| Revision as of 14:29, 8 June 2013 editEsoglou (talk | contribs)31,527 edits →Reply by Wlbw68: r← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:38, 8 June 2013 edit undoEsoglou (talk | contribs)31,527 edits →Reply by Wlbw68: additionNext edit → | ||
| Line 130: | Line 130: | ||
| ::As I already said, I do not understand Russian at all well. When I asked for page numbers, I was hoping that you would respond, as a Misplaced Pages editor should, by indicating ''where'' in a long article or book, even in English, the statement that you claim to find there is to be found. I was hoping to help you by working out the meaning of that part, although I would be incapable of searching through the whole article or book written in a language I do not know. | ::As I already said, I do not understand Russian at all well. When I asked for page numbers, I was hoping that you would respond, as a Misplaced Pages editor should, by indicating ''where'' in a long article or book, even in English, the statement that you claim to find there is to be found. I was hoping to help you by working out the meaning of that part, although I would be incapable of searching through the whole article or book written in a language I do not know. | ||
| ::I do understand Latin and Greek. In the case of Greek, various pre-classical forms, and classical Attic, and Koine, and Byzantine, and modern Greek. So I was accepting whatever ''explicit statements'' in those languages of what you want Misplaced Pages to say. You surely know that you cannot put in Misplaced Pages statements that are merely conclusions that ''you'' draw from documents in ''any'' language, whether English or Greek or Russian or Japanese. I repeat: All interpretative claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources '''must''' be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Misplaced Pages editors. | ::I do understand Latin and Greek. In the case of Greek, various pre-classical forms, and classical Attic, and Koine, and Byzantine, and modern Greek. So I was accepting whatever ''explicit statements'' in those languages of what you want Misplaced Pages to say. You surely know that you cannot put in Misplaced Pages statements that are merely conclusions that ''you'' draw from documents in ''any'' language, whether English or Greek or Russian or Japanese. I repeat: All interpretative claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources '''must''' be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Misplaced Pages editors. | ||
| ::The polemical tone of the observation about "the conversation being useless" forces me to draw your attention to something I was choosing to turn a blind eye to. On the English Misplaced Pages you ''cannot'' quote sources in Russian without accompanying them with an English translation. The ] is: "When quoting a non-English source (whether in the main text, in a footnote, or on the talk page), a translation into English should '''always''' accompany the quote. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations. When using a machine translation of source material, editors should be reasonably certain that the translation is accurate and the source is appropriate. Editors should not use machine translations of non-English sources in contentious articles ... If needed, ask an editor who can to translate it for you." I was offering, if only you had been good enough to indicate on what page to find a text in Russian, to struggle at understanding it. There was and is no obligation on me to do so. The obligation is on you to provide a good English translation of the relevant part. (Not a machine translation that, for instance, cannot distinguish between the English words "council" and "cathedral" and is in fact incomprehensible.) I must now tag your references with something stronger than merely asking for the page number. | ::The polemical tone of the observation about "the conversation being useless" forces me to draw your attention to something I was choosing to turn a blind eye to. On the English Misplaced Pages you ''cannot'' quote sources in Russian without accompanying them with an English translation. The ] is: "When quoting a non-English source (whether in the main text, in a footnote, or on the talk page), a translation into English should '''always''' accompany the quote. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations. When using a machine translation of source material, editors should be reasonably certain that the translation is accurate and the source is appropriate. Editors should not use machine translations of non-English sources in contentious articles ... If needed, ask an editor who can to translate it for you." I was offering, if only you had been good enough to indicate on what page to find a text in Russian, to struggle at understanding it. There was and is no obligation on me to do so. The obligation is on you to provide a good English translation of the relevant part. (Not - especially in a contentious article like this - a machine translation that, for instance, cannot distinguish between the English words "council" and "cathedral" and is in fact incomprehensible.) I must now tag your references with something stronger than merely asking for the page number. | ||
| ::If you ignore reliable secondary sources in English and choose to cite only works in Russian, you should perhaps concentrate on the Russian Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 14:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC) | ::If you ignore reliable secondary sources in English and choose to cite only works in Russian, you should perhaps concentrate on the Russian Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 14:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 14:38, 8 June 2013
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Filioque article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||
 Archives | ||||||
|
||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Why the article is biased and misinformation
There is missing from this article (as I have pointed out time and time again in the past) a very simple and clear explanation of why the Eastern Orthodox DO NOT ACCEPT the filioque. It could be put in the lede it's so short. The inclusion is something that was not done by council first. It was something done in the Western Church accepted in the Western Church and then by way of authority (Papacy) and war it was unilaterally done and then forced on the East. Note it was forced in degrees where first the East was to allow it because of "problems" with the Latin language and then it became genuine by way of scripture even though anyone that has read the history behind the Pneumatomachi and know that the wording of the part of the Nicene Creed that mentions the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father was worded by Gregory of Nyssa (whom was very much in the know about what putting in the phrase "from the Son" would do to his theology). We are lead to believe that because of the vagueness and hesitancy of statement in some of the early Fathers, the pro filioque were able to justify and propagate their views. But this argument from silence is at first an argument and then a fallacy. In as such it means that the sides that disagree has done so of their own accord. So now which side is showing fidelity and which is imposing? Or that the filioque is implying a participation of the Human Nature of the Son in the procession of the Holy Spirit (i.e. ditheism).LoveMonkey (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
More examples of out right bias
Has anyone noticed how Roman Catholic theologians and Protestant theologians are used to depict and represent the Eastern Orthodox side in this article? Why? Could it be that people dominating this article are only one sided and biased? If I posted an article and started out that article by having one side depicting and interpreting and conveying both sides of the issue THAT WOULD BE BIAS. Why does the section about the Orthodox start out with the name of a ROMAN CATHOLIC theologian (William La Due) and why is this Roman Catholic historian being the person that represents and depicts the Eastern Orthodox perspective? Why is William La Due defining the positions and perspective of the Eastern Orthodox right off the bat when he is a ROMAN CATHOLIC apologist. Why is this person so qualified as to depict to the readers coming to this article and be informed what a perspective that they do not subscribe to -is? LoveMonkey (talk) 15:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Editing restrictions
LoveMonkey, please look up WP:RESTRICT and recall that it was on your insistence that it contains the clause, "Esoglou may add information about Roman Catholic commentary (positive or negative) on Eastern Orthodox teaching/practice. However, any such commentary must be clearly attributed, in the body of the article, to the specific individual or document making it. Moreover, any such commentary must be clearly identified as opinion, rather than as factual information about the nature of EO teaching/practice or its compatibility/incompatibility with RC teaching/practice". My latest edit did attribute the commentary to Western writers, did it not? Your deletion of it was therefore based on a false pretext. Esoglou (talk) 19:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
General edit
The many edits made in the last few days have necessitated a general edit. Here are explanations of some points.
Love Monkey. I have had to question the sourcedness of several statements about Photius that you have inserted and that you seem to have falsely attributed to Siecienski, who, for instance, was not so silly as to assign to the time of Photius papal acceptance of use of "Filioque", which did not occur until 1014, or to say that Photius referred to the opinion of Pope Nicholas III, who became pope only in 1277! Your undoing of your deletion of your own comment, within a section on Orthodox theologians, about Bulgakov being condemned as a heretic by "the Orthodox Church" (more concretely the ROCOR) for his sophiology, not all his teaching, called for an annotation that Bulgakov is generally reckoned an Orthodox theologian. And the information on opinion about the view prevailed among modern Eastern Orthodox theologians belongs under "Eastern Orthodox Church", not under "Recent attempts at reconciliation", which concerns attempts at reconciliation by churches, not by theologians.
Wlbw68. (Мир всем.) I appreciate the trouble you have gone to in providing links to texts of the acts of councils. I have had to make the opening definition neutral and English-grammatical and to return also to the usual description of the Creed in question as the Nicene Creed, leaving until later the indication that this name, though in common use, is somewhat inaccurate. Your insertion of a section on the Cappadocian Fathers necessitated corresponding sections on the Alexandrian Fathers and the Latin Fathers, all of whom belong to the one same Church. Your phrase "The Greek word «ἐκπορευόμενον» corresponds to the Latin word «procedit»" was open to misunderstanding: you of course meant that, where the Greek text uses ἐκπορευόμενον, the Latin uses procedit, but the reader might think you were saying that the two words have the same meaning and, as you know, this unfortunately is not true. The acclamation of the bishops at Chalcedon was not about either creed (both of which had been read), but about the definition adopted by the council, as the text states: "After the reading of the definition ..." (I have replaced the ungrammatical translation of that passage by a published English translation.) I have restored the sourced information about the Council of Ephesus, which somehow got deleted, and placed it in chronological order (as you know very well, the Council of Ephesus predated that of Chalcedon). I see now that I have not yet dealt with the inaccurate translation in the paragraph that begins "Eastern opposition to the Filioque strengthened ..." I have no time left to deal with that immediately. I have already corrected the definition of the Council of Florence: the phrase "τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἐκ πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ ἐκπορεύεσθα" seems to be from the earlier part where each side clarified what they meant by their traditional expressions. Thanks for your intervention. Esoglou (talk) 10:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Reply by LoveMonkey
- Why did you make edits without consensus? LoveMonkey 15:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Esoglou wrote
- Love Monkey. I have had to question the sourcedness of several statements about Photius that you have inserted and that you seem to have falsely attributed to Siecienski,
LoveMonkey reply
- Esoglou's interpretation is the only one that counts. Esoglou knows Vladimir Lossky, John Romanides etc because Esoglou has read the Orthodox theologians (even current ones like John Behr) and can as Esoglou, properly depict them in controversial articles like this one even use outdated statistics and research to say that acceptance of Western Christian theology is just two camps (wow with Esoglou its so easy so black and white) is on the rise in the East and that Eastern Christians are warming up to things like ignoring their own councils and history saints and leaders. According to Esoglou Eastern Christians look to the way the Roman Catholic church is doing in Europe and America and are just foaming at the mouth jealous. Please. LoveMonkey 16:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Esoglou wrote
- who, for instance, was not so silly as to assign to the time of Photius papal acceptance of use of "Filioque", which did not occur until 1014,
LoveMonkey reply
- Wow post here Esoglou what you read that Photius says about the Patriarch of Rome post here what Esoglou knows Photius said. Please please pretty please. Please Esoglou post EVERYTHING Photius says about the Pope of Rome.
Esoglou wrote
- or to say that Photius referred to the opinion of Pope Nicholas III, who became pope only in 1277!
LoveMonkey reply
- Heres the line before
The argument was taken a crucial step further in 867 by the affirmation in the East that the Holy Spirit proceeds not merely "from the Father" but "from the Father alone". Here is what I posted..
- Which was put forth by Patriarch Photios I of Constantinople in his work against the filioque named "Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit". In this work Photius argues that the West has began to force it's theological opinions (including Papal supremacy) onto the Eastern churches without council as those opinions were not held in the ancient churches already. Where as the filioque as opinion was tolerated and rationalized before Photius by simply attributing the double procession of the Holy Spirit as being a by product of issues translating the Creed from the Greek language to Latin. Now however the Western Roman Catholic church sought to establish the change to the Creed as Universal church dogma both taught in the West and now also in the East. This was in essence an attempt to modify the Nicene Creed and church dogma not by council, but instead by the Western opinion of Papal Supremacy.
- If Esoglou thinks I was unclear in the statements I posted or that he wants all of them attributed to Photius it would be far more ethical for him to one discuss it on the talkpage 1st and actually wait at least more than a couple hours but rather maybe days for other very busy volunteers here to respond. And two for Esoglou to read, actually READ ORTHODOX LITERATURE and speak to that rather than deny and attack that position. LoveMonkey 16:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Esoglou wrote
- Your undoing of your deletion of your own comment, within a section on Orthodox theologians, about Bulgakov being condemned as a heretic by "the Orthodox Church" (more concretely the ROCOR) for his sophiology, not all his teaching, called for an annotation that Bulgakov is generally reckoned an Orthodox theologian.
LoveMonkey reply
- More of the same old Esoglou, only Esoglou knows, only Esoglou's opinion is right. Well NO. Esoglou's assumptions are wrong Esoglou has again bet and he is just plain WRONG., Esoglou doesn't know anything about Bulgakov other than what he can find from a google search. Esoglou can't show how Bulgakov's Holy Spirit theology (Bulgakov calls Sophiology) is taught at any Orthodox theology school or in any Orthodox theology curriculum As ORTHODOX. But Esoglou will imply that he can. Esoglou has never read Bulgakov and doesn't even own a single book written by Bulgakov. But again Esoglou can be wrong over and over and over again. Bulgakov's book the Comfortor is about the filioque the theology of the Holy Spirit AND HOW IT RELATES TO HIS SOPHIOLOGICAL THEOLOGY (chapter 4). Esoglou as a good Christian can just speak from ignorance and can be wrong and have not the slightest sense of remorse or guilt for spreading ignorance and distortion about Eastern Orthodoxy, next Esoglou will resort to the Roman Catholic collective ad hominem that Eastern Orthodox are anti-Western. Of course that's anti-Western in the same way the Native Americans are in seeing the West as imperialistic aggressors but hey lets leave that second half out to make it look like people are that way for no good reason. As Bulgakov's theology on the Holy Spirit (sophiology) would be considered heretical in the Roman Catholic church, no where is RC theology saying the Holy Spirit is a being called Sophia. LoveMonkey 16:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Esoglou wrote
And the information on opinion about the view prevailed among modern Eastern Orthodox theologians belongs under "Eastern Orthodox Church", not under "Recent attempts at reconciliation", which concerns attempts at reconciliation by churches, not by theologians.
LoveMonkey reply
- NO. Karl Barth and Yves Congar ARE NOT ORTHODOX AND BOTH ARE DEAD. AND BOTH BEEN DEAD FOR DECADES. Their input is not current is not from the Orthodox perspective and is not accepted by the Orthodox. If you must insist it be in the article put it some place other than the Orthodox section of the article. LoveMonkey 17:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Love Monkey, I am undoing your unreasonable revert: Wlbw68 and I are authorized to edit this article in the same way as you are, without having to go through special procedures that you believe do not bind yourself. You must have utterly misunderstood WP:RESTRICT. Read it again and follow it. You were told recently to find sources for "the stuff that (Esoglou) tagged (and that) did look like LM's personal opinion". Attributing to Siecienski 1) what Siecienski did not say, and 2) what is arrant nonsense (making Photius write of what did not happen until centuries after his death!) is not providing sources. Reverting the questioning of that falsehood and that nonsense is not providing sources. I have not violated WP:RESTRICT, but you have: for instance by this personal comment of your own on Roman Catholicism. If I were out to get you as much as you seem to be out to get me, you might have had to face a protest. But not everyone has the attitude that you show in your attacks on me and in your reactions to remarks about the contradiction between your evident activity and your insistent declaration that you have in fact retired and your habit of tagging substantive edits as minor and another editor's attempt to make peace with you.
- I notice that you have somehow forgotten to include your mention of Pope Nicholas III (1277-1280) in your report here of what you wrote in the article of what "was put forth by Patriarch Photios I of Constantinople in his (865!) work against the filioque", but you still have repeated your claim that "in this work Photius argues that the West has began to force it's theological opinions (including Papal supremacy) onto the Eastern churches without council as those opinions weren't held in the ancient churches already". Don't you know that at the time of Photius the popes were still refusing to authorize inclusion of the Filioque in recitation of the Creed? You have not yet provided reliable sources to back up your notions of Photius's amazing prophetic abilities. The writing of his that you refer to also does not contain any allusion to those future events, but you might object to that as a primary source.
- Nobody said that Barth and Congar are Eastern Orthodox, but the subject on which they are quoted is Eastern Orthodox theologians. To be quoted in the article on the Syrian civil war, President Obama does not have to be Syrian! Esoglou (talk) 17:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Nope. Esoglou you should not be editing Orthodox sections on this article you are not correct and you are pushing a Roman Catholic POV. LoveMonkey 22:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Why is Esoglou allowed to do this kind of ignorant nonsense? Here the statement I based some of my contributions upon...
- This completely compromises one of the most significant aspects of the heresy in question. Although not brought forth within the historical analysis of the subject document, Church History teaches us that, since St. Photios' time, the gradual introduction of the Filioque and the insistence of the Latins on this heresy was directly intertwined with their will (one could say 1,400-year dream) of subduing Orthodoxy via the Pope's primacy. It is a great error to separate the primacy and Filioque issues. The official insertion of the Filioque was by papal decree. It is impossible to separate them, and in trying to do so is to attempt to force the Orthodox to accept it in seemingly-acceptable pieces. One cannot possibly resolve one without the other. Once again, this is a gigantic setback for the Orthodox cause and the Orthodox position.
- Is it that Esoglou has a bias a POV that makes him edit war articles here to the point of making then repetitious and unreadable. If Esoglou has no POV why is he citation tagging abusing my contributions over and over again? Are people to believe that what I contributed is simply my opinion? People who actually know about the subject? Even alittle Esoglou is supposed to know this source for this statement aren't you Esoglou. Please post Esoglou the source here. Since according to you and Ed Johnston its strictly my opinion. Lets start there. LoveMonkey 02:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- The only source you attribute to your claims about what "was put forth by Patriarch Photios I of Constantinople in his work against the filioque ... of Pope Nicholas III" is Siecienski's book, in some cases without indicating what part of the book. Nowhere in the book can be found the words "This completely compromises ... Orthodox cause and the Orthodox position". You still have given in the article no valid source for "the stuff that (Esoglou) tagged (and that) did look like LM's personal opinion". Esoglou (talk) 11:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Why can the points not be addressed here on the talkpage first?
Why is it that Esoglou can't address his grieves here on the talkpage first? Lets start with Bulgakov. Was Bulgakov as representative of Orthodoxy and Orthodox theology for the rest of Christendom? No. Is Alexander Schmemann saying that Bulgakov represents the Orthodox church and is the definitive word on its theology NO. Does he say that Bulgakov was a theologian in passing yes. That's called undue weight. As even Alexander Schmemann is not without his own controversies . LoveMonkey 15:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Wlbw68 and I are authorized to edit this article in the same way as you are, without having to go through special procedures that you believe do not bind yourself. You must have utterly misunderstood WP:RESTRICT. Read it. Read also what I have written. I did not say that Bulgakov is representative of (all) Orthodoxy and Orthodox theology. But a reliable source shows that Valliere reports Schmemann as considering Bulgakov an Orthodox theologian. If you disagree with Valliere's report, find a reliable source that says the opposite, and don't delete the sourced information just because you personally dislike it! If the reliable source that you (perhaps) find is of more weight than Valliere, then there will be a question of applying due weight; until then, Valliere has much greater weight than your personal likes and dislikes. And Valliere is by no means the only reliable source cited that calls Bulgakov an Orthodox theologian. Esoglou (talk) 17:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Reply by Wlbw68
Hello. I wish everyone good health. Bulgakov is an authority in Orthodox theology, among the Orthodox in the Russian firm belief that the heretical writings. None of the self-respecting modern theologians will not quote Bulgakov did not do, and never one local council. Bulgakov's doctrine was anafemastvovano the Orthodox synod.
Now for the Great Cappadocians. It is on the basis of their terms and on the basis of their understanding of the Trinity, a new the Creed of Constantinople. There is no place for Latin understanding of the Trinity, nor the understanding of Cyril, or Epiphany. Did you decide to exclude a very important thing: it is all completely terminology and understanding of the Cappadocian Trinity became the basis of the creation of the Creed. the Creed was written precisely Cappadocia, not Augustine or Alexandrians. Now for the 7 canon Council of Ephesus. This canon was not accepted at all in the Ephesus. In the documents of the canons of the Council of 6. You can look: Mansi. http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/04z/z_1692-1769__Mansi_JD__Sacrorum_Conciliorum_Nova_Amplissima_Collectio_Vol_004__LT.pdf.html p. 1474. 7 canon have no Dionysius the Small, who did a translation from Greek into Latin canons in the first half of the VI century. Codex Canonum vetus ecclesiae Romanae : http://books.google.ru/books?id=i4hAAAAAcAAJ&pg=PP9&dq=Codex+canonum&hl=ru# Wlbw68 (talk) 19:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hello, Esoglou. You have made the same changes that distort the true facts. Example.
In the beginning you have removed the phrase that entered the Filioque in Rome only in the 11th century. Why did you do that? Why do you change my text, which I wrote about the Nicene-Constantinople Creed to the Nicene Creed? That's just wrong.The Nicene Creed and the Nicene-Constantinople line length of faith are two different characters. They used different terminology.You removed the explanation that it was built on the terminology Cappadocian faith. Cappadocia made it up. Explain please. Why did you do that? I have more questions. Who ask after you answer me on this. Wlbw68 (talk) 19:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- I agree Wlbw68 I think Esoglou's edits need to be reverted (again) and discussed on the talkpage. Esoglou is edit warring to push his Roman Catholic POV. LoveMonkey 22:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Dear Esoglou, 7 canon does not belong Council of Ephesus.It's just an opinion, not canon. Here on this in Bolotov: http://www.omolenko.com/photobooks/bolotov4.htm?p=218 Unfortunately a full translation of the text "Acts 4 Ecumenical Council" no English. It is either in Russian: http://omolenko.com/istoria/sobory-tom3.htm?p=80#book10 or on the Latin and Greek: http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/04z/z_1692-1769__Mansi_JD__Sacrorum_Conciliorum_Nova_Amplissima_Collectio_Vol_006__LT.pdf.html p.631
I remind you of your questions. And I'm waiting for the answers.
- Partiality is generally very bad. When writing this article we need to rely on documents and facts, not our religious beliefs. Wlbw68 (talk) 03:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you, Wlbw68, for your participation.
- Bulgakov, being condemned for heresy, is not an orthodox theologian (with small o for "orthodox"). But he is generally considered an Orthodox theologian (capital O), as shown by the cited sources. That is a fact, even if a regrettable fact. If other sources can be found that state he is not an Orthodox theologian (capital O), they can and should be cited and may even outweigh the sources that call him an Orthodox theologian (capital O).
- Citation of reliable sources is also needed for inserting into a Misplaced Pages article the view that the Creed of 381 excluded the tradition represented by Cyril of Alexandria, Epiphanius of Salamis and the Latin Fathers.
- The existence of canon 7 of the Council of Ephesus is supported by many reliable sources. Take this and this and this and this (which gives the original Greek text, together with Latin and English translations, on pages 65-66). I can find no account of the Council of Ephesus in one of the sources you mention without specifying the page number, nor in column 631 (Mansi, like Migne, numbers the columns, not the pages) of this other source, which is about the Council of Chalcedon, not the ecumenical Council of Ephesus. (Downloading and searching these this morning has unfortunately delayed my response to you.) If indeed you can show that there is no canon 7 of the Council of Ephesus, somebody (you?) will have to alter the English Misplaced Pages's article First Council of Ephesus and also the Russian Misplaced Pages's article ru:Эфесский собор. I was never long enough in Russia to learn the language, but it is similar enough to other languages for me to understand its quotation of the Council's 7-е правило: "Епископ, проповедующий другую веру, кроме Никейской, лишается епископства, а мирянин изгоняется из Церкви. Тот, кто, кроме веры, составленной святыми отцами, собравшимися в Никее, предлагает иной нечестивый символ на развращение и на пагубу обращающихся к познанию истины из эллинства или иудейства или от какой бы то ни было ереси, если мирянин, должен быть предан анафеме, а если епископ или клирик, должен быть лишён епископства и служения в клире." The Russian article even associates this canon with the Filioque question.
- I thought it might be out of place to do so at so early a point but, since you insist, I will now make this article mention right at the start (and in good English, unlike what has been reinserted this morning) the fact that the popes resisted inclusion of the Filioque in the Creed until as late as 1014.
- I explained above the reason why, in the English Misplaced Pages, I thought it best to follow the common English usage, exemplified also in the title of the Misplaced Pages article Nicene Creed, of using the name "Nicene Creed" for what, more strictly speaking, is the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. If you get support from some other editor (LoveMonkey?), I will be happy to have this article use the term "Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed". The change would affect not only the opening words but many other mentions of "the Nicene Creed" throughout the article. Esoglou (talk) 07:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- 7 canon really was not. I guess just do that and from 1 to 6 canons were not. In Dionysius the Little, in his translation of the 6th century book "canon" is not at all any of the canon the Council of Ephesus. I corrected the article in the Russian version of Misplaced Pages, there is a link to the primary sources. Read through her interpreter. If that is not clear, please ask.ru:Эфесский собор.Bolotoff very good specialist, he is serious books, he still has a very good feature: objectivity. I beg you not to fight a war of edits, and get my important information in section 2 of the Ecumenical Council that the Creed this council was made on the terms and teachings of the Great Cappadocian. Since you have not explained the reason for removing this important information from the article. Otherwise the article will not be objective.This is not good.Wlbw68 (talk) 02:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- It is not enough for you to argue, on the basis of your personal interpretation of Dionysius the Little, that, in spite of the many sources that report and quote canon 7 of the Council of Ephesus, there was no such canon. Find a reliable source that explicitly states there was no such canon and put it in along with the sources that quote the canon. Then we can see which sources are the more weighty. Until some reliable source is cited in the English Misplaced Pages that denies the existence of canon 7, the English Misplaced Pages must continue to accept what the cited reliable sources say.
- No doubt you know that Bolotov, whom you cite in relation to canon 7 of the Council of Ephesus, denied that that Council was ecumenical (see this study).
- I wonder too what does LoveMonkey think of your high praise of Bolotov who in the last of his famous theses says it is not the question of the Filioque that caused the split the Church, and so the Filioque, as a private theological opinion, cannot be regarded as a diriment impediment to reunion between East and West. Esoglou (talk) 09:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Dear Esoglou, you read my article?
It has all the necessary references to the documents themselves the Council of Ephesus, in the documents themselves, the primary source no 7 or 8 canons. About the same at the Council of Chalcedon said Eutyches, Dioscorus, and Eusebius, it is also written in the documents of the Council of Chalcedon. Tell me, do you understand texts in Latin, Greek or Russian? If you do not understand the texts in these languages, I'm wasting my time. All of this is set out in the documents themselves Councils, unfortunately these dokumentonet in English, German or French, they have not been translated. If you read these texts, the conversation makes sense if you find it hard to understand them, the conversation is useless. I have the original, and you have secondary sources.Wlbw68 (talk) 11:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- If you have the original, and I have secondary sources, you are in a very weak position in Misplaced Pages, which has a rule that "Misplaced Pages articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources. ... While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. ... All interpretative claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Misplaced Pages editors."
- As I already said, I do not understand Russian at all well. When I asked for page numbers, I was hoping that you would respond, as a Misplaced Pages editor should, by indicating where in a long article or book, even in English, the statement that you claim to find there is to be found. I was hoping to help you by working out the meaning of that part, although I would be incapable of searching through the whole article or book written in a language I do not know.
- I do understand Latin and Greek. In the case of Greek, various pre-classical forms, and classical Attic, and Koine, and Byzantine, and modern Greek. So I was accepting whatever explicit statements in those languages of what you want Misplaced Pages to say. You surely know that you cannot put in Misplaced Pages statements that are merely conclusions that you draw from documents in any language, whether English or Greek or Russian or Japanese. I repeat: All interpretative claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Misplaced Pages editors.
- The polemical tone of the observation about "the conversation being useless" forces me to draw your attention to something I was choosing to turn a blind eye to. On the English Misplaced Pages you cannot quote sources in Russian without accompanying them with an English translation. The Misplaced Pages rule is: "When quoting a non-English source (whether in the main text, in a footnote, or on the talk page), a translation into English should always accompany the quote. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations. When using a machine translation of source material, editors should be reasonably certain that the translation is accurate and the source is appropriate. Editors should not use machine translations of non-English sources in contentious articles ... If needed, ask an editor who can to translate it for you." I was offering, if only you had been good enough to indicate on what page to find a text in Russian, to struggle at understanding it. There was and is no obligation on me to do so. The obligation is on you to provide a good English translation of the relevant part. (Not - especially in a contentious article like this - a machine translation that, for instance, cannot distinguish between the English words "council" and "cathedral" and is in fact incomprehensible.) I must now tag your references with something stronger than merely asking for the page number.
- If you ignore reliable secondary sources in English and choose to cite only works in Russian, you should perhaps concentrate on the Russian Misplaced Pages. Esoglou (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Niketas Byzantinos
For a long long long long long time I have been trying to add the theological refutations of the filioque from Niketas Byzantinos. The argument of why does the filioque not make the Holy Spirit a grandson and also the argument that sender and sending properties given to Father and Son but not Holy Spirit is not consistent. I would like to create a wiki article on Niketas Byzantinos. LoveMonkey 03:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Unexplained revert
Would Love Monkey please be so good as to explain what grounds he would allege for this revert by him. The statement by William J. La Due about modern Orthodox theological scholarship is well-sourced and pertinent. The subsection on the opinions of reputable scholars on the prevailing view among modern Eastern Orthodox theologians is well-sourced for every statement it makes about those opinions. The subsection clearly identifies every one of its well-sourced statements as opinions, rather than as factual information about the nature of the prevailing view among modern Eastern Orthodox theologians, so in what part of the subsection does Love Monkey imagine there is original research? Esoglou (talk) 09:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC) ,
Categories:- All unassessed articles
- B-Class Christianity articles
- High-importance Christianity articles
- B-Class Christian theology articles
- High-importance Christian theology articles
- Christian theology work group articles
- B-Class Catholicism articles
- High-importance Catholicism articles
- WikiProject Catholicism articles
- B-Class Eastern Orthodoxy articles
- Top-importance Eastern Orthodoxy articles
- WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy articles
- WikiProject Christianity articles