Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:03, 23 August 2013

WARNING

THIS EDITOR HAS A SENSE OF HUMOUR THAT OTHERS FIND OFFENSIVE

I am keeping this image, which amuses me, although others have interpreted it as a laugh not at the person who until 17 December 2012 was tied up (me) - much less restrictively than in the picture - but at the person who had me tied up.

People of Levantine-Greek Orthodox Christian descent

Dear Esoglou,

Since you seem to be a rational soul and know about the « Byzantine » (no pun intended!) subtleties of 'old European' cultural categorization and Church(es) history, I’m writing to draw your attention to the fact that some reckless Wiki-Boeotians want to delete the “People of Levantine-Greek Orthodox Christian descent” and the “American of Levantine-Greek Orthodox Christian descent” categories!

See this page

Your erudite editorial help in the current « deletion debate » would be appreciated

Cordially,

--B.Andersohn (talk) 22:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be no need for me to intervene in the way you desire. There is evidently no consensus for deletion of those categories. To give an opinion on usage in the English language, I would have to form one first. In Greek, I might have to take a position opposite to yours, since my Greek dictionary defines λεβαντίνος as a somewhat archaic (παλαιὀτερος) word for Ευρωπαίος εγκατεστημένος στα παράλια της Μικράς Ασίας και της Μέσης Ανατολής (a European settled on the coast of Asia Minor and the Middle East) and in practice the word seems to be used rather pejoratively of Catholics of that area (something not mentioned in the dictionary). Esoglou (talk) 11:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, Thanks for your prompt feedback With all due respect, I think your “modern” Greek dictionary is wrong!! “Levantine” tout court (can often) mean(s) something along the lines of “Frankish” = mainly French and Italian, but also Croatian and even Scottish merchants established in WESTERN Turkey and, to a lesser extent, Syria = mainly Roman Catholics... But “of Levantine-Greek Orthodox descent” = “Rûm” Christians specifically in the Hatay/Alexandretta Province of SOUTHERN Turkey + the adjacent Syrian-Lebanese context means altogether something else = adherents of the original Greek Orthodox Church/Patriarchate of Antioch and their descendants in the diasporas of the Americas- including the so-called “Uniat” “Greek Catholics” or "Melkites"... It’s rather complicated- and very much “Byzantine”- no pun intended!  ;) --B.Andersohn (talk) 13:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Your definition is the same as the first of those given by Babaniotis (Μπαμπανιώτης) for φραγκολεβαντίνος (Frankish Levantine): ο κάτοικος χώρας της Α. Μεσογείου που εἰχε δυτικοευρωπαϊκή καταγωγή (inhabitant of an Eastern Mediterranean country who was of western European origin). I feel no need to form any personal opinion either of the Greek term or of the English term. Esoglou (talk) 18:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Mariology

I did no revert your changes on Mariology article partly because I did not want to start any festivities, partly because they were by and large correct. Yet, what I see is that your feeling is that "what originates in Rome matters most". Yet Mariology is the exception to that as Juan Diego illustrated. And the Blue Army etc. did a lot more for Fatima than most Cardinals. So I will not start a debate on that, but please somehow tone it to reflect the perspective that a lot of it was driven by popular piety and sensus fidelium rather than being decided in the corridors of the CDF. That is all I will say here and will try not to respond further. I hope yo understand. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 15:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I had finished work on that article, but now it seems I must revisit it. The article opens by saying that Mariology is "theology concerned with the Virgin Mary". Marian devotions are another thing. They inspire theological reflection, but are not themselves theology. I have difficulty in seeing how Juan Diego and the Blue Army belong under theology rather than under devotions. Events and situations that have inspired literature and music are not themselves literature or music. (The bombardment of Fort McHenry is what the US national anthem is/was about, but it isn't the US national anthem - a perhaps lame comparison.) So I have difficulty in accepting your insertion today of the statement that "popular piety related to Mary" is included in Mariology, especially when you phrase it as if that were the principal part of Mariology, which, you say, contains other matters "as well as" this apparently principal part. To me it seems that Mariology is instead the theological study of popular Marian piety, and of what the New Testament says of her, and of what the Church Fathers say of matters such as prefigurations of her in the Old Testament, and of what the Church's liturgy says of her, and of what is found in episcopal, conciliar and papal statements about her. Of these, the only things that can really be said to be Mariology are the conclusions (which are therefore theology) drawn by theologians (including their hypothetical statements, speculative theology/Mariology that for some reason you excised) and by Church Fathers and other authorities, especially the few dogmatic statements. Scripture and liturgy and popular piety are material that these draw on, but neither Scripture nor popular piety is, properly speaking, theology. Surely we agree on that, and you may wish to rephrase your edit.

The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church defines Mariology as "the systematic study of the person of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of her place in the economy of the Incarnation". Sounds good to me. Esoglou (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually the theology phrase came not from my keyboard, but from an old friend who I fear has passed away (but I am not sure, for I never met him) for he has not edited for long. I think he got that definition from Ott's book. The Oxford dictionary item is actually better, if simplified for the economy part will get the average reader confused. I think it is better if you touch up the definition to be study rather than theology. Mariology is the study of Mary, just as Christology is the study of Christ. I followed his edits out of respect because of this. I am almost certain he was there, and he knew the man and the topic pretty well. But perhaps the Oxford definition is better than Ott's. In general this would be a very good source, the way Benedict's quote starts it, etc. But that devotions are a component of Mariology is pretty clear in any case, from Miravalle's book as well. I think we can try "Mariology is the systematic study of the person of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of her role in ... ". Just need to finish that with a easier to grasp form of the "economy of incarnation". History2007 (talk) 19:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't make out what passage in Miravalle's book (not a cardinal's, as it has been falsely presented in the article) you are referring to. I have searched for "Benedict XVI" in it, but have not found where he speaks of "Mariology", although you say it is at the start. I may have missed it through some oversight. What you mean by this reference is also quite beyond my immediate comprehension. And a Google search has failed to show up any use of the word "Mariology" in Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.

Giving Miravalle as a chief authority is perhaps for many not the most persuasive evidence.

We can't truncate the ODCC definition. There can be many forms of systematic study of Mary, there are feminist studies of her and there could be studies from, say, an anthropological point of view or a social or ... The phrase "of her place in the economy of the Incarnation" indicates that the systematic study in question is of theological character. So "theological study" would do as a shortened form. Mariology is a branch of theology, and that should not be obscured. Mariology is the theological study of Mary, just as Christology is the theological study of Christ.

Whether Mariology is a generic systematic study or a specifically theological systematic study, it seems obvious to me that Scripture, liturgy and popular piety are not the study, but are instead material that the study works on. So do you still think that your edit making one of these a leading part of the systematic study called Mariology rather than an object that Mariology systematically studies, and your exclusion of a speculative part of the systematic study called Mariology is valid?

The phrase I used above, that Mariology is a branch of theology, can be backed up with John Hardon's New Catholic Dictionary, by Terrence J. McNally's What Every Catholic Should Know about Mary, Jean-Luc Godard's Hail Mary by Maryel Locke and Charles Warren and doubtless by many more. Esoglou (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

As I have said, I am not going to do major editing on this, or other articles as on Jan 1st 2013. In fact, I hope you will watch over these (and the Mariology f teh popes, etc.) now that you are showing interest. The book may have been Bäumer's Marienlexikon I think now. A good source may be this as well - McNally is self published. And yes, "Scripture, liturgy and popular piety" are the objects of the study, not the study itself, just as electrons are not physics. As for the word "hypothetical" I think it puts down the parts that do not come from Rome. That was the reason. I am uncomfortable with that word, so do you have another? History2007 (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The article, I see, needs complete rewriting, a heavy task that I am reluctant to take on. I may rewrite the lead, but even that alone requires more than retouching. Esoglou (talk) 09:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I beg to differ on that issue. But let us see if we can even get the first sentence agreed on. History2007 (talk) 09:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I have just noticed that even the claim "Roman Catholic Mariology includes dogmas, traditions, confirmed theological positions, as well as popular piety related to Mary, contemporary as well as historical" has no basis in the source cited for it. Esoglou (talk) 09:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

My friend, look at the August version. You edited it to remove a few things, now noticed the new version does not correspond to the source... History2007 (talk) 09:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe it was you who put in the word "includes". As for the August version, the sources cited, at least those I have access to, speak of Mary, not of Mariology. I had better post my revision of the lead in the state that it has already reached, in the hope of clarifying. Esoglou (talk) 10:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, let us discuss on on the talk page there anyway, since it relates to that. History2007 (talk) 10:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

After your reversion, the task would be too heavy. I leave with you this article with its false presentation of Mariology (although the article on Mariology correctly explains its meaning in the way I attempted to get across), its reliance on sources such as Miravilla's self-published work ("Publisher Mark I. Miravalle, S.T.D., 2008"), which it falsely attributes to Cardinal Burke ... No, I cannot take it on. Esoglou (talk) 10:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry, I did not really want to bring about any friction. History2007 (talk) 10:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

No friction whatever, on my part, about your reverting my edit, for which I am instead grateful. It was with the greatest reluctance that I undertook to revise even the lead of the article. You have now released me from even that burden, which the discussion here led me into, and also from the possibility of later being induced to tackle the rest of the article. On the article that you have interested me in I can make observations for others to deal with, with no obligation to rewrite it myself. Esoglou (talk) 13:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion for List of religious leaders in 2012

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of religious leaders in 2012, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. tahc 01:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

English versions of the Nicene Creed

I've removed a lot of material that seems obviously copyvio. I'm no expert, but hopefully the people at WP:CP will figure it out. --JFH (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Capitalization

I see you've been running into Kwamikagami's capitalization changes. There's a broader discussion about them at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#the_God_of_Israel_or_the_god_of_Israel. Jayjg 23:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added a brief comment. Esoglou (talk) 08:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Recent Vatican-related edits

Thank you for your contributions to the Vatican-related pages that I have recently edited—I have made a slight revision, in light of your reply, so let me know what you think.--Soulparadox (talk) 09:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

You did right to correct (even if in rather vague terms) the questioned phrase. I leave it to others to judge whether the expressions used are suitable for an encyclopedia. Esoglou (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem; I am open to specific advice, so please feel free to go into more detail if you have the time and I will proceed from there.--Soulparadox (talk) 01:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Holy See

Hi Esoglou,

I just wanted to pint out that the article on the Holy See uses American English throughout the article, and has been that way since it was expanded beyond stub status . Let me know if you want to discuss. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 05:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for answering my question. Esoglou (talk) 09:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Movements

All movements are associations of the faithful, but not all associations of the faithful are movements. I doubt the Knights of Columbus (or for that matter your local St Vincent de Paul soup kitchen) would thus describe themselves as movements.

I am undoing your edits on Template:Lay Catholic spirituality. I would like an explanation for combining lay ecclesial movements and associations of the faithful. It says you moved movements to associations but there was previously a page on associations that explained canon law.

Obviously, official first (associations) but when a subgroup is known by a separate title (movements), have that too. There are certain characteristics of movements that other associations don't have. >> Jesus Loves You! M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 18:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Limbo

Catholic controversy? I was merely trying to express an issue that exists. Objectively the issue should be described. I tried not to add my own biases, and continued editing in that regard. Any edits to the section should merely help me stay objective- not to remove a section that explains an objectively valid issue. I stand open to style corrections. This is similar to the controversy described on the page, extra ecclesiam nulla salus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.76.47.131 (talk) 22:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Let's discuss this on the article's Talk page. Esoglou (talk) 08:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Index Librorum Prohibitorum

I found an edit you made to this article in December 2011 to be somewhat confusing. Before I looked up when the edit was made, I posted an explanation of the confusing aspects to the article's talk page at Talk:Index Librorum Prohibitorum#Effects outside the Catholic world. Could you take another look at it? To me, the paragraph made more sense before the edit than afterward. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I too find it confusing. I hope to find time soon to study it. Esoglou (talk) 08:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for revising the paragraph. The new version is a definite improvement. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thank you for fixing up Associations of the faithful! >> Jesus Loves You! M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 07:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I am a little busy with a big writing project these days. p.s. I will try to find a little more of a clear distinction and then make a subsection for each group and redirect movements to the subsection. I think that would be the best. Agreed? >> Jesus Loves You! M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 07:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again. Esoglou (talk) 12:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Possible spam alert on Excommunication (again).

Hey - I thought we had this one pretty much settled over two years ago, but take a look at this beauty added to the hidden text by an IP editor. I went ahead and reverted it, but I think it might be worth our while to keep an eye on this page for a bit. Just thought you might want to know. (And incidentally, to clear up any confusion raised by this IP's edit, I am actually a "him," not a "her." ;) ) Cheers. Sleddog116 (talk) 21:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar for you Esoglou

Thank You for your recent edit on Solovyev's article page.

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank You for your recent edit on Vladimir Solovyov (philosopher)'s article page. LoveMonkey (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I did no more than provide objective corrective information based on a reliable source. Esoglou (talk) 07:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

s:Nicene Creed

Hi, would you respond at s:Talk:Nicene Creed regarding what you think the page should look like? --JFH (talk) 16:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if maybe you misunderstood my message above, though I appreciate your comment at Talk:English versions of the Nicene Creed. The link above is to the Nicene Creed page at Wikisource where you made a comment about the title and author. --JFH (talk) 15:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

You are right. I did misunderstand. It happens all too frequently. Esoglou (talk) 17:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Images

They are still eligble for commons. It's just that they need to be explicitly re licensed as CC-BY-SA by the copyright owner. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Sede vacante beginning date

As you said, Canon 203 is about computing duration of a period of time, which here is the duration of Sede vacante, why do you think Canon 203 does not apply for sede vacante? Secondly there is reference in the article from Vatican that sede vacante is calculated from March 1, why do you think that is not enough? Please do not revert it without discussion. --Jayarathina (talk) 05:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

For our matter of discussion and for your reference:

• Can. 202 §1. In law, a day is understood as a period consisting of 24 continuous hours and begins at midnight unless other provision is expressly made;
• Can. 203 §1. states: The initial day (a quo) is not computed in the total unless its beginning coincides with the beginning of the day or the law expressly provides otherwise. --Jayarathina (talk) 05:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

One more thing, the see becoming vacant and the period of sede vacante are two different things. The see became vacant on 28 Feb, there is no question about that. But when is the sede vacante period calculated from is the question at hand. And the reference and cannon law shows it is March 1st --Jayarathina (talk) 06:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Pope Benedict declared that the vacancy would begin at 20:00 on 28 February. 28 February is understood as beginning at midnight (00:00).

Supposing the vacancy ends on, say, 15 March, the vacancy will last from 20:00 on 28 February to whatever hour the election is completed on 15 March (a day that is understood as beginning at 00:00 on that day), and the length of the vacancy will be 15 days (not counting 28 February, but counting all the 1-15 March days.

The declaration by the Pope is what counts, not a mistaken report of what Father Lombardi said. You remember how at 20:00 on 28 February, the doors of the Castel Gandolfo palace were solemnly closed and the Swiss Guard, the personal bodyguard of the Pope, departed, because they no longer had a Pope to guard. At 20:00 on 28 February. Esoglou (talk) 07:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Pope did not say that sede vacante begins on 28 February. He said the see will become vacant on 28 Feb 20:00. All I am trying to say is there is a difference to both of those statements. The see became vacant on 28 Feb, so all those door closing etc., took place at that time. But the article is about the period of sede vacante. The table column "beginning" denotes the beginning of the period of sede vacante. I think we both agree on that. Canonically it begins on March 1. And Fr. Lombardi is the official spokesperson for the Holy See. It is impossible for him to make a mistake on such a grave matter or at-least not correct it yet. He didn't correct it because it is not a mistake. Secondly if assuming a fictitious pope died on 28 February Morning 00:01 then other cardinals have to wait 15 full days to start the conclave. even though 28 feb has only one minute less it will not be counted. --Jayarathina (talk) 13:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

It's enough to discuss this on the article's Talk page. Esoglou (talk) 19:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Sede vacante § When did the 2013 vacancy begin – By Esoglou (talk) 19:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Template inserted by Jayarathina (talk) 06:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

--Jayarathina (talk) 14:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Requesting comment on whether we should rename Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore to Saint Mary Major=

I am targetting folk who have altered the entry before. Rococo1700 (talk) 04:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Rite/Church

I am not so sure that we can co-opt the "Rite" field of {{infobox religious building}} to read "Latin Church". The documentation for this template actually says that this field is intended for Orthodox Jewish buildings, i.e. Sephardi or Ashkenazi rite. To me, it just perpetuates misunderstanding and confusion of Church/Rite if we place "Latin Church" in there. I am not saying it is wrong. You are correct in that the building itself belongs to the Latin Church and not to the Roman Rite. I am just saying that this field is likely inappropriate and there is no appropriate field to fill in the particular Church affiliation as we would like. Perhaps an edit of the template itself is in order. Elizium23 (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

What you say about the origin of that line in the infobox suggests that it is not about the liturgical rite celebrated in the building but about the branch of Judaism (or of the Catholic Church) that the building is associated with. (Askkenazi and Sephardi have separate Chief Rabbis, don't they?) Unless the template is reedited, perhaps it would be best to leave this line blank in the case of Saint Mary Major's. Esoglou (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Warning

If you continue misrepresenting the sources with the goal of pushing your POV, it is not impossible that you will be sanctioned, just as you were sanctioned for your POV-pushing over abortion. I'm willing to accept the argument that the problem is a simple lack of basic competence rather than an agenda, but both should lead you to step away from topic you cannot edit neutrally or competently. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Happy Easter

Sorry it's a day late. Yesterday was a busy day.

Christ is risen! Alleluia.

Richard

Sorry for being much more than a day late in thanking you and reciprocating your good wishes. I was in hospital for a month and am still recuperating. Esoglou (talk) 17:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe self-proclaimed naming and advocacy?

Help please! We're in a bit of a pickle here and here. Thank uou for your brief attention. --Septimus Wilkinson (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, there is an editor who would scream if I touched anything to do with the EOC. Besides, I have just returned to editing after a spell in hospital and discussion must surely have moved on since then. Esoglou (talk) 17:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Opus Dei - Society

One editor is trying to claim Opus Dei is not a society in Template_talk:Lay_Catholic_spirituality#Opus_Dei_prelature_is_technically_not_a_movement_nor_a_society. Since you have been the other editor active on this template and we agreed that society was a good general term to include the rest, could you please comment. Maybe we need to be clearer in the naming but I think we want to keep Opus Dei on the template.>> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 19:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding sooner. The new system ("Echo") failed until now to draw my attention to this change on my talk page. Esoglou (talk) 08:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Removing Wikilinks

Hi, I see you have come across Alexander.Meier, the don quixote tilting at wikilinks. I fail to understand what he is trying to do, he has no talk page, I left a message in an edit summary, he responded on my page, but I still don't get it. Well, I do - he is helping out the bots that are migrating the wikilinks. But surely, the bots will do it one page at a time, following some programme logic, without a posse of editors now joining in? Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:History_of_slavery&action=edit&section=52 Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Although I reverted three of his sweepings, each of which I thought too drastic, I wonder if he is at least partly justified. Another editor, whom one of my three actions drew to intervene, seems to have clarified that sweeping. Perhaps the sweeper will himself give a valid individual explanation of each of his deletions of an interwiki link. I await those explanations before judging The bots need assistance from humans who understand the languages concerned and can judge which of several related pages in language X a page in language Y is best linked with. Esoglou (talk) 17:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

"Practise" on the Catholic Church article

Just so you know, I did that as part of an OTRS request, so you may get an inquiry from a user about that in the future. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I presume that you know that my edit was in line with the "Use British English" template at the beginning of the article. Esoglou (talk) 18:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I recall looking for it when I was editing, but I didn't see it at first, so I performed the edit. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

It isn't visible except in edit mode. I think it ought to be immediately visible. Esoglou (talk) 10:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Reverted edit at Watchers page

I have made a comment about a reverted edit by you at the Watchers talk page (Elioud).Ohwilleke (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The Bible and Homosexuality

I'm trying to understand why my edit was removed. I added that Theologian James White has suggested that the Greek term arsenokoitai may be a derivative of the Septuagint reading of Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. After reviewing the article, I don't find any other references the Septuagint. If a person reads the Septuagint, the text reads ἄρσενος οὐ κοιμηθήσῃ κοίτην, which (when shortened) is arsenokoitai. Did I need to add more on this, or what was missing for this change to stick? --Xenoranger (talk) 17:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The removal of your edit was inadvertent. You added it while I was working on my more elaborate edit and it escaped my notice. For this I apologize. I have now restored your edit. The main point you make is true, but you should add a precise citation (title of the book and page number on which the statement is made). Some other editor will probably object on that ground. It would be well if you forestalled that objection. Esoglou (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. I'm looking for the exact debate that James White brought this up in. While I have made a case here, I think a scholar would carry more weight. --Xenoranger (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that you added citations to the topic. THanks again! WHen I find that debate where Dr. White makes the assertion, I'll add that as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xenoranger (talk • contribs) 12:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Constantinopolitan creed?

Perhaps you would know better how common this name is generally, but I found it referred to by this name (and also "Creed of Constantinople") in Leo Davis' The First Seven Ecumenical Councils, pp. 120-122. Sure it's not elsewhere in the literature? Evenssteven (talk) 08:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

You are right. Davis states on page 121 of his book: "Many scholars think that even the so-called Constantinopolitan Creed is not the work of this Council." I have also found this, perhaps not a reliable source. And I have found other cases in which what is much more commonly called the "Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed" or the "Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed" is called the "Constantinopolitan Creed" here and here (where "Constantinopolitan Creed" appears not as a title, but as a description: "It is this (Constantinopolitan) Creed which today is usually referred to as the 'Nicene Creed'"). Esoglou (talk) 11:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I've since encountered it in some of Schaff's credal commentary too. But I agree with your article editing, relegating its mention to a footnote, since the term seems to come up most often deep inside a scholarly discussion, and less in front where a more casual reader or inquirer might find it. Evenssteven (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

2RR

Esoglou, you know very well that abortion-related articles are under 1RR. Your recent edit was the second in 24 hours to remove material that I had added, and I recommend that you revert yourself. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder and suggestion, which I appreciate. Esoglou (talk) 19:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

(Or to add back material I removed, as I forgot to mention. You've been topic-banned twice largely because of your introduction of irrelevant sources to push an agenda, and you should know better than to do it again.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The image of me being tied up fits better on top. Esoglou (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note

To be sure, Esoglou, all of this stuff comes across as funny after the fact. However, in the heat of battle, and unfortunately it comes down to battle too often, it's not so pleasant. Basically, I hate the idea of running off to administrators, preferring to deal directly with other editors on substantive article issues. In the case of our colleague Rosy, however, perhaps it would be better to lodge a complaint as soon as she begins to question the competence of another editor. There are certainly loads of examples. Best Regards. Badmintonhist (talk) 01:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

No. Let her continue her ridiculous raging. Although she demeans herself by indulging in it, it may do her good as a way of letting off steam. I regret that, all too frequently, I fail to hide my amusement from her, as ideally I should. Esoglou (talk) 17:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Pope Pius XII Blessed the Image of the Divine Mercy.

Esoglou, I went through the Saint Faustina article and corrected all the errors. But then you reverted or changed (or whatever it is called) much of what I did. So I have decided to write to you here on your talk page, so that we can resolve this in a positive way. I will explain some of the improvements that I made. I hope that then you will see things more clearly.

Pope Pius XII blessed the Image of the Divine Mercy. This is very significant. Popes do not always give such approval to a devotion before the canonization of the Saint. It was an important contribution to that article. And I added a link from the Pallotine Fathers proving that Pope Pius XII had blessed the Image of the Divine Mercy. In the Pontificate of Pope Pius XII, the Catholic Church founded a religious order to spread the Divine Mercy and help the Catholic Church. The religious order is called the Congregation of the Most Holy Lord Jesus Christ, Merciful Redeemer. So I added that highly relevant development to the article, and a link to their website. I gave reputable links for many things that I added to the article. E.g., The Marian Fathers, The Pallotine Fathers, and the Congregation of the Most Holy Lord Jesus Christ, Merciful Redeemer. Vilnius is spelled Vilnius, not Villnius, so I corrected that. The article had: “She stated that she first felt a calling to religious life while attending the Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament at age seven.” The correct term is: “a calling to the religious life” (definitive article), so I corrected that. I added the information that Saint Faustina died at the age of 33. I moved this quote to a different part of the article, where the matter concerned was being discussed: “There will come a time when this work, which God is demanding so very much, will be as though utterly undone. And then God will act with great power, which will give evidence of its authenticity. It will be a new splendor for the Church, although it has been dormant in it from long ago.” (Diary 1738). The Diary was never on the Index of Forbidden Books. That is an untrue accusation spread about by supporters of the banned false visionary Valtorta. Valtorta is nothing to do with the Divine Mercy. There is a mention of the notification from the time of John XXIII. A more relevant matter is the later notification of from Paul VI, which reversed that earlier notification. So I will include mention of that current notification which is more relevant. And I will also include an explanatory summary of the earlier, repealed notification. Cardinal Ottaviani was not even in charge of the Holy Office under the Pope when the earlier notification was issued. He was put in charge later on. It was only a notary called Hugh O’Flaherty who signed the earlier notification. The Diary of Saint Faustina was never on the Index of Forbidden Books. I also pointed out on the Talk Page that Cardinal Ottaviani had never asked for the Diary to be put on the Index. I even gave a link on the Talk Page showing the actual document, from the time of Cardinal Ottaviani, about Valtorta. Saint Faustina is not even mentioned. Neither is the Divine Mercy. Father Seraphim Michalenko, the Marian Fathers, Catherine Odell’s biography of Saint Faustina, the book “Saints of the Jubilee”, and other sources all mention Cardinal Ottaviani’s support for the Divine Mercy. Cardinal Ottaviani was the man who instructed the Bishop to hasten the cause for Saint Faustina’s canonization, as is mentioned on the Marian Fathers’ website. The Marian Fathers are the world experts on the Divine Mercy. The whole story about Cardinal Ottavani and the Index is untrue. Valtorta promoters have circulated this untruth. They do this in the futile hope that their false visionary, Valtorta ( who is nothing to do with the Divine Mercy), will be canonized.The Divine Mercy was never on the Index of Forbidden Books. Saint Faustina was never on the Index of Forbidden Books. That is certain. The Divine Mercy was never on the Index of Forbidden Books. Saint Faustina was never on the Index of Forbidden Books. Here are links which show lists of the books which were on the Index of Forbidden Books: Books on the Index of Forbidden Books were listed in alphabetical order by author, by J. Martinez de Bujanda in his book, "Index Librorum Prohibitorum: 1600-1966". If you look on p.489, it lists the name Kortholt. Saint Faustina Kowalska’s surname would have come next after Kortholt. Her name is not mentioned at all. Saint Faustina Kowalska was never on the Index of Forbidden Books. Happily, that particular page from Bujanda’s book can be read online at a google books preview here: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Tie0hkcrpg4C&pg=PA472&lpg=PA472&dq=J.+Martinez+de+Bujanda,+Index+Librorum+Prohibitorum&source=bl&ots=Hs5bY9R936&sig=jl6SsJsIJF6C0GdIUZ_Qv5DXeJA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zXhjUdvYDvSo0AXMmoGIBw&ved=0CFUQ6AEwCDgK#v=onepage&q=J.%20Martinez%20de%20Bujanda%2C%20Index%20Librorum%20Prohibitorum&f=false Further proof is to be found on this website: http://search.beaconforfreedom.org/search which also has a list of books which are on the Index of Forbidden Books. Saint Faustina is not mentioned, neither is the Divine Mercy, because they were never on the Index of Forbidden Books.

I also made the following change to the article on Misplaced Pages. In the Further Reading part, the Misplaced Pages article had: “Pope Benedict's Divine Mercy Mandate” by David Came 2009, which is not relevant to an article about Saint Faustina. So I removed that irrelevant book from the Further Reading part. “The Diary of Saint Maria Faustina Kowalska: Divine Mercy In My Soul”, is the title of the published book, the article had “Diary: Divine Mercy In My Soul”, as it had been put near the opening of the article, so I changed that. I think, if I remember correctly, that I may have changed a letter to a capital letter at the beginning of a sentence. If I did do that, then that is just good English. I think that I may have fixed a link in the citations that did not work, but I cannot remember for certain, now. I aspire to be meticulously accurate in my editing on Misplaced Pages. Possibly I should have given a more detailed explanation in Edit Summary. Perhaps that caused a misunderstanding.

I hope I have now explained my improvements to your satisfaction, Esoglou. Have a good weekend. Cordially, The Divine Mercy Reseacher. The Divine Mercy Researcher (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of an article is best done on the article's Talk page. Mass deletion of sourced information and the addition of original research, such as turning the blessing of an image by a Pope into a papal approval of a particular devotion, cannot be reasonably defended even on Talk page. Participants at the Wednesday general audiences are told that the Pope blesses the rosaries and other religious objects that they bring to the audience for that purpose. That is not the same as saying that he gives the seal of papal approval to whatever the participants are devoted to. Esoglou (talk) 17:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Esoglou

Esoglou, Thank you for restoring those edits that you restored. I appreciate it. Thank you again.

Have a good week, Esoglou.

Cordially,

The Divine Mercy Researcher.

The Divine Mercy Researcher (talk) 19:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Esoglou, I noticed that you put templates a couple of times in the edits that you restored. I will see if I can find some good citations. Also, some good has come out of this, because I have looked again at my edits, and realized that there are some better citations that I could have used in my work. The ones that I used were very good, but there are even better ones that I could have used instead. So I may change some of the citations I gave, and replace them with better ones.

Cordially,

The Divine Mercy Researcher.

The Divine Mercy Researcher (talk) 02:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Please Help If You Can

Esoglou, Please help with this if you can.

You are obviously familiar with Misplaced Pages editing, whereas I am not yet very experienced at it.

The article on valtorta is full of errors. It is incredibly POV. There are real errors.

Also, they have cunningly hidden the extent of the Church’s condemnations. http://www.ewtn.com/library/scriptur/valtorta.txt says that Valtorta was condemned by the Catholic Church repeatedly: in 1949, and again in 1959, and again in 1960,and again in 1985, and again in 1993.

The wiki article on Valtorta has many false claims.

E.g., the claim that screwdrivers were used in the Bible. In reality, screwdrivers were not invented until hundreds of years later.

The valtorta article is an appallingly POV, unfactual, and error-strewn article.

Catholics are being deceived because of this article into thinking that valtorta is good, whereas in reality the Catholic Church has taught that it is a mortal sin to read valtorta.

Please have a look at the valtorta article, and see what you think. I do not want to make major edits to the valtorta article yet without seeking consensus, which I think is something similar to what you may have advised a while ago.

If you are not able to help, I will try to manage the valtorta article on my own, but I am perhaps not yet experienced enough at Misplaced Pages to know what to do in a situation like this. I thought that I would ask you.

Cordially,

The Divine Mercy Researcher.

The Divine Mercy Researcher (talk) 08:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I have made a start. It is better to wait several days before attempting anything further. Esoglou (talk) 19:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Esoglou, Thank you for helping with that Valtorta article.

It is a fact that many Catholics could be deceived into thinking that Valtorta was accepted by the Catholic Church, whereas in reality Valtorta has been banned by the Catholic Church.

Thank you again for helping.

Have a nice day, Esoglou.

Cordially,

The Divine Mercy Reseacher.

The Divine Mercy Researcher (talk) 03:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

P.S., I will have those other citations that you asked me for sorted out by Thursday. For complicated reasons things got delayed, and I want to do it as good as I can. By Thursday I will have had been able to sort out those citations. Also, I have just noticed your edits to the Valtorta “poem” page. Thank you also for those, Esoglou. You really did it well.

Have a good weekend, Esoglou.

Cordially,

The Divine Mercy Researcher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Divine Mercy Researcher (talk • contribs) 02:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Esoglou, I apologize for the delay with those extra citations. I was going to put them on by Thursday, but I am still trying to ascertain about one of the sources, and I also want to make sure that some other points are rock solid. I do not want to put anything on there that is wrong. I will have ascertained about that source before Monday. So I will put all those citations on the article on Tuesday.

Again, I apologize for my delay.

Have a good weekend, Esoglou.

Cordially,

The Divine Mercy Researcher.

The Divine Mercy Researcher (talk) 03:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Esoglou, I have finally managed to get those outstanding citations on that other article. I can put them on the article today. My original citations were very good, but I wanted to make the article as good as possible. So I wanted to replace some of my earlier citations with even better citations.

So I will be able to put those extra citations on the article today.

Thank you again for your good work exposing Valtorta. You did a very good deed.

Have a nice day, Esoglou.

Cordially,

The Divine Mercy Researcher.

The Divine Mercy Researcher (talk) 03:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

TRINITY

Esoglou,

I not Familiar with Wiki procedure. Do you own this link on the TRINITY? I have presented the facts according to According to the HOLY BIBLE, the Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionary; the three persons of the Trinity doctrine take on a new surprising meaning. Why are you censoring the Biblical Truth? I believe is very constructive to reveal the truth. There are many view points on the truth but I presented the facts. Please help me understand your position on why I should not present biblical truth?

Best Regard’s g2jc — Preceding unsigned comment added by G2jc (talk • contribs) 15:51, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Read WP:OR: Misplaced Pages is not for original research by its editors. You may insert in Misplaced Pages only information that is already explicitly given in reliable published sources. Editors may not synthesize sources to produce a statement that is not explicitly stated in any of them. Nor may they present their own personal interpretation of a primary source such as the Holy Bible as the correct interpretation. On the other hand, they may of course say that some scholar gives that interpretation in a published work. Esoglou (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Domus Internationalis Paulus VI

Thanks for your comments on the article Domus Internationalis Paulus VI. I can see no problem about some observations that, aside from this place, Cardinal Roncalli would also lodge at the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy. It was also possible. But there is no problem at all if these two insitutions claim that Roncalli stayed with them.

For your information: a citation was already supplied for the part of the above-mentioned article, where you asked for it.--Sulbud (talk) 10:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for having responded to my citation request. Esoglou (talk) 11:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Sedevacantism

Hi Esoglou, I think you would be really happy if you understood the actual beliefs of Sedes. The article on Sedevacantism can be understood better if you undertsand the Sede beliefs. Please read:

http://www.eclipseofthechurch.com/

http://www.huttongibson.com/

http://www.todayscatholicworld.com/

http://www.thepopeinred.com/

http://www.thepopeinred.com/articles.htm

http://www.thepopeinred.com/thesis.htm

http://www.novusordowatch.org/

This is important to save your soul, Esoglou. Perhaps God wants you to accept the true Catholic Faith, instead of the pretend Catholicism of Antipope Francis I. Pope Pius XII was the last true Pope to rule from the Vatican. John XIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis I are all Antipopes. You seem to be a Catholic, and I made the effort to get all this information for you. Please read it, and pray to believe the truth. GoodCatholicMan (talk) 10:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern for my soul. If you have some improvement to suggest for the article on sedevacantism, it would be good if you proposed it for discussion on the talk page of the article. Esoglou (talk) 11:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank You, Esoglou for removing that material from the Index.

Dear Esoglou,

Thank you for removing those untrue statements from that Index article. Your good deed was very important.

God Bless you, Esoglou.

The Divine Mercy Researcher (talk) 09:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Esoglou, I have added those citations that you have requested. I have got to unmuddle one of them, it has come out wrong, but I can do that in the next hour or so. I also wanted to improve some of the citations that I gave before. There are better ones which I have added. I also made some other improvements. I wanted to stop these vile manipulations of the reputation of a deceased Catholic nun, and a Saint, which have been put on Misplaced Pages by Valtorta promoters. This is very important. This intensely confusing episode has been grossly exaggerated by these Valtorta promoters. It is necessary that this unimportant matter is no longer exaggerated to the detriment of the good name of a holy Catholic Saint. Valtorta promoters had sprinkled many sections of the article with references to the temporary, obsolete, repealed prohibition. I left those two in. But it does not need to be repeated throughout the article, and on different articles, just to unjustly besmirch the reputation of a Catholic Saint, and because Valtorta promoters wanted to use the article for their own ends.

A holy Catholic Saint has suffered an attempt to destroy her reputation by bad men. Also, what kind of “men” would want to hurt the reputation of a deceased Catholic nun with untrue statements. They have a lot to answer for, if they have maliciously harmed the reputation of a Catholic Saint. That would possibly incur great punishment from God. There were four separate paragraphs mentioning the temporary obstruction to the Divine Mercy, so I have reduced that to two large paragraphs. Two large paragraphs are more than enough to cover something which was not even mentioned in the original article, and which has been reversed decades ago. The whole unimportant incident has been deliberately exaggerated by Valtorta promoters. There is a quote from the obsolete notification from the time of John XXIII. A more relevant quote is from the later notification of 1978 from Paul VI, which reversed that earlier notification. So I included that current notification from 1978, which is more relevant. And I also included an explanatory summary of the earlier, repealed, obsolete notification. A sentence filled with errors was: “Prior to 1966, any reported visions of Jesus and Mary required approval from the Holy See before they could be released to the public.” This is not true. See the Council of Trent. The Church allows the local Bishop to make these judgements. E.g., Saint Bernadette, Fatima, etc. In fact, Saint Bernadette, Sister Lucy of Fatima, etc., had written and published accounts of their visions prior to this, without any need for such a permission. The local Bishop could grant permission, as he had done with the Divine Mercy. So this did not even apply to the Divine Mercy. It is theologically erroneous, and it is totally irrelevant to this article. So I have removed this theologically inaccurate, confused, and irrelevant sentence. The blessing by Pope Pius XII was in Rome, not Paris. The Pallotine Fathers: "le Saint Père - PIE XII, a béni l'Icône de Jésus Miséricordieux, le 24 juin 1956 à Rome.” So I changed it from Rome to Paris. About Vatican Radio, it was a guess on the part of Fr. John Larson, the author of the article about it, that it was the Polish Service. He actually said “I am guessing this was the Polish service.” So it is just a guess. But it was definitely Vatican Radio. So I removed “Polish service” and put Vatican Radio, so it is now accurate. There were two pictures of the Basilica, so I replaced one of them with the picture of the Marian Fathers Shrine of The Divine Mercy. There was a strange sentence, full of errors that claimed she knew that “due to her lack of education it was not likely she would attain higher levels within the order and that her duties would forever consist of cooking, cleaning and gardening.” This is irrelevant speculation. And also is untrue. Most girls in Poland in the first half of the last century had little education, but could become nuns. and I do not recall it being mentioned in the Diary. Also, the word forever is ridiculously dramatic word to use in such a context. And she had about the 3 or 4 years education. And also it did not happen: Saint Faustina did a variety of other tasks, as is shown in her Diary, e.g., she was Portress. And di other tasks. So it did not even happen. So I removed that sentence. It claimed that she is patron of world youth day. She is not patroness of that, so I removed that error.

Esoglou, thank you for your good deed about removing that untrue information from that Index article.

You did a very important thing there for souls.

Our Lord said to Saint Faustina: ““Souls who spread the honour of My mercy I shield through their entire life…” Perhaps you have earned that reward from God.

The Divine Mercy Researcher (talk) 09:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

How long have you been here, again?

You obviously know that it's wrong to directly lift language from somewhere else without attributing it, so why do you keep doing it? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me with your habitual courtesy that you found in my edits something copied from elsewhere without attribution to its source. May I trouble you with a humble request to let me know what was that something, so that I can remedy my mistake? Esoglou (talk) 19:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

FYI: I am no longer going to sort through your contributions to rephrase what is plagiarized and retain what is not. Starting now, if I notice a plagiarized phrase, I will revert the whole edit. Do your own work and stop making productive editors clean up after you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

! Esoglou (talk) 15:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Catholic Church and commas

Hello, I was wondering why you just added what seems to me to be an uneccesary comma before "who" to my recent grammar edits. To my thinking it is better grammar to only have commas when they really required and I try to reduce them as much as possible in my editing. I also think that this particular sentence reads better without the comma you added as it creates two subphrases within commas when only one is needed. Not a big deal but I am wondering what is the grammatical reason for your edit. Cheers. Anglicanus (talk) 14:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Isn't the phrase, "who is considered to have been martyred in Rome", a parenthetic phrase, adding information about Peter?, not defining him? It doesn't distinguish that "apostle Saint Peter" from other apostles Saints Peter. To me it seems to be what Fowler is talking about on this page 635, where he contrasts the clause with comma, "I always buy his books, which have influenced me greatly", with the clause without comma, "Each made a list of books that had influenced him". Another pair of examples would be: "Catholic bishops, who are stupid, should be kicked" and "Catholic bishops who are stupid should be kicked". Esoglou (talk) 15:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

R. Lucifer.

No problem at all, Esoglou. I try to help any editor as well as I hope that others will help me. And I hope to have established with you a good relationship. Have a nice editing. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 08:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Stalking

While I acknowledge we are both involved on the article concerning Roman Catholicism and Homosexuality, I nevertheless notice that over recent days you have made amendments to edits of mine on both Sixtus V and Catholic Marriage. This does not seem to be a coincidence, rather that you are monitoring my edits and then subsequently changing them. This is not acceptable behaviour on[REDACTED] and if it continues then I will make a formal complaint and ask for an investigation by administrators. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Περὶ πολλῶν

Hello,

You removed my explanation added to the sentence which claimed that "pro multis" in the original Greek does not mean "for the many". Your reasoning was that my comment is "new research". I would like to inform you that the meaning of an ancient Greek word is not new research and the meaning of those words is "for the many" or "for the multitude".

Up to the point - before my correction - your sentence was just a mistake claiming the contrary. After my correction and your removal of it - if you know what the real meaning is - that sentence becomes an intentionally missleading sentence.

If you do not know what that expression means in Greek, ("for the many" or "for the multitude") you should check it yourself, and reinstate my correction if I am right.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.27.68 (talk) 17:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

When I began editing Misplaced Pages, I too had to learn that, as stressed at WP:OR, only what is already found in published reliable sources can be put in Misplaced Pages articles. It isn't a matter of what is right, but of what can be verified in published material. You added the phrase, "but the meaning of the Greek word is closer to 'for the many' as in Greek it does not have the 'excluding meaning' of 'for many but not for all'". If you can cite a published reliable source that says that the meaning of περὶ πολλῶν is closer to "for the many" than to "for many", you can reinsert it. But perhaps what you really have in mind is what is already in the article: "The word 'many' (Latin multi, Greek πολλοί) is opposed to 'few' (Latin pauci, Greek ὀλίγοι), not to "all" (Latin omnes, Greek πάντες). In a large group, all the members are many; in a small group, all are few. People can be many whether they form the totality of a group or only part of a group. An article by Father Max Zerwick, S.J. gives examples of texts in which the totality of a group are referred to as "many" (Pro Vobis et pro Multis Effundetur)." Note that a published source is indicated for that statement. Esoglou (talk) 06:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Warning

I'm glad that you've (apparently) decided to stop editing disruptively with regard to decriminalization, but consider this a warning that if you continue to insert frivolous tags, factual inaccuracies, or original research in order to push your political agenda, I will take you to ANI. I have been patient for far, far too long. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)