Talk:Palamism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Orphaned references in Palamism

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Palamism's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Fortescue":

• From Hesychasm: Fortescue, Adrian (1910). Hesychasm. Vol. VII. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved 2008-02-03.. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
• From Essence–Energies distinction: Fortescue, Adrian (1910), Hesychasm, vol. VII, New York: Robert Appleton Company, retrieved 2008-02-03. {{citation}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Martin Jugie

Here is a weblog that provides a translation of "The Palamite Controversy" by Martin Jugie. Looks interesting. --Richard S (talk) 23:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

A few points

This article was a great idea, Richard. Kudos for being bold!

I haven't looked through the article very closely yet. Just a few remarks:

1. I think the remarks about "quietism" might benefit from the following information, which used to be included in the Essence-Energies distinction article:

Adrian Fortescue mentioned that "hesychasm" is derived from the Greek word ἥσυχος, meaning "quiet", and "hesychast" from ἡσυχαστής, meaning "quietist", and he characterized some practices of the later hesychasts as "magic".

This information is still in the Essence-Energies distinction article, but I "hid" it because I had doubts about its direct relevance to the essence-energies distinction. You can still see the information if you go to the section Essence-Energies distinction#Roman Catholic perspectives and open the editor.

2. I have the same concerns about the Aquinas material here that I had in the Essence-Energies distinction article. The Summa contra Gentiles passage denies a distinction between God's essence and his existence. It doesn't deny a distinction between God's essence and his energies. A lack of distinction between essence and existence may entail a lack of distinction between essence and energies, but for us to simply imply that it does (without a source that explicitly says so) would be an original synthesis.

3. I have similar WP:SYN concerns about the section on hellfire-- True, many Orthodox believe that hellfire is simply God's light as experienced by the damned. You have certainly provided sources that support that fact. However, is there a source which attributes this belief to Palamas himself, or which explicitly describes it as a "Palamite" doctrine? I haven't been able to find one. Consider the following homily from Palamas on Hell, which never equates Hell with God's light and, in fact, seems to sit uneasily with such an equation: http://genuineorthodoxchurch.com/StGregoryPalamas_homily33.htm. I'm not suggesting that we quote this homily in the article, since we would need secondary sources for the purpose of interpreting it. However, I'm uneasy about claiming that Palamism equates Hell with God's light. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 00:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

In fact, check this out: "Theophanes points out that this kind of divine vision will be a cause of suffering for sinners, since the divine light will be perceived as the punishing fire of hell [...] Unlike Theophanes, Palamas did not believe that sinners could have an experience of the divine light"[1] --Phatius McBluff (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

"Nowhere in his works does Palamas seem to adopt Theophanes' view that the light of Tabor is identical with the fire of hell."[2] --Phatius McBluff (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your good words, Phatius. It should be obvious that more than 90% of this article is taken from other articles in Wikipedia written by other editors so the only credit that I can take is for putting together the outline structure on which to hang the various pieces of text borrowed from the other articles.

I don't feel fully qualified to make a final decision on your points (except for #3) so I would like to hear what other editors have to say on points 1 & 2. (in general, I think I agree with your points #1 and #2 but I don't feel confident enough to act upon them without further input from other editors).

On point #3, however, I think your point is well taken and I have moved the passage in question to Tabor Light which seems a more appropriate place to discuss this topic.

--Richard S (talk) 02:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

My view on point 2, which is in agreement with that of Phatius, is obvious from what I have written below. On point 1, I don't see the usefulness of including this phrase. Hesychasm and the identification with the light seen on Tabor of the light that its practitioners perceived predated Palamas (see Vailhé's article in the Catholic Encyclopedia). It's the theology that Palamas later developed in support of hesychasm, that is covered in this article. Esoglou (talk) 12:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Well. I wonder about the Palamas argument as put forward by Phatius. I say this because one I have never heard of the book that is now on several Wikipedia articles. And two I would like to see the passage from Palamas' work that makes such a statement. Can someone provide me with the passage as so mentioned. Also this directly calls this statement:

Among the patristic testimonies, Saint John of Sinai (of the Ladder) says that the uncreated light of Christ is "an all-consuming fire and an illuminating light". Saint Gregory Palamas (E.P.E. II, 498) observes: "Thus, it is said, He will baptize you by the Holy Spirit and by fire: in other words, by illumination and judgment, depending on each person's predisposition, which will in itself bring upon him that which he deserves." Elsewhere, (Essays, P. Christou Publications, vol.2, page 145): The light of Christ, "albeit one and accessible to all, is not partaken of uniformly, but differently".[3]

Into being wrong. So someone is wrong here either Palamas is saying that those condemned will not see the light of Christ or they will as "albeit one and accessible to all, is not partaken of uniformly, but differently". So as a secondary source and a Eastern Orthodox theologian is George Metallinos misinformed on Palamas? Also again can someone give me the source in Palamas specifically where Palamas says that he opposes the view that the light of Christ is a pointed out above? Also Theophanes definition of hell is not what is given here. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

As for the Aquinas could Phatius please provide a link to Nick Cases paper? And also what was Petros Toulis' responses to it? This is not the last time someone will move the goal posts on the Eastern Orthodox but I'd like to read the paper. As the Roman Catholic seminary books teach Aquinas as actus meaning Aristotle's energy not existence as Bradshaw points out in chapter 7 of his book.[4] LoveMonkey (talk) 15:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi LoveMonkey. To me, the Palamas quotes that you cite seem a bit ambiguous. I don't want to get into a detailed interpretive debate here, but they appear open to multiple interpretations, and not all of those interpretations require that hellfire is God's uncreated light. I can see that Metallinos interprets Palamas as equating hellfire with the uncreated light, and we can legitimately mention that in articles. However, the interpretation must be attributed to Metallinos (e.g. "According to Metallinos, Palamas identified hellfire with the uncreated light").

As for the legitimacy of the Iōannēs Polemēs source, which says that Palamas did not equate hellfire with the uncreated light-- To qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia, a source only needs to be a published academic source. That's it. We can disagree with a source, but as long as it's a published academic source, it qualifies for inclusion. To be honest, I did fail to properly attribute the Polemēs statement to Polemēs. (I just wrote, "Palamas did not identify hellfire with the divine light." Instead, I should have written, "According to Polemēs, Palamas did not identify hellfire with the uncreated light."). I will go back through the articles that I edited and fix that.

You said you wanted to see the quote from Palamas that Polemēs uses to back up his claim. Unfortunately, the Polemēs book is available only for snippet view on Google Books. If you can read Greek, you might be able to get some information out of the following snippet view, which provides an excerpt from Palamas: [5]. As far as I can tell, Polemēs's argument is as follows: (1) When arguing that the divine light is not sensible, Palamas points out that, if it were sensible, then sinners could experience it; (2) this implies that Palamas does not believe that sinners can experience the divine light; (3) therefore, according to Palamas, sinners can't experience the divine light.

I'm not sure what Nick Cases paper you're referring to? Have I mentioned a Nick Cases paper elsewhere and forgotten about it? I certainly may have. Please clarify what Nick Cases paper you're talking about. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

First a clarification of Wikipedia policy regarding sources: Phatius wrote "To qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia, a source only needs to be a published academic source." Technically, that's over-restrictive. Any published source that is not self-published (e.g. a blog, personal website or vanity press) qualifies for inclusion. However, in an article where the sources are predominantly academic sources, a non-academic source might be considered less reliable. The rule that applies would then be WP:UNDUE; i.e. that we not give undue weight to fringe POVs. (or to non-academic sources that oppose academic sources) We must therefore determine what the mainstream positions are and whether a particular POV is one of those mainstream positions or a fringe position.

Now to the question at hand: Who is Polemēs and does he have sufficient posture in the theological community to make an assertion that challenges Metallinos? The answer to that question determines whether we should mention Polemēs at all, as a fringe position or as a mainstream opinion of the same status as that of Metallinos. I don't have the knowledge to weigh in on the debate. I just wanted to frame the debate in terms of Wikipedia policy.

--Richard S (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Richard, you're right that "academic" is a bit too restrictive. I have only one critique of what you just said. As far as I can tell, Polemēs's standing in the "theological community" shouldn't really be an issue. Suppose that Polemēs is a highly reputable secular scholar (I'm not sure whether he is). In that case, he may not be a good guide to what the Orthodox Church itself currently teaches, but his historical analysis of what Palamas taught has high importance, perhaps more important than what theologians think Palamas taught. In such a situation, the only requirement is that we properly attribute Polemēs's statements to him. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 19:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find a bio for Polemēs. However, his book was published by the press of the Austrian Academy of Sciences. I think that establishes its academic credibility. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 20:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

See here to verify Polemēs's book's publisher. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Well I can post 3 different theologians alive and in the world right now teaching against this book. Do you have another source or two or three?

1. Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos "Therefore, also according to St. Gregory the Theologian, God Himself is Paradise and Hell for man, since each man tastes God's energy according to the condition of his soul. Thus in one of his doxological phrases he can exclaim: "O Trinity, Whom I have been granted to worship and proclaim, Who will some day be known to all, to some through illumination, to others through punishment!"19 The same God is both illumination and hell for men. The saint's words are clear and revealing. I should also like to mention St. Gregory Palamas, archbishop of Thessalonica, who underlines the same teaching." [6]
2. George Metallinos already mentioned.
3. Peter Chopelas "The tern “uncreated” was first used by St. Gregory Palamas in the 16th century in order to distinguish these energies from created energies. This concept was not new with St. Gregory, it was only a clarification that he made of what was already understood by the Orthodox. St. Gregory was engaged in debates with some Italian theologians who were advocating the Roman Catholic heresy of created “purgatorial fires” with which God “purges” imperfectly atoned Christians in the after life before they can enter heaven. Unfortunately they could not properly understand the Greek of the New Testament and the west had invented this concept to explain their misunderstanding.' [7] LoveMonkey (talk) 20:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Attitude of Western theologians

With some necessary modifications, I have replaced in Palamism#Attitude of Western theologians the previous text with the text that is chiefly the work of Phatius. Apart from other problems, the previous text used anachronistic synthesis to interpret Fortescue's 1910 text on the basis of a link in an electronic version of it prepared 70 years after his death and to make Aquinas make declarations about divine "energies". The text of Phatius McBluff incorporates the work of several Wikipedia editors posterior to the writing of the previous text.

In view of arguments based on the electronic presentation of the Catholic Encyclopedia by the New Advent initiative, I have given Catholic Encyclopedia references instead to a website that provides, along with an electronic version without added links, a scan of the original pages. Esoglou (talk) 11:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Rejection of Palamism by the Latins/Latinophrones contributed to its acceptance in the East

Esoglou commented out the phrase "by being necessarily hostile to Palamism" as a "personal comment, not in the source". I'm not personally invested in keeping the phrase but I did want to point out that it is not far from the source. Here is what Jugie wrote: "The fact that the Latins and the Latinophrones were necessarily hostile to it, far from harming it, contributed to its success. Very soon Latinism and Antipalamism, in the minds of many, would come to be seen as one and the same thing." The full text can be found here. I wanted to communicate this idea without plagiarizing Jugie. Any help in getting this idea across to the reader would be much appreciated. --Richard S (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

You are right. Thanks. Esoglou (talk) 17:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Getting the story straight

There has been a movement among a couple of editors (mostly Esoglou and also Phatius) to cast the Catholic criticism of Palamas as focusing on the essence-energies distinction. I'm concerned that this view is some combination of 20th century revisionism and OR on the part of these editors. I am, as I've acknowledged many times, no expert on theology in general and this topic in particular but my personal take on this is that the Catholic objection to Palamism is not solely based on the essence-energies distinction. There was, in my opinion, a genuine distrust of Hesychasm as mystical, self-induced delusion of a vision of God. It may be that this distrust remains among some Catholic theologians. I'm not knowledgeable enough to determine that.

As I understand it, Barlaam's attack was not based solely on the essence-energies distinction. According to Meyendorff, Barlaam viewed "any claim of real and conscious experience of God as Messalianism". One of the key issues is whether or not there can be any carnal experience of God.

Hesychasm has been described as "psychosomatic", "auto-suggestion" and involving "grossly magic practices". These are criticisms that go beyond the essence-energies distinction.

It seems that Catholics identified Hesychasm with Quietism. The CE entry on quietism asserts "Among the errors of the Beguines and Beghards condemned by the Council of Vienne (1311-12) are the propositions: that man in the present life can attain such a degree of perfection as to become utterly impeccable; that the "perfect" have no need to fast or pray, but may freely grant the body whatsoever it craves; that they are not subject to any human authority or bound by the precepts of the Church."

NB: I am NOT saying that Hesychasm is guilty of the "errors of the Beguines and Beghards". I do think that traditionally the Catholics tended to condemn Hesychasm through a "guilt by association". In effect, hesychasm was considered to be just another of the quietist heresies. We have no indication that quietism has been rehabilitated. The errors of the Beguines and Beghards are still considered errors. When we talk about Palamas and hesychasm being rehabilitated, I think what happens is that the misinformed association of hesychasm with quietism was dispelled by authors such as Meyendorff.

Of course, politics plays a part here. If there is a general attitude of distrust and hostility, then there is no incentive to differentiate between acceptable mysticism and heretical mysticism. If, however, there is a more eirenic attitude towards reconciliation, then minds are more open to drawing distinctions that aid that goal. I think Meyendorff's work was more acceptable to the West because the West's attitude towards the East had changed. If he had written the thesis half a century earlier, he might never have received his doctorate. As it was, his doctoral thesis had to be defended before the entire faculty of theology at the Sorbonne and was debated for decades in the journal Istina, a testimony to the paradigm-shift that was occasioned by his work.See Biographical dictionary of Christian theologians --Richard S (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

it might be added that "quietism" is the literal translation of "hesychasm" (or "quietists" of "hesychasts"), so that the equation between the two may have been an innocent misunderstanding, because the literal translation of "hesychasm" as "quietism" is misleading[8]. --dab (𒁳) 17:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It's quite clear that many Catholic sources equate "hesychasm" with "quietism". However, Kallistos Ware makes a point of not translating "hesychasm" as "quietism". For example, here and here.

I think this is an important point to make in the article

--Richard S (talk) 18:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Richard. I'm not aware of an effort on my part to cast Catholic criticism of Palamas as focused on the EE distinction. I think you may be confusing my efforts here with my efforts on the Essence-Energies distinction article. When it came to that article, I thought (as I still think) that discussion should stay focused on the EE distinction. In the Essence-Energies distinction article, we might legitimately mention that Catholic theologians had a more general problem with Palamism, but that claim should be clearly distinguished, within the article itself, from the claim that Catholic theologians objected to the EE distinction.

I have absolutely no problem with adding more info on non-EE-related Catholic criticisms in this article, as indicated by my suggestion that we add more info on the "auto-suggestion" accusations. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 18:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

OK... I apologize. I think we are in agreement. Much has been said by different editors on different Talk Pages. We have the improvement of a separate article on Palamism but now the challenge is to remain clear as to what is said about the EE-distinction and what is said about Palamism. Forgive me if I got it a bit muddled. --Richard S (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

It may also be the case that any conflating of the EE-distinction with Palamism is an artifact of the way this article was constructed (i.e. by borrowing bits from other articles). We are only now constructing a picture of the whole elephant and it is understandable though regrettable that parts of this article may make the trunk of the elephant look like it is the whole elephant. It will take some careful review of the article text to make sure that we root out such implications and "get the story straight" for the reader's sake. --Richard S (talk) 19:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Not only was Barlaam's attack "not based solely on the essence-energies distinction". Didn't Barlaam attack the practice first, with Palamas then bringing forward this distinction as a defence of the practice? Then the essence-energies distinction, which I suppose is seen as the essence of Palamism, was no part of Barlaam's initial attack. Perhaps I am wrong: I haven't looked it up again. But if that is so, it seems that Palamism is something distinct from hesychasm; but at the same time Palamism cannot be explained without reference to hesychasm.

The Fortescue article is on hesychasm. Though Palamas is brought in, as connected with hesychasm, that article is not on Palamism (unlike this one).

Quietism has many meanings. The article on quietism is not about a religious meaning. There is another article on quietism (Christian philosophy), concerning a form that was condemned by the Church. The Catholic Encyclopedia article speaks of quietism in this strict sense, but also applies the term much more widely, not limiting it even to Christianity. It doesn't by any means equate hesychasm with the quietism that was condemned. Esoglou (talk) 20:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Up until recently, I have relied mostly on Wikipedia for a very superficial understanding of the origins of the Barlaam-Palamas dispute. In the past few days, I have started to understand some of the specifics and put those into the sections titled "Background" and "Origins of the dispute". In brief, Gregory Sinaita learns hesychasm from Arsenius of Crete and preaches it, bringing it to Mount Athos. So far, I have found no details about what exactly Sinaita's hesychastic teachings were. At some point, the hesychasts at Mount Athos assert that the highest goal is the vision of the Tabor Light. It's not clear to me if Barlaam attacks the hesychasts before or after Palamas starts writing about hesychasm. I've read that between 1337 and 1341, Palamas and Barlaam exchanged letters but I haven't seen any details of that correspondence. What I do know is that in 1341, Palamas composes the Hagioritic Tome and, in response, Barlaam attacks with "Against the Messalians". Palamas then counterattacks with the Triads. I believe it is in one of the Triads that Palamas puts forth the Essence-Energies distinction. I do need to comment that all of this is pieced together by reading snippets from a lot of different sources available via Google Search. A more authoritative narrative of the pre-conciliar debate would require someone who actually had read Barlaam and Palamas or, failing that, an authority such as John Meyendorff. I hope I have at least laid out a roadmap of the key events in the dispute. If I have gotten any of it wrong, I would appreciate someone letting me know where I have gone off the rails. --Richard S (talk) 21:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

For a short account of the participation of Palamas and Barlaam, the best source for us may well be Runciman. He can be trusted not to let his sympathy for the East distort the picture he presents. A preview of his book is in Google Books, but it is much handier to consult the extensive extracts at Excerpts from "The Great Church in Captivity". In that file, search for "Barlaam", and the account of the Palamite controversy begins at the second mention of his name. As presented in that book, it was Palamas who first attacked Barlaam, apparently on matters unrelated to hesychasm. In revenge, Barlaam, quite a fiery character, attacked hesychasm, seeking out the most ignorant and outlandish presentations of it, including the claim to see with the physical eyes the essence of God (Messalianism). Palamas responded with his Triads, in which we find the distinction we have been talking about. In a synod that was soon held on the question, Palamas won hands down, and Barlaam gave up and left for Sicily. That would have brought the matter to a speedy end, were it not for Akyndinus, who changed sides and opposed Palamas, thus beginning a long-drawn-out fight in the East (Constantinople) that ended with the victory of Palamas and Palamism. (I hope`this isn't an oversimplification.) Esoglou (talk) 07:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the link to Runciman. As it turns out, his narration of the origins of the dispute provided the last piece to the puzzle. If I may be so bold to say it (though I shouldn't), I suspect that Wikipedia may now have one of the most complete narrations of this tale. I say this because the narration is composed from a bunch of less detailed accounts. Many accounts omit the initial skirmish over the nature of the Holy Spirit. Others either fail to mention the Triads at all or get the chronology wrong. Most fail to mention the 150 Chapters. Getting the story straight took a lot of research and a few false starts before I got it right. (At least I hope I got it right now.) Excelsior! --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 08:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Runciman uses the word "convert" in relation to Barlaam, so we can certainly use it. The word is probably too strong for a time when people would have seen the change not so much as a religious conversion as simply entering into or breaking communion. But, as I said, we can certainly use it. If I remember right, Fortescue also somewhere uses the word of Barlaam. Esoglou (talk) 07:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if Barlaam was a Greek living in a Latin-dominated land. Thus, he probably felt more at home with the Greeks but, as Runciman and others point out, the Greeks were not comfortable with him. He seems ultimately to have been a "fish out of water", a "man without a country". Just my personal opinion. I might try to work some of this into the Wikipedia article on him but not into this one. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 08:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

There was a strong Greek-speaking presence in Calabria and Sicily. Even today people in that area indicate "no" not by shaking the head horizontally, but, as in Greece, by moving the head backward (forward would be "yes") and maybe clicking with the tongue at the same time. And even still there are Byzantine-rite Catholic dioceses/eparchies in the area. After his defeat in Constantinople, Barlaam was put in charge of one such eparchy. Esoglou (talk) 14:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

(copied here from my Talk Page) Doesn't Runciman indicate that Barlaam took an interest in hesychasm after Palamas had attacked Barlaam's writing on the Holy Spirit? Esoglou (talk) 09:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he does. If you look at the current revision of the article, the flow of the article from "Early conflict between Barlaam and Palamas" to "Barlaam's attack on Hesychasm" suggests this but the first sentence of the second section is perhaps ambiguous as to what Palamas was attacking. Do you think I should make it more explicit? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 09:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

My difficulty is not with these two subsections, but with the text that you have reinserted before them. In that text you have Barlaam coming across hesychasts, apparently by chance, and attacking hesychasm immediately, before he had any interaction with Palamas. Indeed it gives the impression that he did so even before arriving in Constantinople from Calabria, something mentioned only in the next subsection, the first of the two of which you spoke. I wonder if this passage, from an earlier version, was reinserted somehow inadvertently. Esoglou (talk) 14:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

That's what I get for being lazy. It was late at night and I had some "leftover" stuff that no longer fit in the longer narrative so I decided to stuff it at the beginning of the section as an introductory overview. Re-reading it, I saw why it could be read the way you read it so I have now rewritten the intro. Hopefully this addresses the concern that you raised. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Getting another story straight: Aquinas

In one of the above discussions, LoveMonkey wrote, "the Roman Catholic seminary books teach Aquinas as actus meaning Aristotle's energy not existence". This was in response to my claim that Aquinas equates God's essence with God's existence, not with God's energy.

I think that some editors may be confusing two different terms. LoveMonkey is correct that actus means energy/activity. However, in the Summa contra Gentiles passage whose inclusion I was objecting to, Aquinas does not equate God's essence with his actus. Rather, Aquinas equates God's essence with his esse ("existence" in Latin). Big difference. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

How does that have to do with actus purus? Which is what is the teaching that Aquinas taught that the essences (being, existence) of God was also his attributes or operations? LoveMonkey (talk) 20:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, now we're on the right track. If we have a secondary source that says that the actus purus theory conflicts with the EE distinction, then we can include that source (with proper attribution, of course). See this passage from Fontescue: "It is to be noted that the philosophic opponents of Hesychasm always borrow their weapons from St. Thomas Aquinas and the Western Schoolmen. They argue, quite in terms of Latin Aristotelean philosophy, that God is simple; except for the Trinity there can be no distinctions in an actus purus."[9]

However, I don't think we can simply say, without a secondary source, that the actus purus theory rules out a distinction between essence and energies. I think many people misinterpret what Aquinas means by actus purus. Actus can mean energy/activity, but it can also simply mean "actuality". For example, as a baby grows into an adult, it reaches its full actus, because it reaches its full actuality (i.e. it becomes an actual adult, rather than a potential adult). Now, a thing's essence is normally included in its actuality. (My human essence is included in my actuality, because when I have my human essence I'm an actual human being.) However, a thing can also perform activities (energies), and these activities are something distinct from the thing's essence. (My activity of editing Wikipedia is an actuality, but it's distinct from my essence.) Thus, even if God is actus purus, pure actuality, that doesn't necessarily mean he can't have activities/energies distinct from his essence. Perhaps part of God's actuality is his essence, and another part is his energy.

This is just my own argument, of course, and I'm not suggesting that we include it in the article. My point is simply that there's no obvious connection between the actus purus theory and a rejection of the EE distinction. If we want to draw such a connection, we need a secondary source that explicitly draws it.

Moreover, the Summa contra Gentiles quote that I was complaining about does not state that God is actus purus. It states that God's essence and existence are identical. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

OK

Romanides

1. "The very basis of all Orthodox doctrine concerning Trinity, Christology, Ecclesiology, and Soteriology is the fact that God creates, sustains, and saves creation not by created means, but by His Own life-giving energy. Only God can be the source and subject of His uncreated energies. The divine energies are neither the essence of God (God is not actus purus), for this would mean that God acts by essence and not by will (pantheism), nor hypostatic (individual entities), for this would either reduce God to a mere platonic conglomeration of ideas, or to a neo-platonic source of emanating creatures, thereby confusing the Son and the Spirit with such creatures. (A good example of such views concerning divine energies may be found in the teachings of the heretics attacked by St. Irenaeus.) The divine energies are not creatures, but precisely the creating, life-giving, justifying, uncreated energy of God." [10]
2. 28) More important than the validity of mysteries is the question of who participates in them. Glorification is God's will for all, both in this life and in the next life. But God's glory in Christ is eternal life for those who are properly cured and prepared. But this same uncreated glory of Christ is eternal fire for those who refuse to be cured. The one group is glorified and the other becomes forever happy in their selfishness like the "actus purus god" they believe in. In other words everyone will be saved. Some will be saved by their participation in glorification and in all the Truth. The rest will be saved by knowledge of all the truth which for them will be the vision of Christ's uncreated glory as eternal fire and outer darkness. This is the state of actus purus happiness for which they strived for all their lives. In other words mysteries can be valid and not participated in at the same time. As important as valid mysteries is purification and illumination of the heart and glorification in this life which are the central reality of the mysteries and in the participation of them. This holds true for non Orthodox and Orthodox equally.[11]

Berdyaev

1. "An existential, an anthropological philosophy certainly, is not monistic, within it, it is thus man that knows, and not the Absolute, but he knows in communion and interaction with the Absolute, in a conjoining to Its inner life. Otherwise the very concept of the Absolute I do not consider as a Christian understanding of God. d. I already and a number of times have heard not only from Russians, both the Orthodox and the non-Orthodox, but also from foreigners, the Catholics and the Protestants, that in my anthropological philosophy there is a tendency towards man-godism and titanism, that for me the human spirit is an actus purus, at the same time as only God is actus purus. A judgement of such sort is evoked by basic a position for me through the idea about man, as a creator, capable of bringing about the new, the non-extant, enriching being, i.e. to create from out of uncreated freedom."

On St Mark of Ephesus

1. "For the Catholic consciousness it is difficult to think in this way, in consequence of the Aristotelian-Thomistic view of the relationship between potentiality and act [potentia et actus]. From this point of view potentiality bears always a minus in comparison with act, potentiality is to a high degree not-being. In God there is no potentiality, God is pure act [actus purus]. This point of view is very sceptical about potentiality, because out of its depths could come a new, not yet existing, creative development, destroying the system, which has become normative, and indeed the whole edifice. The Catholic consciousness thinks that ecumenicism has become a total reality, in the organisation of its Church. There is nothing new to await containing a greater fullness out of the hidden, not yet manifest, potentiality. But outside of the Thomistic system of thought it can be said that the potential ecumenism is deeper and broader, richer in possibilities than the actualised ecumenism. The Church of Christ is not a finished and completed edifice, there are always creative tasks in it, and enrichment of the life of the Church is possible. The ecumenicism of the Church is given in the depth of being and has in historic incarnations its task. But the ecumenicism of the Church can only become reality by its carried-out partial actualization and bodily creation."
2. On St Mark of Ephesus "Latin theology teaches a Trinity of persons subsisting in the one undivided nature or essence, thus reducing the persons to relations of paternity, sonship and active and passive spiration. Orthodox theology on the other hand hangs on the patristic terms the only source of the super-essential Godhead is the Father (Saint Dionysius)55 and The only source of Godhead is the Father (Saint Athanasius)56 The Latins, following Augustine, who defined the essence of God to be simplicity (unity),57 defined God as Actus Purus.58 Aquinas in his fivefold proof for the existence of God followed pagan Greek Philosophy and declared that there must be a first mover, unmoved, a first cause in the chain of causes. For Roman Catholic Scholastic Theology, God is this unmoved cause. Their theology became a theology of Being, and God was then subjected to a theology which was governed by categories and laws of being. Everything from the first principle down to the last detail was thought of as likewise determined by these laws and categories, and thus deducible in a logically consistent manner which in effect was Aristotelian.

This theology of Being was propounded at Florence also. When Montenegro was asked to clarify why, when referring to from Him, he at one time would mean the hypostasis (subsistentia) of the Father, and at another time the essence, he answered:

The existence and the essence of the Father are the same thing. For this reason, we always say that the Spirit is from His essence.59[12]

Christos Yannaras

1. [13]

And let us not forget Gennadius Scholarius...[14]

LoveMonkey (talk) 21:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I read the sources you provided, LoveMonkey, but I'd like to hear from some other editors before moving on any of it. Right now, I think Fontescue is the best, most straightforward source for the claim that actus purus is seen as conflicting with the EE distinction. This claim is already present in the article and sourced to Fontescue. The sources that you provide look promising; however, while they all reject actus purus, none of them seem to straight-out say, "Actus purus conflicts with the EE distinction." Perhaps I'm being overly picky, but I'd like to hear what other editors have to say.

As for the claim that Aquinas's identification of God's essence with his existence conflicts with the EE distinction-- I still don't think that we yet have sources that support that claim. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 06:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the EE distinction and actus purus, I would also like to mention the following sources which claim that "the West confuses God's essence with his energy, regarding the energy as a property of the divine essence and interpreting the latter as "pure energy" (actus purus)" and that "This distinction is contrary to the Western confusion of the uncreated essence with the uncreated energies and this is by the claim that God is Actus Purus". Cody7777777 (talk) 13:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The difficulty here, Cody, is that these are Orthodox sources interpreting Aquinas. There are sources who assert that this whole debate may be based on a misinterpretation based on language or other misinterpretation. It may even be the case that medieval Catholic scholars misinterpreted Aquinas. We could probably write a full exposition of different views of this issue but that belongs in the Essence-Energies distinction article. Once it's all hashed out over there, a summary of the conclusion should be put here in the "Essence-Energies distinction" section here. (Read this as a motion to refer the discussion to subcommittee.) --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Just reread the beginning of this section. It's OK to use Cody's quotes to support an assertion that some Orthodox theologians see the problem as based on the concept of actus purus. I suspect that we can find some Catholics that make the same assertion but we should make clear that Aquinas did not himself make this claim because, after all, he predated Palamas and could not himself have known about the Essence-Energies distinction. The 20th century movement to rehabilitate Palamas may involve a reinterpretation of actus purus to permit the Essence-Energies distinction. It does seem to me that there have been two movements: a movement in the west to rehabilitate Palamas starting with Meyendorff in 1959 and a so-called "neo-Orthodoxy" that involves a rediscovery of Palamas by Russian emigre theologians starting in the 1940s. The movement was started by Florovsky and Lossky who influenced Romanides and Yannaras. I'm not familiar with Yannaras but Romanides and Lossky seem intent on accentuating the difference between East and West. Part of their efforts have been to attack the eirenic efforts of Meyendorff. This movement is documented in the abstract to Daniel Payne's doctoral thesis. At this point, I am on thin ice because my knowledge has run out. I will leave it for those more knowledgeable than I to continue the discussion from here. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh and one final point... we need to be clear whether actus purus has been declared to be Catholic dogma and if the incompatibility of the EE-distinction and actus purus has been declared to be Catholic dogma. If it has not, then the door is open to reinterpret both to be compatible. I think this is what Catholics have been doing over the last half a century since Meyendorff. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I see no problem at all with including Cody's sources. They say flat-out that actus purus conflicts with the EE distinction (thus avoiding WP:SYN worries). However, either one or the other or both of the following possibilities are true:

• Cody's sources explicitly say somewhere that Western theologians saw a conflict between actus purus and the EE distinction: In that case, we can simply add Cody's sources as support for the claim that Western theologians generally rejected Palamism or the EE distinction.
• Cody's sources simply attack actus purus for its incompatibility with the EE distinction, without saying whether Western theologians reject the EE distinction because of actus purus: In that case, we can use Cody's sources only to support the claim that Eastern theologians see an incompatibility between actus purus and Palamism or the EE distinction.

I will be bold and edit the article in accordance with the second possibility. If Cody later provides quotes from these sources that specifically say that Western theologians rejected the EE distinction, then we can also edit the article in accordance with the first possibility. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 18:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you have to be very careful in differentiating Orthodox views of what Western theologians think and Western views of what they think. You also have to differentiate between traditional Western views and modern views over the last 50 years after Palamas was rehabilitated in the West. It would be far preferable to cite a Western theologian claiming that actus purus was incompatible with the EE-distinction than to cite an Orthodox claiming that Western theologians held that view. Any citations to Florovsky, Lossky, Romanides or Yannaras run the risk of being polemical misrepresentations or distortions of the West's view written at a time when the West was already changing its view of Palamas. See the https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=https://beardocs.baylor.edu/bitstream/2104/4847/1/daniel_payne_phd.pdf abstract] of Daniel Payne's doctoral thesis for some insight into the so-called "neo-Orthodox" movement. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I like the short version better [15] LoveMonkey (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Any1 got a Copy of this

Does anyone know where a copy of Theophanes of Nicea: Five Orations on the Light of Tabor might be found? LoveMonkey (talk) 21:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

If you already tried an ordinary Google search and didn't find it, then I'm not sure where you should look. You might check out this book (which I mentioned in discussions above). It apparently contains a lot of direct excerpts from Theophanes. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 06:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

This Theophanes seems not to be included in Migne's Patrologia Graeca. Esoglou (talk) 07:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Synodikon of the Sunday of Orthodoxy

I have added a section titled "Synodikon of the Sunday of Orthodoxy". However, the text is taken from Martin Jugie who is a harsh critic of Palamism. While I have no reason to believe that Jugie has deliberately distorted this text, it is unclear to me whether Jugie provided just a sample of the anathemas and acclamations pertaining to Palamas or all of them. It seems to me desirable for someone to actually look at the Synodikon of the Sunday of Orthodoxy and see whether Jugie's list is complete.

Besides, I would prefer an Orthodox source for this text. I only used Jugie because that's where I found the text. A Google search for "Synodikon of the Sunday of Orthodoxy" and Palamas yields little more than Wikipedia and Jugie. Finally, Jugie's text used a lot of Greek. Since this is the English Wikipedia, we should have English translations of the Greek passages. I can't read Greek and so I think it would be useful if someone who does know Greek could translate the Greek sentences and phrases in Jugie's text.

--Richard S (talk) 22:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Barlaam's conversions

I have a source that says "Barlaam claimed Orthodoxy as his religion". He grew up in southern Italy but his ancestors and language was Greek. Elsewhere, I've read that he converted to Orthodoxy. Can anybody shed light on whether he converted or was raised as an Orthodox Christian? Second, after the synod of 1341 condemns his anti-Palamist writings, Barlaam returns to Calabria and converts to what? Many sources say "Catholicism" but I wonder if this might be an anachronistic usage of the term. Were the terms "Orthodox" and "Catholic" already in use to designate the Eastern and Western churches? In the article I said that Barlaam converted to the "Roman Church" as a way of avoiding the term "Catholic". Any thoughts on which locution is preferable?

--Richard S (talk) 01:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

"Roman Church" is almost certainly preferable to "Catholicism". "Catholic" is modern shorthand for "Roman Catholic". Even today, all churches with apostolic succession (Roman, Eastern Orthodox, and even Anglican) technically call themselves "catholic", since each of them considers itself either to be, or to be part of, the "one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church". I don't have a source to back up the following claim, but I'm almost certain that a 14th-century Christian would find it rather odd to see "Orthodox" and "Catholic" used as mutually-exclusive terms. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 03:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Here here Phatius. I could not agree with you more. LoveMonkey (talk) 05:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not really have any problem with using there "Roman Church" (and I also think it is better than using simply "Catholic"), but I think we can also use "Western Church" (and as far as I know, during these times the papacy was also located in Avignon, and in fact "Roman" could also have some ambiguity in this case, since the "Byzantines" usually called themselves as Romans). Cody7777777 (talk) 13:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Cody. "Western Church" is probably the best. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 19:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I wrote, above: "Runciman uses the word 'convert' in relation to Barlaam, so we can certainly use it. The word is probably too strong for a time when people would have seen the change not so much as a religious conversion as simply entering into or breaking communion. But, as I said, we can certainly use it." Richard has now inserted an item, Talk:Catholic Church#How porous was my schism, that confirms that observation. Esoglou (talk) 20:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the comment "How porous was my schism?" is at [Talk:East-West schism]. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I found a source that used this locution "he was received into the Latin Church". Presumably this is also acceptable. I have already employed it in the article Barlaam of Seminara. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Now I have a different problem. At this point, I've read a lot of sources and many of them repeat the notion that Barlaam converted to the Orthodox faith. Only a few say point out that "He grew up in southern Italy but his ancestors and language was Greek". However, Martin Jugie made a case for this and wrote a book in support of Barlaam being originally Orthodox. In Barlaam of Seminara, I wrote "Despite the general belief that Barlaam converted to Orthodox Christianity, Martin Jugie argues that he was in fact baptized and brought up in the Orthodox tradition." This approach doesn't say whether Jugie is right or wrong; simply that he disagrees. It suggests but does not assert that Jugie's view is a minority opinion among scholars. Actually, I think it may be the minority opinion but mostly because most sources just rely on various encyclopedias of theology. Once a source like an encyclopedia gets it wrong, the error tends to propagate.

So my question is: Is this handled the right way in Barlaam of Seminara? And how should we handle it in this article?

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

It is handled in the right way - or at least a right way - according to Wikipedia. For my part, I think it would be best to say little or nothing of that question, but I presume some editors will want it, and I raise no objection. (And thanks for correcting my mistake, even before I realized it myself and came back to fix it.) Esoglou (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it is important partly because Jugie thought it was important but also because it helps deflect the implication that, as a convert to Orthodox Christianity, Barlaam never fully understood Orthodox theology. The tension between the Byzantine intellectuals and monastic mysticism isn't sufficiently presented in the article. The resolution of the Hesychast controversy is that the mystics emerge triumphant from the attack of the intellectuals and mysticism is enshrined in Orthodox theology from that point on. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I make no comment on that. However, I would like to remark - and why not here? - that the source given for calling Barlaam a "convert" seems a very odd one to choose: a long quotation that admittedly has a parenthetic "who had come from the West as a convert to Orthodoxy", but whose point, strongly stressed by bolding the last sentence, is to put across the opinion that it is "unbelievable nonsense" to think that the "angel of the Lord" in the Old Testament (on Sinai and elsewhere) was not the Second Person of the Trinity Himself, but only appearances? Esoglou (talk) 17:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Essence-Energies distinction / Revert of sourced edit

LoveMonkey and Esoglou, could you both explain the recent edit and revert cycle? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

LoveMonkey has reverted a sourced edit, declaring, on his own authority alone, that "this is not true". Thank God, there are others actively involved at present in editing this article, and unlike in past cases I can leave it to them to consider the matter. Esoglou (talk) 20:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

(Sorry, I wrote this, before reading Richard's request above. I presume he was referring to the matter I have raised here. Esoglou (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC))

I looked at the edit and it does seem to be supported by the sources. I'd like to hear LoveMonkey's explanation of what "is not true". --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 23:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I changed the link back to theosis from the generic Divinization that Esoglou had changed it to. Why is Esoglou again claiming something that is not there? Since when did Palamas teach that the Protestants and Roman Catholics teach the same doctrine of theosis as he did? Thats opinion at best and what was added did not at all express that opposition that Palamas had or has with the West. LoveMonkey (talk) 23:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

PS other than Esoglou's editing. I am very OK with this article. It is coming along well. But it will not go well if uniatism is allowed to creep into it. As Palamas opposed only Islam more than Uniatism. There maybe Eastern Catholics whom can say they claim him but in his life he outright rejected them. As it is completely safe to say Palamas would call modern ecumenism nothing more then warmed over Unionism, uniatism. And that somehow is getting lost here. LoveMonkey (talk) 23:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The issue, as I see it, is this. I originally linked the word "deification" in the first paragraph to theosis. Esoglou changed the link to divinization (Christian). LoveMonkey changed it back to theosis. Esoglou presumably changed it to divinization (Christian) because that's the "official" name of the linked article ("theosis" merely redirects there). LoveMonkey presumably changed it back to theosis because "divinization" is a generic Christian term whereas "theosis" is more specific to Eastern Orthodoxy. Either way, it really doesn't matter, because both divinization (Christian) and theosis go to the very same article. This is a tempest in a teapot, guys.

The "sourced edit" to which Esoglou refers is his addition of the claim that the EE distinction is not merely conceptual. This does not appear to be what LoveMonkey was objecting to, so it can be set aside for the purposes of this discussion (but see my remarks in the new section below). --Phatius McBluff (talk) 01:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

There is also an article at Theosis (Eastern Orthodox theology). Should the link point there or to Divnization (Christian)? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 05:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Re-added Esoglou's edit

I re-added to the intro a modified version of Esoglou's (true) claim that the EE distinction is not merely conceptual. I have my doubts about the appropriateness of adding this information to the intro (which is supposed to be reserved for a cursory overview of the topic, not any in-depth analysis), especially since the Essence-Energies distinction article itself does not bother to say in its intro that the EE distinction is not merely conceptual. Perhaps I will go to the Essence-Energies distinction article now and fix that. Anyhow, LoveMonkey's revert was not aimed at that aspect of Esoglou's edit, so I regard my re-addition of Esoglou's information as uncontroversial. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 02:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Phatius. I presume you accept that, apart from Nominalists - and Barlaam has been classified as one - nobody holds that there is no distinction whatever between the divine essence and the divine energies. The particulars of the dispute can of course be dealt with outside the lead, but what is really in dispute should be made clear somewhere in an article on Palamism. I don't think there are Nominalists among Roman Catholic theologians today. Esoglou (talk) 10:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Great source; Parking this here for future reference

The 14th century Hesychasts - Kallistos Ware --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite

I have read that both Barlaam and Palamas drew on the writings of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite. Curiously, the Wikipedia article on Pseudo-Dionysius makes no mention of Barlaam or Palamas. Nonetheless, we should mention the connection. Further, we should explain how each could draw from Pseudo-Dionysius in support of what appear to be diametrically opposed positions. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

"Never officially condemned"

I think it best to pause and let Phatius improve my most recent edits before he or I then try to deal with the apparent contradiction between at least appearing to indicate that one Western theologians does think the RCC has made denial of Palamism a dogma and the opening phrase of the following subsection, which declares as a fact that the RCC never condemned Palamism officially. Esoglou (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I have tried to smooth things out a bit. Of course, edits for style and internal consistency are somewhat subjective. I simply struck out the unqualified claim that the RCC never judged Palamism to be heretical. I also created a subsection specifically for "Roman Catholic dogma", which discusses both Ott's claim that Palamism runs afoul of RC dogma and Kuhlmann's claim that the RCC never judged Palamism to be heretical. (Interestingly, these two claims are not necessarily incompatible. Something could contradict a dogma without having been specifically condemned by the church. At any rate, I thought it best to simply let readers draw what conclusions they would.) --Phatius McBluff (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. You are right about differences of taste, and I see no reason to refuse to accept your taste here. Esoglou (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

But now I see that one point involved more than style. Saying that "Palamas, despite his essence-energies distinction, did not consider God to be composite" implies that the normal interpretation of the distinction would be that God is compound, not simple. The point of Kuhlmann's comment is that, for Palamas (as Kuhlmann interprets him), the distinction between God's essence and energies was not the kind of distinction that would make God composite - in other words, the distinction did not involve reality. Thomists, Scotists, Nominalists would all say exactly the same about the distinction. In their view, the distinction between God's essence and God's energies is only virtual, formal or merely conceptual. Esoglou (talk) 21:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

"generally equating it with quietism"

Phatius put a {{cn}} tag on the word "generally" asking for support for the assertion. I wrote that part of the sentence and I admit that the word "generally" is based on my own personal observation based on looking at a lot of sources that were returned as Google Search results. Now, I readily admit that this means it is OR and I am willing to remove the word but I am wondering how we should rewrite the sentence. My feeling is that words like "most" or, in this case, "generally" require a direct quotation supporting those words but "many" and "some" are weasel words; "many" could be anywhere between 10 and 1000 while "some" could be as few as three or four. However, I think citing a couple of scholars doesn't communicate the fact that really a lot of sources parrot the same equivalence. Perhaps they all got the idea from Fortescue's CE article of some other encyclopedia of religion. In any event, the point is that I am at a loss as to how to fix this problem. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I think "often" is the most that we can say. Esoglou (talk) 09:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Scope of this article

This article is intended to focus on the theological doctrine of Gregory Palamas with only enough historical narrative to give the reader the context in which the doctrine was developed. The article Hesychast controversy focuses on the political and historical aspects of the dispute in addition to the theological aspects although with lesser emphasis on the latter. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 08:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Philosophical and theological labels

There are a number of philosophical and theological labels that have been applied to Palamites and antiPalamites that have not been discussed in the article. The primary cause of this is that I am not that comfortable with these terms and so I tend not to think in terms of these labels as much as those who are more familiar with philosophy and theology. However, I think it may be time to remedy this deficiency in the article. Here are the terms that I think we should find a way to introduce into the article. (NB: I am not saying that the labels have always been applied accurately. Often times they have been used polemically without an actual basis in fact. However, even the charge is worth documenting if it is mentioned in the literature frequently enough.)

• The Palamites have been accused of being antinomian
• Barlaam has been described by some as a Nominalist (although Kallistos Ware disagrees)
• Palamism is described as apophatic
• Barlaam is also described (accused even) of apophaticism
• Barlaam was accused of being agnostic
• Barlaam is described as an intellectual "positivist"
• Barlaam relies on Greek philsophy - Aristotle and NeoPlatonism

I have seen these terms a lot in my reading but, as I said, do not feel confident that I fully understand the terms as they related to the Hesychast controversy. Thus, I will start to introduce these terms into the article but I seek the assistance of other editors more knowledgeable than I to make sure that the text accurately and completely presents these aspects of the controversy.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The following remark is of course wide open to correction by those who know better:

From what little I know of Pseudo-D., both sides could easily have drawn on their respective interpretations of him and of his apophaticism and (supposed) Neoplatonism. (Aquinas too appealed to him as an authority, and so, I suppose, did every theologian of the time - just as they all appealed to Scripture, and yet they proposed divergent views! So there is absolutely nothing to be surprised at in mutually opposed writers appealing to the same source.) There is evidence that both sides appealed to Aristotle in their arguing with one another. As for nominalism and positivism, they are both references to an interpretation of Barlaam's philosophical attitude. The description of him as "agnostic" could refer either to this same characteristic or to his apophaticism (stressing the unknowability of God): it was for his application of this attitude to the Holy Spirit that Palamas first attacked Barlaam.

I strongly doubt that introducing these terms is worth the trouble of explaining them clearly to the reader. Esoglou (talk) 17:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised to hear you say that, especially since some of the terms crop up in the detailed Wikipedia articles. I think it would be useful to provide an overview of how the terms have been used in this controversy with links to the articles on the terms for the uninformed but interested reader. These terms are mentioned in almost any discussion of the theology that has a theological perspective rather than a historical one. The ones that are more historical treatments don't mention these terms as much. So... part of the question here centers on the question of what the scope of this article is. I have introduced a fair amount of historical narrative but, originally, my intent was that this article was to be mostly about the theological doctrine. IMO, fulfilling that original vision requires some treatment of these labels. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

By all means do develop the points of theological debate. I applaud your intention and wish you satisfaction and success in your work. In the new context the labels may then fit in quite well. Esoglou (talk) 19:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Your both incorrect [16]. LoveMonkey (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

That link is actually a pretty good start. My problem is that reading and understanding that stuff is heavy slogging for me. I would prefer it if someone who is more facile with it could summarize it for this article. I could do it but this is not my forte. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 02:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Excuses, excuses, excuses, good for you, bad for me read the article since you keep ignoring what it says. I keep telling you as its what was in the theoria and Roman Catholic-Eastern Orthodox theological differences articles. If you can create an article and source it you read about it. LoveMonkey (talk) 03:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

"Coined by the Roman Catholic church"

In line with WP:BRD, I have reverted the edit that claims that the term "Palamism" was coined by the Roman Catholic Church. While I think it possible that some Roman Catholic theologian or historian coined the term, I don't see how it can be said that the Roman Catholic Church coined it. Esoglou (talk) 19:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm open to renaming this article to a more NPOV term if someone can propose one. I just haven't seen any other term used that is both short and comprehensive. I suppose we could consider The Teachings of Gregory Palamas as an alternate title for this article. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Palamism will do just fine. WP:UCN. This is an artificial "controversy". --dab (𒁳) 20:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Dbach not so. For example

"Well, with the commemoration of St. Gregory coming up, I thought this would be a good time to take a look at St. Gregory’s theology. The first thing we must understand about Palamism, is that there is absolutely no such thing. Palamism is the invention of Roman Catholic thinkers—I will not call them theologians—who wanted to justify their own heresy by giving what is the undoubted and traditional teaching of the Orthodox Church an exotic label, turning it into an historically conditioned “ism.”[17] LoveMonkey (talk) 23:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree both that there is no need to change the title and that this is an artificial controversy. It was the experience of being repeatedly accused of edit-warring because of not accepting claims such as this that made it necessary to request the opinion of others. Esoglou (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Dbachmann your an administrator. Hey whats the word on Esoglou why all the ignoring my noticeboards on him? LoveMonkey (talk) 23:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Dbachman, there is an incipient edit-war developing here. A friendly warning to the edit-warriors would help. I would revert LoveMonkey's restoration of the unsourced text but I don't want to contribute to the edit-warring. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 00:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes Dbachman please chide in as these two editors (Psuedo-Richard and Esoglou) are ignoring sourcing I have provided in good faith and tag teaming, reverting, blanket deleting, and going from Orthodox theology article to Orthodox theology article and rewriting them to a pro Catholic bias. Neither can tell you they have read Palamas yet here they are creating articles about him and ignoring mistakes and distortions I have attempted to point out. While edit warring away. I am not alone in complaining about Esoglou's behavior. [18]LoveMonkey (talk) 00:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Dbachman, it appears that all parties would welcome an intervention by you. So ... Esoglou (talk) 08:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes Mr Dab your intervention would be wonderful. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

POV and Lacoste

The {{POV}} tag would have been more appropriately added to the section with the Lacoste quote. I'm not sure what the "used as primary" comment in the edit summary means. There is nothing in WP:RS that says that sources can't have a POV. Most sources have a POV and WP:NPOV requires that all significant POVs be represented. If you object to what Lacoste says, then provide sources that contradict him. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 00:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Not the only problem there are more. LoveMonkey (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Nonetheless, unless you are asserting that the entire article is riddled with POV issues, it is more productive to mark the sections that have the problems. Also, putting up a tag carries with it an obligation to explain the issues on the Talk Page. To my mind, the most useful practice would be to tag a section in the article and then create a corresponding section here on this Talk Page that explains what the POV problem is in that section of the article.

Tags that lack explanations on the Talk Page are subject to removal.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 02:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Nice to see Richard's rich hypocrasy here again. As he is more concerned with my POV tag but can't seem to address Esolou's blanket deleting of content today. [19] LoveMonkey (talk) 03:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced content, eh? Source it and we can start discussing where in the article it should go so the reader can make sense of it. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 05:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

May I point out the section whose deletion LM complains of was completely unsourced, had remained so in spite of LM being repeatedly asked to source it, and is still unsourced, and that Wikipedia allows such material to be deleted. Restoring that material while still refusing to source it can be seen as a form of vandalism.

May I also point out that accusing an editor of "rich hypocrasy" is not civil behaviour. Esoglou (talk) 07:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

May I point out that there is already an article on the subject here at Wikipedia (i.e. Byzantine Philosophy). That is well sourced. And maybe editors here should look at some of the new rules on providing sourcing since at not time did either got to the article and specify what needed to be sourced as such. And there is a policy of WP:BLUE they have no business blanket deleting until they at least clarify what in the content is contentious. Which they just labeled the whole section needing source and the new rules do not allot them the options to delete something after a week or two of requesting sourcing while asked to be educated on the subject in general and then ignore people whom provide them sourcing on the talkpage in good faith in the firs place. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Re - "new rules on providing sourcing": what "new rules" are you talking about?

Re - "clarify what in the content is contentious" - the entire section reads like OR and there is not a single source in the section

Re - WP:BLUE: WP:BLUE applies to assertions like "Romanides is an Orthodox theologian", not to the assertions in the section under discussion

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

If there is a source for that section of the Essence-Energies article elsewhere than in the section, whether in another Wikipedia article or on a Talk page or in a scholarly book or on a reliable website, then you should cite that source in the section if you want it kept or restored. Restoring it still unsourced is vandalism. Esoglou (talk) 15:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Why is it that an Eastern Orthodox theology article is being sourced from Roman Catholic sources? And especially controversies about how the Orthodox theology of Palamas should be understood in the West? When I say POV I mean Maybe we could get some Protestants to source how they understand various Hindu religious concepts and tell any Hindu that disagree that because the Protestant theologian whom made the anti-pagan statements of their religion came from Harvard or Oxford that he knows better then they of what they understand of their faith. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Whether any Roman Catholic source is quoted about how the theology of Palamas should be understood in the West - I doubt that any is - there are overwhelming reasons for quoting Roman Catholic sources for how the theology of Palamas is understood in the West. Eastern Orthodox scholars are not the only scholars who study Palamism. Sources quoted for the Catholic Church article include Eastern Orthodox, Jews, Anglicans ... And rightly so. It would be nonsense to exclude them just for not being Catholic. 15:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

And why are Roman Catholic sources not being designated as Roman Catholic POV but are rather ambiguous in the article. As is the case with the Roman Catholic source I pointed out in the section header. Lacoste (a Roman Catholic) is making ignorant comments about how only Romanides as an Orthodox theologian has problems with Meyendorff when I have shown that comment wrong. And the comment looks like a hit job on the Orthodox theologian Romanides by Lacoste. That type of thing is WRONG. Why is an Roman Catholic's comments so pronounced in this article and used as being of the same weight (WP:UNDUE)as those of people whom adhere to the teachings of Palamas and consider them the dogma of their own church?

As Undue clearly states "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all.

1. How is that not POV pushing?
2. Who is Lacoste to say such a thing about Romanides?
3. Why would such a quote which is singling out a single Orthodox theologian (John Romanides) and representative of the Eastern Orthodox to the WCC be shown in an article for an Eastern Orthodox theological teaching?
4. And when did the source that was given for the quote now become the voice and the definitive source for the teachings of the Eastern Orthodox church on its theology? Thats undue weight.

Where does wikipedia have that as a policy? That the Roman Catholic opinion of the Eastern Orthodox Church's dogma is equivalent or equal to the opinion as given by the Eastern Orthodox themselves? LoveMonkey (talk) 15:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not at all thrilled with the characterization in the article text of Lacoste as "Roman Catholic". I will comment that the Wikipedia article makes no mention of the fact that he is a Catholic although one of the article categories suggests that he is a theologian. However, even granting that he is a Catholic, I am not convinced that he is speaking as a Catholic or espousing a Catholic POV. The work is titled "Encyclopedia of Chrstian Theology" and thereby claims to be encyclopedic rather than polemical in approach. Now, we've seen that bias and polemics can exist in encyclopedia articles (cf. Fortescue and Vailhe) but we should not assume that because Lacoste is a Catholic that his Catholicism inherently calls his objectivity into question. In any event, think it is better to attack the position, not the speaker or author. That's true whether the source is a Wikipedia editor or a reliable source. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

bias why is it that Roman Catholic disinformation is being treated as fact?

Why is Jean-Yves Lacoste comments being placed in the article as authoritative when it is obviously WRONG? I posted at least one other source already that shows his comments are misinformed. Again here is the Bishop of Photiki [20]saying Meyendorff is wrong why no mention of this in the article? Or should we go ahead and just let people know this is an article written by and from the Roman Catholic perspective? LoveMonkey (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Wrongness does not mean that a source's POV cannot be presented. Read WP:NPOV again. If you wish to add the Bishop of Photiki's POV to the article, you are welcome to do so but that doesn't mean that Meyendorff's POV should be deleted. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 00:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

So not going to fix it? Meyendorff is not the name I put in the edit summary LoveMonkey (talk) 00:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

What's to fix? Lacoste is clearly a reliable source and it is indisputable that he said what he said (well, you know the actual source is an encyclopedia so it is entirely possible that Lacoste is just the editor of the encyclopedia and not the author of the specific article in question). Nonetheless, the source is reliable and the quote is accurate. So what is there to fix? You know the drill. You don't like the POV, you need to present another source with an opposing POV. Why are we even having this discussion? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Again ignoring that I already did that in my original post, this frustrating type of behavior is what I am talking about, you again completely ignore the Bishop from Photiki. For others note: If you read the bishop's paper, it too dispenses with the European Meyendorff take on Palamas' energy and essence distinction. LoveMonkey (talk) 03:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Then, instead of complaining that not every scholar agrees with you, add to the article a citation of the bishop. Seems straightforward. Esoglou (talk) 16:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Quit with the attempts to disregard my concerns. And please address them. As if I wrote the Wikipedia policies that reflect them to being with. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Far from disregarding your concern, I was indicating a very simple way for you to remedy the supposed ignoring of the Bishop from Photiki. Esoglou (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Far from good faith is to try and use the logical fallacy called an appeal to emotion in order to undermine, ignore or generally disregard the concerns I have expressed. Stop with the fallacies and then the unethical attempts to justify them as you just don't see what your doing. LoveMonkey (talk)

wth LoveMonkey, Esoglou was being perfectly reasonable and invited you to suggest an improvement. Nobody is preventing you from contributing to this article, so stop complaining. This isn't the Kosovo article, your antagonism is completely misplaced. "So not going to fix it?"? Please read {{sofixit}}. --dab (𒁳) 14:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Well one nobody said it was Kosovo. And yes Esoglou has a history of deleting my contributions to articles [21], radically rewriting them, and ignoring my concerns (like the source we are discussing now). Esoglou is reasonably not listening I attempted to clarify my concerns and contribute sourcing to this article (which is repeatedly ignored as contributions are discussed on the talkpage, approved then added to article, no?) and Dbach denied that the Eastern Orthodox are critical of the term Palamas [22]. And remove my concern then and now removed my POV template now.[23] Now Dbach is denying the article is POV even though I have a Orthodox christian and philosophy professor (in audio off the radio website) saying even the name of the article is Western Christian POV. Why should a contributor having to now fight a sarcastic administrator whom will revert source-able legitimate concerns. I have went from being ignored to now having a wikipedia administrator insult me (Kosovo?). If you want me to stop editing on this article, you've succeeded, I will leave, as Esoglou and now you are ignoring the facts I have provided in good faith as another Orthodox source (not me) saying that this article or any article on Palamas should not use Meyendorff (read over the conversation) to be a valid or correct depiction of the Orthodox view of Palamas' teachings. The article should be COMPLETELY rewritten to correct this, and that is only the beginning. Which you guarantee will not happen.

Fortescue as a source for Palamism being dogma of the Eastern Orthodox Church

Proof of Roman Catholic POV and disrespect to the Eastern Orthodox.

In the very introduction to this article an absolute statement is made.

"Palamism is a central element of Eastern Orthodox theology, being made into dogma in the Eastern Orthodox Church by the Hesychast councils"

That statement is then sourced by the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia online by Adrian Fortescue

The article or source is considered hostile to the Eastern Orthodox. As it depicts Palamas as a teacher of heresies.

Why would such a source be used to make statements about the Orthodox in general that it is hostile to, again, and that not be considered Bias? The word "Palamism" is not in the Fortescue article, or source. Why isn't an Orthodox source used? Why are people defending things like this here?

Your choice and wording against me Dbach as an administrator is disappointing. Since you have chosen to depict me as the bad guy here and remind me this isn't Kosovo which is very sarcastic, its obvious you are not objective and you will not allow me to contribute (free from your antagonism, that is) as you have obviously chosen sides. So the article will be the bogus typical wiki article. One-sided and admin protected definitely not NPOV so touted as your behavior obviously is hostile and sarcastic to my contributions. So be it. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

My, my, my... what an interesting outburst of histrionics over a molehill. You don't dispute the truth of the assertion nor the fact that the source made the assertion. You are unhappy because the source has a negative attitude towards the Eastern Orthodox Church and so is somehow an unsuitable source for an article about the Eastern Orthodox Church. Well, that's a problem that's easily fixed. Go find a source that has a positive attitude towards the Eastern Orthodox Church and is therefore considered suitable by you for this article and then replace the citation to Fortescue with it. What's the BFD here? Just do it and see if anyone objects. Please... get on with it already and save your energies for more substantive issues. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 04:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Reliability of Lacoste as a source

First of all, plese stop creating new top-level (level 2) headings for what amounts to the same complaint. There is no need to spread this discussion across multiple top-level sections.

Second, I will comment that you seemed to have no problem using Orthodox sources to make blanket statements about what Catholic theologians thought. So now the shoe is on the other foot and it feels a bit uncomfortable, eh?

Third, I appreciate your discomfort but this is the difficulty with Wikipedia sourcing rules. The fact that Wikipedia editor X has "proven reliable source Y wrong" is irrelevant and not usable because Wikipedia editor X is not a reliable source.

Fourth, it is important to differentiate whether the Bishop of Photiki specifically says that Meyendorff has been rejected by most Orthodox theologians or does he only say that Meyendorff should be rejected by Orthodox theologians? If he says the former is true, then you should find that quote and use it to counterbalance Lacoste. It doesn't mean that Lacoste's quote should be removed from the article text, just that such a counterbalancing quote would restore the NPOV balance. However, if the latter is true, then all you have is one more source arguing that Meyendorff is wrong. How many Orthodox theologians do you have to pile up to prove that Lacoste is wrong? The problem here is that one could argue that there is a "Romanides school" and that piling up more theologians and bishops just establishes that Romanides is not a "lone voice" in opposing Meyendorff. I qualify this assertion by saying that there are some names that are bigger than others. If you can provide quotes from the likes of Lossky and Yannaras that also assert that Meyendorff is wrong then that would call into question Lacoste's assertion. I confess that I have no reading at all on whether the Bishop of Photiki is a "big name" in Orthodox theology or not.

Finally, it might not be valid to simply distill Lacoste's statement down to "Most Orthodox theologians (except Romanides) accept Meyendorff". Let's look closely at what he wrote.

1. According to Meyendorff, "Gregory Palamas has perfected the patristic and concilar heritage, against the secularizing tide that heralds the Renaissance and the Reformation, by correcting its Platonizing excesses along biblical and personalist lines."
2. Palamitism, which is impossible to compress into a system, is then viewed as the apophatic expression of a mystical existentialism.
3. this thesis (of Meyendorff's) justifies the Palamite character of contemporary research devoted to ontotheological criticism (Yannaras), to the metaphysics of the person (Clement), and to phenomenology of ecclesiality (Zizioulas) or of the Holy Spirit (Bobrinskoy).

Which of these three assertions are you challenging as wrong?

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC) 1.Richard wrote "There is no need to spread this discussion across multiple top-level sections."

Stop accusing me of things that Esoglou does. [24] and you Richard do as well. [25] Richard seems to really be in that "I can do it but you can't frame of mind". I find that hypocritical, you know that you criticize me for behavior you commit.

2.Richard wrote "I will comment that you seemed to have no problem using Orthodox sources to make blanket statements about what Catholic theologians thought."

Hold on, let me get this straight, you and Esoglou are edit warring across a series of Greek (Eastern) Orthodox subjects (theosis, Theoria, Essence–Energies distinction, and the now created Roman Catholic labeled Palamism). These article are articles ABOUT the Orthodox church. And you don't think that according to Wikipedia policy WHICH I KEEP POINTING OUT TO YOU. That Orthodox sources should be used? That those sources if used do not have primacy as sources? Please clarify.

3.Richard wrote "make blanket statements about what Catholic theologians thought"

Ahhhhhhhh so you and Esoglou are going to make sure that whatever those Orthodox theologians say that you don't like and call "blanket statements about what Catholic theologians thought" get silenced or removed. Whitewashing the Orthodox church's theologians statements that make blanket statements about what Catholic theologians thought.

Thats POV Richard.
3a.Richard wrote " I appreciate your discomfort but this is the difficulty with Wikipedia sourcing rules. The fact that Wikipedia editor X has "proven reliable source Y wrong" is irrelevant and not usable because Wikipedia editor X is not a reliable source."

Richard here is completely dodging the fact that I repeatedly PROVIDE SOURCES and he just happens to not notice them i.e. ignores them as anyone who read the above comments Richard made about how only Romanides disagrees with Meyendorff and how I posted for upwards a third or fourth time the article by the Bishop of Photiki who is among other things NOT ROMANIDES.

4.Richard wrote "Fourth, it is important to differentiate whether the Bishop of Photiki specifically says that Meyendorff has been rejected by most Orthodox theologians or does he only say that Meyendorff should be rejected by Orthodox theologians?"

So now Richard sess the source after ignoring it to ask the third question. How can such behavior not be frustrating to people giving their free time to this project and then those people whom contribute in good faith and get ignored (not just once but repeatedly) not be disruptive? As for Meyendorff again the Bishop clarifies that THE CHURCH for which employs him makes him IN HIS ROLE AS BISHOP state that Meyendorff is wrong about the churches' stance on Palamas. I can not speak to the validity of weigh that A BISHOP has in the Roman Catholic church. But in the Orthodox church they say what is accepted and what is not accepted. If it gets escalated (which the Bishop clearly states it has not, in his paper you refuse to read) then it goes to higher clergy and one of them will make a statement of confirmation if it gets escalated beyond that then a Metropolitan, beyond that final word is a council. This is a bit in accurate but simplified so that you can get the point which you keep ignoring. SORRY RICHARD DOES NOT UNDERSTAND BUT CONTINUES TO FIGHT FOR HIS OPINION WHICH IS NOT INFORMED. 17:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

So you are saying that if a bishop of the Orthodox Church says a theologian (e.g. Meyendorff) is wrong and that assertion stands unchallenged (i.e. unescalated), this then precludes any theologian from believing that the first theologian may be at least partially right? If so, then let's by all means put that in the article text. Nothing has precluded you from doing that. We can work on the specific wording later. Or, if you prefer, propose the wording here on the Talk Page and we can hash it out here rather than edit warring over the article text.

P.S. There is perhaps a cultural gap in play here. Catholics have a lot more freedom than that. Even if a bishop or archbishop says something, Catholics feel free to bitch, moan and whine about it. Heck, Catholics even do that when the Pope says things.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Universal assertions, near-universal assertions and existential assertions

I wrote "it is important to differentiate whether the Bishop of Photiki specifically says that Meyendorff has been rejected by most Orthodox theologians or does he only say that Meyendorff should be rejected by Orthodox theologians"

Let me be clearer about the problem we have here. Lacoste said " Accepted by the Orthodox world (with the exception of Romanides), this thesis..."

Leaving aside the question of what the "thesis" is that Lacoste is referring to (a question posed in an earlier subsection), we should ask what would it take to challenge Lacoste's assertion?

Lacoste's assertion is what I call a "near-universal assertion" (forgive me if I display ignorance of formal logic here). A universal assertion would be along the lines of "All Orthodox theologians accept Meyendorff's thesis". This could be proven wrong by positing even one Orthodox theologian who does not accept Meyendorff's thesis.

However, Lacoste acknowledges at least one exception to the assertion (viz. Romanides). If we posit more exceptions, does it change the substance of Lacoste's assertion? Well, if we could show that all major theologians (Yannaras, Florovsky, etc.) rejected Meyendorff, that would probably do it. But simply asserting that the Bishop of Photiki thinks Meyendorff is wrong doesn't cut it.

What would work best would be a secondary source asserting that all or nearly all Orthodox theologians reject Meyendorff. NB: not that they should reject him but that they actually do reject him.

BTW, I have no problem with things working out this way if such a source can be found. I am not insisting that Lacoste is right. I am just saying that we have to follow Wikipedia's sourcing and NPOV policies.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Again you are ignoring the Orthodox. WHAT DOES A BISHOP DO in the Orthodox church, Richard? You are ignorant and keep fighting to justify your bad behavior. This is completely unacceptable and yet YOU RICHARD CREATED THIS ARTICLE. Meyendorff does not have the final say on anything look at his rank in the church. Why are there articles (translated into English from Greek HIGH clergy) making statements that Meyendorff's work is not authoritative and you Richard are writing entire articles on using that source and when people from that community SOURCE that Meyendorff is not accepted as authoritative you argue? LoveMonkey (talk) 17:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem having the article present the Bishop of Photiki's POV. If may be useful to explicitly emphasize the authority that he has within the Orthodox Church because I suspect that a Bishop in the Catholic Church does not carry similar authority. (but I am on thin ice here and am open to being corrected if I have got this wrong). --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. You are out of line, LoveMonkey, stop the personal attacks. Nobody said that Meyendorff or anyone else has "the final say", merely that he is a notable-quotable reference. Bring your own quotable references already or else drop it. --dab (𒁳) 17:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Let me clarify... AFAIK, it is not the case that when a single Catholic bishop says something, all Catholic theologians immediately shut up and fall in line with whatever pronouncement the bishop made. Even when the Pope says something, it is not mandatory for Catholic theologians to fall into line (although most will). It's only when something is said by a council of bishops or in a Papal encyclical that it becomes mandatory to follow the dictum. (And, even then, there are traditionalist Catholics who attack the proceedings of Vatican II going so far as to declare the episcopal chair of the See of Rome to be vacant).

If it is the case that the writings of Bishop Photikos have a binding effect on all Orthodox theologians, I really think we need a secondary source that asserts the binding authority of an Orthodox bishop on Orthodox theologians. I readily acknowledge an abject level of ignorance about the workings of the Orthodox Church. Thus, it would really help me understand the authority of the Bishop better if such a secondary source were provided. I think I would be most convinced if it were shown that Bishop Kallistos (Ware) rejected Meyendorff due to the pronouncement of Bishop Auxentios of Photiki. Of course, I'm not saying that this is the only evidence that I would accept but I think I would be most convinced by that.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

In the EOC there are three clerical ranks, the deacons, the priests and the bishops (which are the highest of these ranks). Meyendorff also states in one of his books, "a bishop holds first place in the ecclesiastical hierarchy. To him belongs the highest sacerdotal degree;". The following book also claims that "At his ordination as a bishop the new candidate is specially scrutinized for the character of his doctrine. It is an especial duty of the bishop to see that right doctrine (the Nicene faith of the church) is proclaimed in the churches, and that the Gospel is preached and the mysteries correctly administered". Also, according to the following when bishops are consecrated, they also have to state: "And I promise to rule the flock committed unto me in the fear of God and in devoutness of life; and with all diligent heed to guard it against all heresies of doctrine"..."I promise to visit and watch over the flock now confided to me, after the manner of the Apostles, whether they remain true to the faith, and in the exercise of good works, more especially the Priests;". And the bishops are also considered the successors of the apostles. So, I think it is obvious that the statements of a bishop can have more weight when speaking about faith and doctrine, especially since it is their duty to search for errors in these matters. Cody7777777 (talk) 00:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your response... still you have not said anything that isn't also true of the Catholic Church (except that a deacon in the Catholic Church has no almost no weight regarding doctrine and I suspect a deacon in the Orthodox Church may be accorded more respect). Moreover, you haven't answered the question whether there is room to disagree with the statements of a bishop. So far, I have seen Romanides and Bishop Auxentios criticize Meyendorff. I have not been able to find any statement by Bishop Kallistos for example either affirming or criticizing Meyendorff. This seems sparse evidence on which to conclude that Meyendorff has been rejected by Orthodox theologians. Do you endorse the conclusion that the Romanides/Auxentios critique of Meyendorff is uniformly accepted by Orthodox theologians? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 01:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Because of statements he disliked, LoveMonkey himself has reported criticisms of, theological disagreements with, Bishops Ware and, I think, Zizioulas and at least one other Orthodox bishop (who published a catechism in Canada). Esoglou (talk) 08:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I tried to search for statements of other bishops about this, but it seems that this issue has not attracted too much attention (however, this does not necessarily mean that they accept Meyendorff's views). But nonetheless, since bishops are responsible for checking on laymen, monks, deacons and priests (and Meyendorff was a priest), the statements of bishop Auxentios of Photiki could be considered as an official EO view (at least, unless there were other bishops who supported Meyendorff against the critics of Auxentios, and if there are other bishops who disagree with Auxentios, then as far as I know, a synod would be necessary to determine an official position). Cody7777777 (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Cody. Like the views expressed on various matters by Bishop Kallistos and other bishops, the view of Bishop Auxentios is certainly an official Eastern Orthodox Church view. However, it cannot be classified as "the" Eastern Orthodox Church view. As for synods, LoveMonkey thinks that the view of a synod, even a Pan-Orthodox synod, is not necessarily "the" Eastern Orthodox Church view: for instance, he doesn't consider as statements of Eastern Orthodox doctrine the declarations of the Synod of Jerusalem (1672). Esoglou (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Ahhh Esoglou making personal attacks. I just read this yesterday. Here is a wiki editor lying about a position held and validated by people not only in the Orthodox church. Esoglou does not care about good faith or tolerance and respectful clarity. No Esoglou cares about finding underhanded ways to distort what editors have said to sully them. This bearing false witness is very representative of Esoglou's entire style of representing his church he clearly does not respect nor care to do the work that such respect dictates in order to correctly depict what people have posted here. I never made any such of a reflection of my personal opinion and Esoglou knows this. Mouravieff is not me and Esoglou can stomp up and down and slander people all he wants, it will not change what A. N. Mouravieff said nor is it acceptable for Esoglou to try and attribute to me what A. N. Mouravieff stated about this subject again Mouravieff NOT ME, i.e.

"A. N. Mouravieff in his History of the Church of Russia wrote that the Confession of Dositheus, which have their basis in the Synod of Jerusalem (1672)-"the text is only of value in defining the things in common between the Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Eastern Catholic churches against Calvinism." And "that they are of no sort of authority to establish any new decision in the name of the Church, but may as easily be omitted or corrected as mere errors of grammar or typography, as soon as ever they are perceived to contain any thing contrary to the traditionary standard of Orthodoxy."[26]

Thats not my opinion thats what A. N. Mouravieff states and it is not obviously to be left to such a POV pushing editor as Esoglou whom likes to distort and does not care nor respect this person to properly represent what they actually said. Esoglou does this again and again and again and again. It is obvious that Esoglou can not possibly allow me to post what some Orthodox hold as their opinion on the Confession of Dositheus not being a valid source, to be used by Roman Catholics to undermine where the Orthodox disagree with the Roman Catholic. How dare I post a source that disagrees and give reasons why, that's me as an individual denying Councils and Synods, never-mind I was posting a valid source -A. N. Mouravieff - and not my own opinion, such subtitles are trivial when one has to got to slander to win. At some point Esoglou's continued deficiencies that cause him to edit war and his continuing mistakes should get him called to task, right now administrators ignore his behavior and protect him. Like when he violated the editing restrictions here no one did anything to him.[27] However whenever I might have violated those same restrictions but did not, I got an ANI (courtesy of Esoglou) [28]. After Esoglou made such blatant and extreme stretches in his postings here its no wonder Cody did not respond. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)