion about them since Romanides is found in other articles also. Evensteven, is that OK with you? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing Ware quote

"Ware said, that he had changed his mind and had concluded that "the problem is more in the area of semantics and different emphases than in any basic doctrinal differences": "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone" and "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son" may both have orthodox meanings if the words translated "proceeds" actually have different meanings." This cites a speech Kallistos Ware gave. The quote and the reference was from a geocities.com page. The quote is also paraphrased in the Wikipedia article with a different source. The quote on the geocities.com page was duplicated on catholic.com:

[...] Ware [...], who once adamantly opposed the filioque doctrine, states: "The filioque controversy [...] is more than a mere technicality, but it is not insoluble. Qualifying the firm position taken when I wrote [my book] The Orthodox Church twenty years ago, I now believe, after further study, that the problem is more in the area of semantics and different emphases than in any basic doctrinal differences" (Diakonia, quoted from Elias Zoghby's A Voice from the Byzantine East, 43).

The source cited by catholic.com is the source for the paraphrase in the article with a quote that I tagged with {{Better source}} because it is a translated work but may not be a translated quote. According to Orthodoxwiki:Kallistos (Ware) of Diokleia, Ware was interviewed by Diakonia. Diakonia according to JournalSeek does not have a website.

I think reducing the sources would be good but pointing to the Diakonia interview without verifying the citation is not good. Any suggestions?

References

–BoBoMisiu (talk) 17:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Well you can disagree. As such I can disagree. I disagree with Kallistos Ware just as much as the Eastern Orthodox can disagree with George Metochites. Kallistos is not a monk from Mount Athos and I do not think of him as enlightened he has a degree in theology and is an English convert to Orthodoxy, by that criteria I accept Sophrony (Sakharov) as someone that people should consult to understand Orthodox theology. What you posted that Ware said appears to contradict the Fourth Council of Constantinople (Eastern Orthodox). But again because Sophrony does not have a degree in theology his opinion can't be used here. I hope this is at least somewhat showing the problems with scholasticism as the de facto standard for valid epistemology. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

You can write about Sakharov's opinion about the filioque in the Sakharov article and then link to it. Why not. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes exactly I can not use an Eastern Orthodox theologian and saint on an Eastern Orthodox theology article because he has not gone to a European credentialed institution to confirm his theology. Hence why this issue can not be resolved by scholasticism as it can't even be properly expressed by it. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I hope that you see that you are insisting that the Eastern Christian community conform to the European scholastic model of knowledge in order for them to even have an opinion. It seems that since the theology in the East is not something done by Professors and academics then it is not valid and it can not be represented here. It seems that the Eastern Christians can not have a voice without a degree in theology? You are insisting that an entire people conform to your standard in order for them to even state their position. And if they can not then you will discard them. And the few whom actually did as you insist (Romanides and Yannaras) you do ad hominem attacks on? I have not made any substantive edits to this article and I am trying very hard to collaborate with you but it seems mostly what I am doing is trying to change your mind and I don't have time for that nor should anyone trying to post the Eastern Christian position. LoveMonkey (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not insisting on anything about Sakharov; I don't know anything about Sakharov; it was just a supportive comment. On the other hand, there is scholarship that discusses both Romanides and Yannaras, it is not my ad hominem. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Monarchy of the Father and Subordinationism

Something to also consider is this article here about how the Roman Catholic accepts the Monarchy of the Father which appears to deny the theology of the filioque. [4] The argument given by the pro filioque side in the past has been that the Eastern Orthodoxy are engaging in Subordinationism when professing the monarchy of the Father.[5] LoveMonkey (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I think that would be good to refocus the current content, there is a link to Subordinationism article already – especially from the current sources. Arianism and Eastern Christianity were located in the same places for centuries. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Well in the East it took violence (Islam and material atheism) to keep people from the mystical experienced called Christianity, the same that replaced the Mystery Cults based on reason. So in the West it will be just a matter of waiting it out. As all the arguing and all the reason and rationalizing of a God people don't even really know will not bring people back to church nor to Christ. These heresies above were based upon rationalizing God and the intent in them was to find by reason a way to rationalize and reconcile Christianity with various philosophical goals (unity and ecumenism). Philosophical goals that are not Christian goals. Human reason and or human reason alone is far too deficient to use as the means to obtain salvation. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Lossky in Kulakov

Kulakov (2007, p177) was added in 2010 to a sentence citing Lossky (2003, p176) that was tagged with {{failed verification}} in 2010 for "the sourced cited does not contain the expression 'double procession' and in fact says nothing about the interpretation of the words of Saint Maximus quoted here." Yet Kulakov (p178) points out that "Lossky was often unjust and inaccurate in his criticism of the Western scholastic understanding of the nature of the Trinity, and of the distinction between 'person' and 'individual'. Some of Lossky's generalizations contain factual errors." Kulakov (p177) seems to be used without the context of (p178) or a potential analysis of Lossky on (p177) which is not available in Google Books preview. This combination is used to support that:

In the judgment of these Orthodox, the Roman Catholic Church is in fact teaching as a matter of Roman Catholic dogma that the Holy Spirit derives his origin and being (equally) from both the Father and the Son, making the Filioque a double procession.

I tagged it with a {{discuss}} and I think that page (p177) needs verification. LoveMonkey do you remember anything about this? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 21:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Sanda in Pomazansky

In the English translation from Russian, Pomazansky constructs a conspiratorial ingroup outgroup dichotomy by insinuating that there is a difference between Roman Catholic public information and Roman Catholic private information "in Latin dogmatic works, intended for internal use, [where] we encounter a definite treatment of the Orthodox dogma of the procession of the Holy Spirit as a 'heresy'." Pomazansky writes that, Vojtěch Šanda wrote that, "in the year 808 Greek monks protested against the introduction by the Latins of the word Filioque into the Creed . . . Who the originator of this heresy was, is unknown." Pomazansky uses ellipsis to separate the text about an incident between monks (which is mentioned in non-theological works about the Early Middle Ages[6]) and a commentary sentence by Šanda. Seemingly, Pomazansky redacted what Šanda pointed to as being heretical.

The work (OCLC 13775875), by Šanda, that Pomazansky cited is not available online to clarify what (or even if) Šanda described about the Orthodox dogma as being heretical.

21st century sources describe the 808 incident in context: the founder of the Carolingian Empire, Charlemagne, king of Francia (r. 800–814), "supported the Christians of [Jerusalem, which was governed by the Abbasid caliphate,] and there was renewed pilgrim traffic at that time. A Frankish monastery was established on the Mount of Olives; the Frankish monks there recited the Nicene Creed with the Filioque insertion, which scandalized the Greek monks in the city."[7]

The current (2015-11-22) revision of Filioque gives the impression that a group monks are the only ones who made such a claim. The incident is described in Louth (2007, p. 142) who does not mention this. Congar (1983, p. 57) describes that a monk "proclaimed the heresy of the books and conducted a campaign against the Frankish monks, who, [ ] appealed to the Pope, who, [ ] wrote to the emperor." There is nothing that I read that corroborates Pomazansky's claim.

Outside sources, e.g. Sloan (2012, p. 70) who states that he followed Lagarde (1915, pp. 427–428), and Tixeront (1916 p. 508), do not mention Pomazansky's claim.

Is there a source currently in the article to support Pomazansky's claim of "a definite treatment of the Orthodox dogma of the procession of the Holy Spirit as a 'heresy'" by Western Christians?

References

–BoBoMisiu (talk) 21:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Etymology

While WP:NOTDICTIONARY, the WP:WORDISSUBJECT. The etymology of the term filioque is:

< filio (ablative or dative case of filius ("son")) + -que (enclitic "and").

So it can be an ablative or dative form of the lemma filius – it is ablative in the creed. I do not think the English term from needs to be interpolated because of the ablative form; e.g. OED entry for "filioque, n" and other English dictionaries show "and from the son".

The ΛΟΓΕΙΟΝ entry for que shows how that suffix, -que, is used. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 22:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)