![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Since there were objections from two editors (LM and T b), on the grounds that I was editing Eastern Orthodox material, to my editing the section on the New Testament (which was then immediately after, not part of, the section headed "Eastern Orthodoxy"), I think it is prudent to ask beforehand whether they have grounds for objecting to my editing the subsection that is now headed "Theodoret's statement against Cyril", a subsection of "Theological contention", not of "Eastern Orthodoxy". I see that that subsection one-sidedly plays down, ignores or perhaps even distorts Cyril's teaching. I think it would be best to avoid having an Administrator again ask them to justify their objections. Esoglou ( talk) 20:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Based on past experience Montalban ( talk) 10:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Although I suspect Esoglou is right in principle, I think arguing the point is a waste of time.
At my suggestion and with the agreement of all involved, the edit restriction was changed some time ago to allow Esoglou and LoveMonkey to discuss their proposed edits. The purpose in prohibiting them from editing text regarding the other religion's beliefs is to keep them from edit warring which has been a serious problem in the past. However, it was felt that constructive discussion would help the project rather than detract from it.
Regardless of whether or not Esoglou's proposed edit would violate the edit restriction, I would encourage him to just present the proposed edit here on the Talk Page so we can all review it and discuss any issues.
--
Pseudo-Richard (
talk)
17:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
The section on the ECFs is, according to one editor not a 'Catholic' seciton. This despite the fact it lead with this statement
Anthony Edward Siecienski identifies Hilary of Poitiers, the “Athanasius of the West”, and Augustine of Hippo as "the chief patristic source(s) for the Latin teaching on the filioque."
The LATIN TEACHING ON THE FILIOQUE. NOT JUST a support for the phrase "Father and Son".
It's so obvious I wonder why one editor would deny it's there.
This Catholic article by stealth is not in accordance with Wiki policy. Montalban ( talk) 04:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
No it doesn't. Yet, I agree with your sentence in that the Latin teaching is based on Hilary and Augustine, but that opening sentence does not convey that meaning in that it doesn't convey that these same evidences also support another viewpoint.
For a novice reading this they would only see that the filioque as taught by the Latins is based on these evidences NOT that these evidence can be interpreted in a totally different way.
You get it when you say If you feel that this section is a "Catholic" section, then perhaps it is because the section is composed primarily of quotes which are used to support the filioque. That is correct, the article is written so as to show that these evidences support the filioque. Not that they can be used to support any other position.
I will try this yet another way.
The article has evidences that can be used to point to both positions. However the article only says that these evidences point to one position... the Catholic (Latin) one. That is misleading. It says so expressly that the Latin position is backed by these evidences - yes, it is based on these evidences, but these evidences also can be used to back another position. Not saying that they point to another position shows that they only point to one position - the Catholic.
A reader of this article would not otherwise know that these evidences can and are used by another point of view. All they read is that the filioque is backed by these sources. Full stop. That is, they only read a Catholic POV.
I don't need to address the Orthodox viewpoint in the article. Only that the evidences can be used by either case - and I've done this. It is not my intent to establish a comprehensive understanding of the Orthodox view. Only that the same evidences can be used to point to another position. Montalban ( talk) 09:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
-- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 17:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Richard, what makes you think that, in spite of LoveMonkey's prolonged work on this article, the Eastern Orthodox Church is not represented in it? It gives views of Photius, Mark of Ephesus, Romanides, Zizioulas, and the 2003 joint statement, which are more authoritative indications of the Orthodox view than any construction that you or, probably, any other Wikipedia editor could put together. Esoglou ( talk) 20:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
From a Catholic web-site
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/FILIOQUE.HTM
I don't want to go into a quote -v- quote format. Although I could offer such... Tertullian I believe that the Spirit proceeds not otherwise than from the Father through the Son" (Against Praxeas 4:1 [A.D. 216]).
Basil The Great "Through the Son, who is one, he [the Holy Spirit] is joined to the Father, one who is one, and by himself completes the Blessed Trinity" (The Holy Spirit 18:45 [A.D. 375])
Leo the Great Letter XV. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.ii.iv.xv.html Montalban ( talk) 03:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
For the life of me I still don't know what your objection is. You keep writing this about the Orthodox as if it's a revelation, but then you keep repeating it again - like I've made some astounding admission when it's Orthodox teaching that I've written
Montalban ( talk) 11:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Montalban ( talk) 21:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
The problem with the quotes is that they are out of context of the thoughts of the ECF - that's why they can be used to prove a number of positions.
I showed in discussion herein that some ECF say specifically from the Father and THROUGH the Son… which can be termed from the Father and the Son in other quotes but does not mean the double procession as used in the West.
However I accept that the RCC have a position, even if flawed.
What's unacceptable is that their position was stated here, and then each Orthodox point gets another Catholic statement again to 'contextualise' (read; Add Catholic POV).
Montalban ( talk) 04:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
One editor partially quoted the RCC's catechism. He missed this part...
248 ...but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P17.HTM
It is this qualifier that makes the Catholic 'acceptance' of 'through the Son' misleading because the Catechism here notes that both the Father and the Son together are the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds, and this is the doctrine of the double procession which is foreign to Orthodox teaching.
Montalban ( talk) 11:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
That's not what it's saying. It's saying that the Son, as the Father is a principle cause for the Holy Spirit! Check the lead in with the son. Montalban ( talk) 21:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
The position that having the creed say "the Holy Spirit which proceeds from the Father and the Son", does not mean that the Holy Spirit now has two origins, is not the position the West took at the Council of Florence. Where the Roman Catholic side explicitly stated that the Holy Spirit has its cause of existence from the Father and the Son
I had added the statement The writings of the Church fathers, announcing that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son do not necessarily lend their support to either the Catholic position or the Orthodox one. The statement that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son can be used to support either position; that the Spirit comes from the Father and through the Son, or from Father and Son as principle cause.
An editor asked for a citation.
I removed a citation request because Catholic editors have already provided the references such as Hilary of Poitiers where it has Siecienski notes ...
Further I noted elsewhere herein the Talk section of a few quotes of ECF that could support another position. Montalban ( talk) 23:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Are you saying your reference of Siecienski is not reliable?
I suggest, yet again that you re-read what it is you're responding to! :-) Montalban ( talk) 08:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I really would encourage you guys to respond to what I write. Most of what I write otherwise becomes me having to re-state what I said in another way for either the purposes of helping with comprehension, or because you've missed my point. I don't know which case has arisen here, but here is another one. Pseudo-Richard said One of the criteria in getting it to "good article" status is making sure the assertions are well-referenced. I know that Montalban thinks that the assertion he wrote is true and I myself suspect it probably is. However, being true is not sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia. Support from a reliable source is also required.
I already noted that my assertion here is simply a repeat of (although re-worded) the same assertion given elsewhere in the document and supported by Siecienski who notes that the quote he gives doesn't support the modern western interpretation
When I removed the citation request I even drew your attention to where he says it. I wrote…
I removed a citation request because Catholic editors have already provided the references such as Hilary of Poitiers where it has Siecienski notes ...
You're both asking for citations of something that is not contentious because it's already stated. The only reason I added the statement in is because it's relevant to that particular section, on Church Fathers.
I pointed out to Esoglou that he accepts this author (as he's offered no criticism of that author) Montalban ( talk) 21:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
It's in the article Esoglou. Read what I wrote.
If someone writes "ECFs support a number of things" [1] (has a reference) and then later says "The writings of the ECFs can support a number of things" you ask for it to be sourced again, simply because you want everything I say sourced. Montalban ( talk) 23:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
The whole article is rife with Catholic POV - once again another Wiki article has been edited into a Catholic apologetics site.
Not only is the Catholic cause cited earlier, but when Orthodox objections are entered, there is Catholic counter-argument to this... such as here...
In the judgment of these Orthodox, the Roman Catholic Church is in fact teaching as a matter of Roman Catholic dogma that the Holy Spirit derives his origin and being (equally) from both the Father and the Son, making the Filioque a double procession.[79][80] This being the very thing that Maximus the Confessor was stating in his work from the 7th century that would be wrong and that the West was not doing.[81][82][83] Montalban ( talk) 23:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I understand Esoglou that you want to balance every non-Catholic point with a Catholic one.
I understand that for you only an article featuring Catholic argument, or counter-argument in turn countered by further Catholic argument is balanced
Montalban ( talk) 08:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually Esoglou, it's for more than that. Reliable sources is not itself sufficient, not the way you structure an article to read as Catholic POV. If one only offered one perspective on this article, it wouldn't matter how reliable your sources are, it would still be un-balanced. I suggest you have a look at this for the spirit of Wiki requires we work to have balanced articles. Not Catholic Q & A Montalban ( talk) 21:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Footnote 81 is placed there by an editor (whoever it was) who I think misses the point that the citation is making
The contention is that St Maximos' acceptance of the filioque was provisional and in no way like the RCC now maintains (which is what the citation states), it misses the point that the Franks introduced a different notion and that this is the one that the West accepted.
Rominades is in fact saying that – he's defending St Maximos NOT the filioque as the Latin church uses. Montalban ( talk) 23:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that the "Historical Overview" should start with the "New Testament" section, followed by the "Earliest use" followed by "Church fathers". I would also propose that the entire "Historical Overview" be moved ahead of "Current positions" since the "current positions" are the endpoint of the historical development. However, since this is a radical restructuring, I figured I'd propose the change here first before making it. -- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 15:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
One needs to know that the evidence of some Church Fathers as presented can support either position. Montalban ( talk) 21:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I've added a reference due to flippant requests for one from two editors. Anthony E. Siecienski is already in the article giving several statements to this effect.
At footnote 9 he makes a general appraisal of the differences between ECF evidences and what people use that for. At footnote 31 he gives a specific example. However when I said it in the lead in to the section two editors demanded that it be referenced yet again. They demanded a reliable source. I mentioned that they already accept this source.
Every time I am happy to oblige. Montalban ( talk) 23:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
The Catholic position misrpresented (they believe in the double procession - as first cause)
Montalban ( talk) 03:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I found about a half dozen in just one small section. I don't think this is well researched Montalban ( talk) 11:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
The image by Rublev, titled "The Holy Trinity", in the context of this page, gives the sense of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The icon is "a" holy trinity of angels, not The Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost. The image is, apparently, also known as "Angels at Mamre" and shows the three Angels being hosted by Abraham at Mamre. See: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Andrej_Rubl%C3%ABv_001.jpg and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Angelsatmamre-trinity-rublev-1410.jpg 67.166.53.234 ( talk) 02:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC) Court
Why is that inappropriate? The Trinity was often depicted/represented as three angels.
Montalban ( talk) 02:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I reverted LoveMonkey's restoration of text that Esoglou had apparently deleted earlier (based on LM's edit summary). My rationale for this reversion is twofold. First, the text is a POV rant and, if it were to be restored anywhere in Wikipedia, it needs to be rewritten in a more encyclopedic tone. Secondly, even if it were in an encyclopedic tone, it doesn't belong in that particular spot in the article. The section in question, "Interpolation into the Nicene Creed", is a subsection of the section titled "Recent attempts at reconciliation". The Interpolation happened a long time ago and any treatment of that interpolation should have been presented earlier in the article, not in any section with the word "recent' in the section title. In reading what remains of the subsection " Interpolation into the Nicene Creed", I have to say that I am lost as to what the point of the section is relative to the overall section topic of "Recent attempts at reconciliation". I think some significant work is needed to get the " Interpolation into the Nicene Creed" section back onto the topic of the section. -- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 05:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I confess to edit-warring with LoveMonkey although, obviously, it takes two to edit war and, as it happens, LoveMonkey has drawn a block because,as he has obviously forgotten, it's always bad for one person to edit-war against two other editors because the solo editor will run afoul of the WP:3RR rule first. That wasn't really my intent although I was aware of the possibility. I was just feeling ornery and abandoned my usual commitment to observe WP:1RR. In recognition of the "both sides equally guilty" principle, I will refrain from editing this article until LoveMonkey's block has been lifted, thus leaving LM's last set of edits in place rather than reverting them once again. That way, I hope to avoid the impression of taking advantage of his absence during his block. Besides which, I suspect a further edit by me within 24 hours might be construed as violating the 3RR rule so I will stay clear of the "bright line" just in case.
That said, I have tried to communicate both here and via edit summaries that my primary issue is not with what LoveMonkey's text says but with where he wants to put it. It does not help to go all the way back to what happened at the Council of Florence when discussing recent developments (presumably within the last half a century to last century).
Moreover, LoveMonkey's text was a poorly-written rambling rant about injuries inflicted over 600 years ago. I am not at all opposed to providing an NPOV presentation of Orthodox objections to the Filioque and to any attempts to reconcile the two churches. However, such presentation must avoid the appearance of being WP:OR and WP:SYNTH which is what LoveMonkey's text smacked of.
When LoveMonkey returns, I hope he will join in a more collegial and collaborative style that will address these issues.
-- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 20:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
The section "Recent attempts at reconciliation" covers both Orthodox and Catholic views, and even those views are not necessarily held by all Orthodox or all Catholics. I think it would be better if LoveMonkey and Esoglou would just behave more collegially and make it unnecessary to have this edit restriction at all. Esoglou, I urge you to treat LoveMonkey's block as if it were a page protection. Please do not edit the article text until his block expires. There is, after all, no deadline and the text in question isn't wrong per se, it's just soapboxing and soapboxing in the wrong place, to boot. Let us restrict ourselves to discussing on the Talk Page what the issues are with LM's text for now and then be prepared to edit the article to address those issues after his block expires in about eighteen hours. -- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 23:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I created the section "Recent theological perspectives" from "Recent attempts at reconciliation" because, at the time, I thought they were different things. Perhaps the only difference between the two sections is that "Recent theological perspectives" discusses independent statements by individual theologians whereas "Recent attempts at reconciliation" discusses a more formal, coordinated statement by delegates from both churches. The "Recent theological perspectives" section was a mish-mash of points with no clear logical flow of points. I've tried to remedy that by re-organizing the text. I'm still a bit at a loss as to where to put the text about Maximus the Confessor. It seems to me that discussion of his writings should probably go earlier in the "Recent theological perspectives" section.
I'd like to hear what other editors think before I proceed with further reorganization of this section.
-- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 03:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
The article text in the "Inclusion in the Nicene Creed" section includes this text:
The elucidations that the Armenian Apostolic Church adds to the Nicene Creed are much more numerous than the two added by the Latin Church. Another change made to the text of the Nicene Creed by both the Latins and the Greeks is to use the singular "I believe" in place of the plural "we believe", while all the Churches of Oriental Orthodoxy, not only the Armenian, but also the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria,[225] the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church,[226] the Malankara Orthodox Church,[227] and the Syrian Orthodox Church,[228]have on the contrary preserved the "we believe" of the original text.
How is this relevant to the Filioque? It seems to discuss other "elucidations to the Nicene Creed" and changes such as "I believe" instead of "we believe". Sounds like OR to me. And irrelevant OR at that. I propose to delete this text unless someone can explain why it is important to keep in this article. It might be useful to have in the article on the Nicene Creed but I can't see why we need it in this article.
-- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 17:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
The article text includes this sentence: " For this reason, the Roman Catholic Church has refused the addition of καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ to the formula ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον of the Nicene Creed in the Churches, even of Latin rite, which use it in Greek with the Greek verb "έκπορεύεσθαι"."
Can someone please translate the Greek for me? --
Pseudo-Richard (
talk)
15:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I have significantly trimmed the "Eastern Orthodox" section of the "Current positions of various churches" section. My rationale for this is that the section was waaay too long and created an imbalance because that section was at least twice the length of the section on the Catholic Church. Moreover, it repeated material that was covered or should have been covered in the "History" section which is itself too long given the existence of History of the Filioque controversy. Over time, the "History" section in this article should be reduced to a summary of History of the Filioque controversy. However, being an inclusionist and also cognizant of the fact that there are Orthodox editors who feel it important to exhaustively present the entire history of Eastern Orthodox theological doctrine, I have created a separate article on Eastern Orthodox teaching regarding the Filioque which preserves the entire "Eastern Orthodox" section of the "Current positions of various churches" section before I trimmed it. Over time, this article should be edited so that it provides only a summary of Eastern Orthodox teaching regarding the Filioque . My initial effort at trimming takes a first step in this direction but I expect additional work can be done to make the "Eastern Orthodox" section even more concise than it is now.
I recognize that Esoglou's edit restriction bars him from editing Eastern Orthodox teaching regarding the Filioque. However, the restriction does not bar him from commenting on the Talk Page. I would urge him to watch that article and engage in discussions on the Talk Page in a collegial and collaborative manner.
-- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 17:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I have completely reorganized this section, commenting out a couple of paragraphs that seemed to be more historical than directly relevant to the "current position" of the Catholic Church. Of course, all history is relevant to the current position but, in the same vein as my trimming of the Eastern Orthodox section, I think we have to draw the line somewhere lest we repeat the whole history of the filioque every time we discuss the current position. I also felt that the "Roman Catholic" subsection was a bit of a mish-mash and tried to re-order the points being made in a more logical flow.
I would appreciate if another editor would review this section to see if the end-result has accurately presented the current Roman Catholic position on the filioque.
-- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 17:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
The section titled "First Eastern opposition" seems to be indicating Monothelite Patriarch Paul II of Constantinople as the "first Eastern opposition" to the filioque. This source, however, suggests that the first true opposition to the filioque arose in the early ninth century. How should we resolve this? -- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 09:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
The text in the "Photian controversy" section includes this sentence: " At least three councils (867, 869, 879) where held in Constantinople over the deposition of Ignatius by Emperor Michael III and the his replacement by Photius." Something seems to be missing in the phrase "and the his replacement by Photius" but I can't figure out what was intended. Can anybody help? -- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 09:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Do you have access to the Lacoste work? I agree that what was stated about Lossky seems quite unlikely, but the source given for that seems to be the same as that given for what is said about Halleux, which has been allowed to remain. The less stable Internet source for the extract from Lacoste is no longer available. Esoglou ( talk) 10:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
The article currently contains this text:
These writings can be used to support either the Latin idea of the procession of the Holy Spirit, or the Orthodox idea. The writings of the Church fathers, announcing that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son do not necessarily lend their support to either the Catholic position or the Orthodox one. The statement that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son can be used to support either position; that the Spirit comes from the Father and through the Son, or from Father and Son as principle cause.
The original reference was to page 17 in Siecienski which was incorrect because that is the first page of his chapter on the New Testament. A better reference would be to page 34 which is the first page of the chapter on the Greek Fathers. However, the article text seems to say something slightly different from what Siecienski wrote on page 34:
As with biblical material, it would be inaccurate to claim that the Greek Patristic corpus explicitly addressed the procession of the Spirit from the Son (positively or negatively) as later theology would understand it. The pneumatological concerns of the Greek fathers (e.g. establishing the full divinity of the Holy Spirit) did not include a detailed exploration of how the Son was (or was not) involved in the hypostatic coming-into-being of the third person of the Trinity. For that reason, the claim, made both by Greeks and Latins throughout the centuries, that the Eastern fathers explicitly advocated or condemned the filioque, cannot be sustained by the evidence we possess.
And yet, the writings of the Greek fathers do contain important Trinitarian principles, later used by both East and West in their respective theologies of the procession. Particularly important in this regard, were the anti-Eunomian writings of the Cappadocian fathers (which expressed a hesitancy about confusing economy with theology), the Council of Constantinople's creedal affirmation that the Spirit proceeded fromt the Father, and the anti-Sabellian polemic (which made the protection of each person's unique hypostatic properties, especially the Father's role as one cause within the godhead, a special concern for the East).
Yet alongside these traditional themes there was also in the Greek Fathers, particularly in the works of Gregory of Nyssa and Cyril of Alexandria, an effort to establish the eternal relationship between the Son and the Spirit , recognizing that the persons of the Trinity, while distinct, cannot be separated. For this reason, there appears in the fathers an increasing awareness that both the mission of the Spirit and his eternal "flowing forth" from the Father take place "through the Son". While not equivalent to the belief that the Spirit eternally "proceeds" from the Son, this teaching remained an important part of Eastern trinitarian theology for centuries to come.
The current article text is a broad, sweeping assertion that sweeps the nuances discussed by reliable sources under the rug. It might be more accurate to say that the Greek Fathers, taken in the aggregate, do not clearly support one side or the other because the issue of procession hadn't really arisen yet. Thus, later theologians had to look back at the Greek Patristic writings and infer what the Greek Fathers would have supported. Thus, some of the writings of individual Greek Fathers can be interpreted for the filioque, others against the filioque, and some can be interpreted both for and against the filioque.
Siecienski's chapter on the Latin Fathers is not available via Google Books so it looks like I'll have to wait until I purchase the book to proceed on that topic.
Comments? -- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 16:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
This article is flagged as WP:POV, but it's unclear from the talk page (or from recent archives) whether the dispute is still ongoing or has been resolved. Marking an article with an NPOV dispute is supposed to be a "temporary measure" (as per WP:NPOV_dispute#What_is_an_NPOV_dispute?), but this one has been marked for more than a year.
If there is still a dispute going on, it would be nice to mark the specific section(s) as opposed to the entire article. PascalLeroy ( talk) 17:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Skimming this article, I noticed that it uses quite a bit of jargon, and needs to be brought down a level to simpler, more accessible language.
Envsgirl ( talk) 01:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Envsgirl
After a quick, not so profound, glance at the archives, I did not find anything about what I'll discuss here. If it has been discussed, I apologize before hand.
Currently, the lead reads "Filioque is a phrase found in the form of Nicene Creed in use in the Latin Church." I am wondering about the use of "Latin Church" (as wikilinked to the Latin Roman Church) as opposed to "Western churches", many of which historically came from the Latin Church. Isn't the phrase exclusive of non-"Roman Latin Churches" (i.e. Anglicans (I know about the mandate, which doesn't clarify the theology), Protestants, Old Catholics, etc.)?
Also, I don't know if by Western churches, it is clear that Western rite Orthodoxy is excluded. What do y'all think? Latin Roman Catholics are not the only ones to theologically support the filioque. Could the phrasing be changed? Am I over reading the phrase? Thanks in advance.--
Coquidragon (
talk)
22:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Maybe "Filioque is a phrase found in the form of Nicene Creed in use in most of the Western Christian churches?"-- Coquidragon ( talk) 01:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
The article doesn't take into account that Kallistos Ware accepts the west's view of the filioque ONLY if couched in the terms of early Fathers such as Augustus (A History of Christian Doctrine Scholars' Editions in Theology p110)
At the bottom of that page he states a difference in position between a filioque as understood by Augustine and a filioque as accepted at the Council of Florence
This distinction that HE makes is not bourne out by the Wiki article
AND thus the article as a whole is unbalanced for whilst it has sections on Orthodox who don't support the filioque AND has those who are supposedly not against it, it doesn't show any divisions in belief within the Roman Catholic church... which Ware notes (p112)
Is the filioque Catholic dogma?
Montalban ( talk) 16:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
An editor at IP 173.79.41.44 has inserted in the article the following comment, which I am moving here:
The phrase "loose and unguarded language", quoted by Siecienski on page 70, did not refer to any denial by Gregory the Great that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The phrase mentioned by 173.79.41.44 is quoted by Siecienski himself in the form: "cum enim constet quia Paracletus Spiritus a Patre simper [ sic] procedat et Filio" (since it is clear that the Paraclete Spirit always proceeds also from the Son). Siecienski adds that a Greek translation of the same text reads instead: "ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς προέρχεται καὶ ἐν τῷ Υἱῷ διαμένει", a statement that the Spirit "proceeds" (not the same verb as in the Nicene Creed, but instead the verb that Maximus the Confessor used to translate Latin procedere, when he approved its use with regard to the Spirit proceeding from the Son) "from the Father and abides in the Son". This translation - a translation, not what Gregory himself wrote - became the basis, Siecienski says, of the later Byzantine assertion that Gregory did not support the double procession.
Siecienski in no way questions the fact that the Latin Fathers said the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as the Father. But he speaks instead of a question that is not dealt with in any depth in the Wikipedia article, namely the interpretation of the phrase "from the Father and the Son". Siecienski says that in the Fathers this phrase did not necessarily carry with it all the notions about cause or principle, single or twofold, that later theologians found in it or attached to it. It is at that level, not that of the use of the phrase "and from the Son" that Siecienski speaks of different Western and Byzantine positions. I don't think we have either the need or the capability of going into that question on Wikipedia, and any attempt will only confuse and mislead. Not even the Latin version of the Nicene Creed goes into that question. What we can say is that the Latin Fathers and some of those in the East - as Maximus agreed - did speak of the Holy Spirit as proceeding (procedere, προϊέναι) from the Father and the Son. Even the presentation now in the Wikipedia article 173.79.41.44 found misleading, and not without reason. I must get around to remedying the obscurity caused by seeming to present Siecienski as doubting that the Latin Fathers spoke of the Holy Spirit as proceeding from the Father and the Son. They did say that. And that is all that the Latin version of the Nicene Creed says. Of course, the Fathers also spoke of the Holy Spirit as proceeding from the Father, but never as proceeding from the Father alone. Esoglou ( talk) 08:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
This article does not explain that the Roman Catholic church has a very violent history of trying to force the filioque to be added into the Creed and accepted permanently and recited in the Nicene Creed by both East and West, UNIVERSALLY, catholicos. That means that all Christians no matter their language or culture would be forced whenever reciting the creed to have to recite the filioque as a permanent part of the creed or accept it as correct teaching and dogma. It is a rather new phenomenon for the Roman Catholic church to not call the Eastern Orthodox heretics for NOT using or accepting the filioque.
The Roman Catholic stance has been they made modifications to the creed outside of an Ecumenical council (with the East) and are justified and can do that PERIOD. It is a relatively new thing for the Roman Catholic church to not push that the Creed both East and West have the filioque and that only the Western Roman Catholic churches have to recite it. The Eastern Catholics are coming to the realization that they are not understood by the Roman Catholic church by in large and that them embracing only the first 7 ecumenical councils as truly Ecumenical is simply not a view held by the Roman Catholic faithful by and large. There are other ugly things coming out that do not bode well for the Unite but that is outside of this article's scope.
LoveMonkey (
talk)
03:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
I refrain from personally responding within the article to the citation request for the statement that not all Orthodox insist on a declaration by the West that Filioque is heretical. So would someone else please respond to it by citing this statement about a "view also held by many Orthodox at the present time"? Or this statement that "some Orthodox theologians, while affirming that the doctrine of the filioque is unacceptable for the Orthodox church, at the same time, having in mind the position of Prof. Bolotov (1854-1900) and his followers, regard the filioque as a 'theologoumenon' in the West"? Or this statement by John Zizioulas? Or something similar? Esoglou ( talk) 10:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
There is missing from this article (as I have pointed out time and time again in the past) a very simple and clear explanation of why the Eastern Orthodox DO NOT ACCEPT the filioque. It could be put in the lede it's so short. The inclusion is something that was not done by council first. It was something done in the Western Church accepted in the Western Church and then by way of authority (Papacy) and war it was unilaterally done and then forced on the East. Note it was forced in degrees where first the East was to allow it because of "problems" with the Latin language and then it became genuine by way of scripture even though anyone that has read the history behind the Pneumatomachi and know that the wording of the part of the Nicene Creed that mentions the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father was worded by Gregory of Nyssa (whom was very much in the know about what putting in the phrase "from the Son" would do to his theology). We are lead to believe that because of the vagueness and hesitancy of statement in some of the early Fathers, the pro filioque were able to justify and propagate their views. But this argument from silence is at first an argument and then a fallacy. In as such it means that the sides that disagree has done so of their own accord. So now which side is showing fidelity and which is imposing? Or that the filioque is implying a participation of the Human Nature of the Son in the procession of the Holy Spirit (i.e. ditheism). LoveMonkey ( talk) 15:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Has anyone noticed how Roman Catholic theologians and Protestant theologians are used to depict and represent the Eastern Orthodox side in this article? Why? Could it be that people dominating this article are only one sided and biased? If I posted an article and started out that article by having one side depicting and interpreting and conveying both sides of the issue THAT WOULD BE BIAS. Why does the section about the Orthodox start out with the name of a ROMAN CATHOLIC theologian (William La Due) and why is this Roman Catholic historian being the person that represents and depicts the Eastern Orthodox perspective? Why is William La Due defining the positions and perspective of the Eastern Orthodox right off the bat when he is a ROMAN CATHOLIC apologist. [12] Why is this person so qualified as to depict to the readers coming to this article and be informed what a perspective that they do not subscribe to -is? LoveMonkey ( talk) 15:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
LoveMonkey, please look up WP:RESTRICT and recall that it was on your insistence that it contains the clause, "Esoglou may add information about Roman Catholic commentary (positive or negative) on Eastern Orthodox teaching/practice. However, any such commentary must be clearly attributed, in the body of the article, to the specific individual or document making it. Moreover, any such commentary must be clearly identified as opinion, rather than as factual information about the nature of EO teaching/practice or its compatibility/incompatibility with RC teaching/practice". My latest edit did attribute the commentary to Western writers, did it not? Your deletion of it was therefore based on a false pretext. Esoglou ( talk) 19:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
The many edits made in the last few days have necessitated a general edit. Here are explanations of some points.
Love Monkey. I have had to question the sourcedness of several statements about Photius that you have inserted and that you seem to have falsely attributed to Siecienski, who, for instance, was not so silly as to assign to the time of Photius papal acceptance of use of "Filioque", which did not occur until 1014, or to say that Photius referred to the opinion of Pope Nicholas III, who became pope only in 1277! Your undoing of your deletion of your own comment, within a section on Orthodox theologians, about Bulgakov being condemned as a heretic by "the Orthodox Church" (more concretely the ROCOR) for his sophiology, not all his teaching, called for an annotation that Bulgakov is generally reckoned an Orthodox theologian. And the information on opinion about the view prevailed among modern Eastern Orthodox theologians belongs under "Eastern Orthodox Church", not under "Recent attempts at reconciliation", which concerns attempts at reconciliation by churches, not by theologians.
Wlbw68. (Мир всем.) I appreciate the trouble you have gone to in providing links to texts of the acts of councils. I have had to make the opening definition neutral and English-grammatical and to return also to the usual description of the Creed in question as the Nicene Creed, leaving until later the indication that this name, though in common use, is somewhat inaccurate. Your insertion of a section on the Cappadocian Fathers necessitated corresponding sections on the Alexandrian Fathers and the Latin Fathers, all of whom belong to the one same Church. Your phrase "The Greek word «ἐκπορευόμενον» corresponds to the Latin word «procedit»" was open to misunderstanding: you of course meant that, where the Greek text uses ἐκπορευόμενον, the Latin uses procedit, but the reader might think you were saying that the two words have the same meaning and, as you know, this unfortunately is not true. The acclamation of the bishops at Chalcedon was not about either creed (both of which had been read), but about the definition adopted by the council, as the text states: "After the reading of the definition ..." (I have replaced the ungrammatical translation of that passage by a published English translation.) I have restored the sourced information about the Council of Ephesus, which somehow got deleted, and placed it in chronological order (as you know very well, the Council of Ephesus predated that of Chalcedon). I see now that I have not yet dealt with the inaccurate translation in the paragraph that begins "Eastern opposition to the Filioque strengthened ..." I have no time left to deal with that immediately. I have already corrected the definition of the Council of Florence: the phrase "τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἐκ πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ ἐκπορεύεσθα" seems to be from the earlier part where each side clarified what they meant by their traditional expressions. Thanks for your intervention. Esoglou ( talk) 10:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Esoglou wrote
LoveMonkey reply
Esoglou wrote
LoveMonkey reply
Esoglou wrote
LoveMonkey reply
The argument was taken a crucial step further in 867 by the affirmation in the East that the Holy Spirit proceeds not merely "from the Father" but "from the Father alone". Here is what I posted..
Esoglou wrote
LoveMonkey reply
Esoglou wrote
And the information on opinion about the view prevailed among modern Eastern Orthodox theologians belongs under "Eastern Orthodox Church", not under "Recent attempts at reconciliation", which concerns attempts at reconciliation by churches, not by theologians.
LoveMonkey reply
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Since there were objections from two editors (LM and T b), on the grounds that I was editing Eastern Orthodox material, to my editing the section on the New Testament (which was then immediately after, not part of, the section headed "Eastern Orthodoxy"), I think it is prudent to ask beforehand whether they have grounds for objecting to my editing the subsection that is now headed "Theodoret's statement against Cyril", a subsection of "Theological contention", not of "Eastern Orthodoxy". I see that that subsection one-sidedly plays down, ignores or perhaps even distorts Cyril's teaching. I think it would be best to avoid having an Administrator again ask them to justify their objections. Esoglou ( talk) 20:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Based on past experience Montalban ( talk) 10:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Although I suspect Esoglou is right in principle, I think arguing the point is a waste of time.
At my suggestion and with the agreement of all involved, the edit restriction was changed some time ago to allow Esoglou and LoveMonkey to discuss their proposed edits. The purpose in prohibiting them from editing text regarding the other religion's beliefs is to keep them from edit warring which has been a serious problem in the past. However, it was felt that constructive discussion would help the project rather than detract from it.
Regardless of whether or not Esoglou's proposed edit would violate the edit restriction, I would encourage him to just present the proposed edit here on the Talk Page so we can all review it and discuss any issues.
--
Pseudo-Richard (
talk)
17:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
The section on the ECFs is, according to one editor not a 'Catholic' seciton. This despite the fact it lead with this statement
Anthony Edward Siecienski identifies Hilary of Poitiers, the “Athanasius of the West”, and Augustine of Hippo as "the chief patristic source(s) for the Latin teaching on the filioque."
The LATIN TEACHING ON THE FILIOQUE. NOT JUST a support for the phrase "Father and Son".
It's so obvious I wonder why one editor would deny it's there.
This Catholic article by stealth is not in accordance with Wiki policy. Montalban ( talk) 04:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
No it doesn't. Yet, I agree with your sentence in that the Latin teaching is based on Hilary and Augustine, but that opening sentence does not convey that meaning in that it doesn't convey that these same evidences also support another viewpoint.
For a novice reading this they would only see that the filioque as taught by the Latins is based on these evidences NOT that these evidence can be interpreted in a totally different way.
You get it when you say If you feel that this section is a "Catholic" section, then perhaps it is because the section is composed primarily of quotes which are used to support the filioque. That is correct, the article is written so as to show that these evidences support the filioque. Not that they can be used to support any other position.
I will try this yet another way.
The article has evidences that can be used to point to both positions. However the article only says that these evidences point to one position... the Catholic (Latin) one. That is misleading. It says so expressly that the Latin position is backed by these evidences - yes, it is based on these evidences, but these evidences also can be used to back another position. Not saying that they point to another position shows that they only point to one position - the Catholic.
A reader of this article would not otherwise know that these evidences can and are used by another point of view. All they read is that the filioque is backed by these sources. Full stop. That is, they only read a Catholic POV.
I don't need to address the Orthodox viewpoint in the article. Only that the evidences can be used by either case - and I've done this. It is not my intent to establish a comprehensive understanding of the Orthodox view. Only that the same evidences can be used to point to another position. Montalban ( talk) 09:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
-- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 17:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Richard, what makes you think that, in spite of LoveMonkey's prolonged work on this article, the Eastern Orthodox Church is not represented in it? It gives views of Photius, Mark of Ephesus, Romanides, Zizioulas, and the 2003 joint statement, which are more authoritative indications of the Orthodox view than any construction that you or, probably, any other Wikipedia editor could put together. Esoglou ( talk) 20:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
From a Catholic web-site
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/FILIOQUE.HTM
I don't want to go into a quote -v- quote format. Although I could offer such... Tertullian I believe that the Spirit proceeds not otherwise than from the Father through the Son" (Against Praxeas 4:1 [A.D. 216]).
Basil The Great "Through the Son, who is one, he [the Holy Spirit] is joined to the Father, one who is one, and by himself completes the Blessed Trinity" (The Holy Spirit 18:45 [A.D. 375])
Leo the Great Letter XV. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.ii.iv.xv.html Montalban ( talk) 03:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
For the life of me I still don't know what your objection is. You keep writing this about the Orthodox as if it's a revelation, but then you keep repeating it again - like I've made some astounding admission when it's Orthodox teaching that I've written
Montalban ( talk) 11:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Montalban ( talk) 21:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
The problem with the quotes is that they are out of context of the thoughts of the ECF - that's why they can be used to prove a number of positions.
I showed in discussion herein that some ECF say specifically from the Father and THROUGH the Son… which can be termed from the Father and the Son in other quotes but does not mean the double procession as used in the West.
However I accept that the RCC have a position, even if flawed.
What's unacceptable is that their position was stated here, and then each Orthodox point gets another Catholic statement again to 'contextualise' (read; Add Catholic POV).
Montalban ( talk) 04:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
One editor partially quoted the RCC's catechism. He missed this part...
248 ...but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P17.HTM
It is this qualifier that makes the Catholic 'acceptance' of 'through the Son' misleading because the Catechism here notes that both the Father and the Son together are the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds, and this is the doctrine of the double procession which is foreign to Orthodox teaching.
Montalban ( talk) 11:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
That's not what it's saying. It's saying that the Son, as the Father is a principle cause for the Holy Spirit! Check the lead in with the son. Montalban ( talk) 21:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
The position that having the creed say "the Holy Spirit which proceeds from the Father and the Son", does not mean that the Holy Spirit now has two origins, is not the position the West took at the Council of Florence. Where the Roman Catholic side explicitly stated that the Holy Spirit has its cause of existence from the Father and the Son
I had added the statement The writings of the Church fathers, announcing that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son do not necessarily lend their support to either the Catholic position or the Orthodox one. The statement that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son can be used to support either position; that the Spirit comes from the Father and through the Son, or from Father and Son as principle cause.
An editor asked for a citation.
I removed a citation request because Catholic editors have already provided the references such as Hilary of Poitiers where it has Siecienski notes ...
Further I noted elsewhere herein the Talk section of a few quotes of ECF that could support another position. Montalban ( talk) 23:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Are you saying your reference of Siecienski is not reliable?
I suggest, yet again that you re-read what it is you're responding to! :-) Montalban ( talk) 08:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I really would encourage you guys to respond to what I write. Most of what I write otherwise becomes me having to re-state what I said in another way for either the purposes of helping with comprehension, or because you've missed my point. I don't know which case has arisen here, but here is another one. Pseudo-Richard said One of the criteria in getting it to "good article" status is making sure the assertions are well-referenced. I know that Montalban thinks that the assertion he wrote is true and I myself suspect it probably is. However, being true is not sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia. Support from a reliable source is also required.
I already noted that my assertion here is simply a repeat of (although re-worded) the same assertion given elsewhere in the document and supported by Siecienski who notes that the quote he gives doesn't support the modern western interpretation
When I removed the citation request I even drew your attention to where he says it. I wrote…
I removed a citation request because Catholic editors have already provided the references such as Hilary of Poitiers where it has Siecienski notes ...
You're both asking for citations of something that is not contentious because it's already stated. The only reason I added the statement in is because it's relevant to that particular section, on Church Fathers.
I pointed out to Esoglou that he accepts this author (as he's offered no criticism of that author) Montalban ( talk) 21:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
It's in the article Esoglou. Read what I wrote.
If someone writes "ECFs support a number of things" [1] (has a reference) and then later says "The writings of the ECFs can support a number of things" you ask for it to be sourced again, simply because you want everything I say sourced. Montalban ( talk) 23:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
The whole article is rife with Catholic POV - once again another Wiki article has been edited into a Catholic apologetics site.
Not only is the Catholic cause cited earlier, but when Orthodox objections are entered, there is Catholic counter-argument to this... such as here...
In the judgment of these Orthodox, the Roman Catholic Church is in fact teaching as a matter of Roman Catholic dogma that the Holy Spirit derives his origin and being (equally) from both the Father and the Son, making the Filioque a double procession.[79][80] This being the very thing that Maximus the Confessor was stating in his work from the 7th century that would be wrong and that the West was not doing.[81][82][83] Montalban ( talk) 23:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I understand Esoglou that you want to balance every non-Catholic point with a Catholic one.
I understand that for you only an article featuring Catholic argument, or counter-argument in turn countered by further Catholic argument is balanced
Montalban ( talk) 08:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually Esoglou, it's for more than that. Reliable sources is not itself sufficient, not the way you structure an article to read as Catholic POV. If one only offered one perspective on this article, it wouldn't matter how reliable your sources are, it would still be un-balanced. I suggest you have a look at this for the spirit of Wiki requires we work to have balanced articles. Not Catholic Q & A Montalban ( talk) 21:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Footnote 81 is placed there by an editor (whoever it was) who I think misses the point that the citation is making
The contention is that St Maximos' acceptance of the filioque was provisional and in no way like the RCC now maintains (which is what the citation states), it misses the point that the Franks introduced a different notion and that this is the one that the West accepted.
Rominades is in fact saying that – he's defending St Maximos NOT the filioque as the Latin church uses. Montalban ( talk) 23:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that the "Historical Overview" should start with the "New Testament" section, followed by the "Earliest use" followed by "Church fathers". I would also propose that the entire "Historical Overview" be moved ahead of "Current positions" since the "current positions" are the endpoint of the historical development. However, since this is a radical restructuring, I figured I'd propose the change here first before making it. -- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 15:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
One needs to know that the evidence of some Church Fathers as presented can support either position. Montalban ( talk) 21:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I've added a reference due to flippant requests for one from two editors. Anthony E. Siecienski is already in the article giving several statements to this effect.
At footnote 9 he makes a general appraisal of the differences between ECF evidences and what people use that for. At footnote 31 he gives a specific example. However when I said it in the lead in to the section two editors demanded that it be referenced yet again. They demanded a reliable source. I mentioned that they already accept this source.
Every time I am happy to oblige. Montalban ( talk) 23:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
The Catholic position misrpresented (they believe in the double procession - as first cause)
Montalban ( talk) 03:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I found about a half dozen in just one small section. I don't think this is well researched Montalban ( talk) 11:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
The image by Rublev, titled "The Holy Trinity", in the context of this page, gives the sense of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The icon is "a" holy trinity of angels, not The Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost. The image is, apparently, also known as "Angels at Mamre" and shows the three Angels being hosted by Abraham at Mamre. See: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Andrej_Rubl%C3%ABv_001.jpg and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Angelsatmamre-trinity-rublev-1410.jpg 67.166.53.234 ( talk) 02:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC) Court
Why is that inappropriate? The Trinity was often depicted/represented as three angels.
Montalban ( talk) 02:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I reverted LoveMonkey's restoration of text that Esoglou had apparently deleted earlier (based on LM's edit summary). My rationale for this reversion is twofold. First, the text is a POV rant and, if it were to be restored anywhere in Wikipedia, it needs to be rewritten in a more encyclopedic tone. Secondly, even if it were in an encyclopedic tone, it doesn't belong in that particular spot in the article. The section in question, "Interpolation into the Nicene Creed", is a subsection of the section titled "Recent attempts at reconciliation". The Interpolation happened a long time ago and any treatment of that interpolation should have been presented earlier in the article, not in any section with the word "recent' in the section title. In reading what remains of the subsection " Interpolation into the Nicene Creed", I have to say that I am lost as to what the point of the section is relative to the overall section topic of "Recent attempts at reconciliation". I think some significant work is needed to get the " Interpolation into the Nicene Creed" section back onto the topic of the section. -- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 05:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I confess to edit-warring with LoveMonkey although, obviously, it takes two to edit war and, as it happens, LoveMonkey has drawn a block because,as he has obviously forgotten, it's always bad for one person to edit-war against two other editors because the solo editor will run afoul of the WP:3RR rule first. That wasn't really my intent although I was aware of the possibility. I was just feeling ornery and abandoned my usual commitment to observe WP:1RR. In recognition of the "both sides equally guilty" principle, I will refrain from editing this article until LoveMonkey's block has been lifted, thus leaving LM's last set of edits in place rather than reverting them once again. That way, I hope to avoid the impression of taking advantage of his absence during his block. Besides which, I suspect a further edit by me within 24 hours might be construed as violating the 3RR rule so I will stay clear of the "bright line" just in case.
That said, I have tried to communicate both here and via edit summaries that my primary issue is not with what LoveMonkey's text says but with where he wants to put it. It does not help to go all the way back to what happened at the Council of Florence when discussing recent developments (presumably within the last half a century to last century).
Moreover, LoveMonkey's text was a poorly-written rambling rant about injuries inflicted over 600 years ago. I am not at all opposed to providing an NPOV presentation of Orthodox objections to the Filioque and to any attempts to reconcile the two churches. However, such presentation must avoid the appearance of being WP:OR and WP:SYNTH which is what LoveMonkey's text smacked of.
When LoveMonkey returns, I hope he will join in a more collegial and collaborative style that will address these issues.
-- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 20:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
The section "Recent attempts at reconciliation" covers both Orthodox and Catholic views, and even those views are not necessarily held by all Orthodox or all Catholics. I think it would be better if LoveMonkey and Esoglou would just behave more collegially and make it unnecessary to have this edit restriction at all. Esoglou, I urge you to treat LoveMonkey's block as if it were a page protection. Please do not edit the article text until his block expires. There is, after all, no deadline and the text in question isn't wrong per se, it's just soapboxing and soapboxing in the wrong place, to boot. Let us restrict ourselves to discussing on the Talk Page what the issues are with LM's text for now and then be prepared to edit the article to address those issues after his block expires in about eighteen hours. -- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 23:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I created the section "Recent theological perspectives" from "Recent attempts at reconciliation" because, at the time, I thought they were different things. Perhaps the only difference between the two sections is that "Recent theological perspectives" discusses independent statements by individual theologians whereas "Recent attempts at reconciliation" discusses a more formal, coordinated statement by delegates from both churches. The "Recent theological perspectives" section was a mish-mash of points with no clear logical flow of points. I've tried to remedy that by re-organizing the text. I'm still a bit at a loss as to where to put the text about Maximus the Confessor. It seems to me that discussion of his writings should probably go earlier in the "Recent theological perspectives" section.
I'd like to hear what other editors think before I proceed with further reorganization of this section.
-- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 03:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
The article text in the "Inclusion in the Nicene Creed" section includes this text:
The elucidations that the Armenian Apostolic Church adds to the Nicene Creed are much more numerous than the two added by the Latin Church. Another change made to the text of the Nicene Creed by both the Latins and the Greeks is to use the singular "I believe" in place of the plural "we believe", while all the Churches of Oriental Orthodoxy, not only the Armenian, but also the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria,[225] the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church,[226] the Malankara Orthodox Church,[227] and the Syrian Orthodox Church,[228]have on the contrary preserved the "we believe" of the original text.
How is this relevant to the Filioque? It seems to discuss other "elucidations to the Nicene Creed" and changes such as "I believe" instead of "we believe". Sounds like OR to me. And irrelevant OR at that. I propose to delete this text unless someone can explain why it is important to keep in this article. It might be useful to have in the article on the Nicene Creed but I can't see why we need it in this article.
-- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 17:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
The article text includes this sentence: " For this reason, the Roman Catholic Church has refused the addition of καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ to the formula ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον of the Nicene Creed in the Churches, even of Latin rite, which use it in Greek with the Greek verb "έκπορεύεσθαι"."
Can someone please translate the Greek for me? --
Pseudo-Richard (
talk)
15:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I have significantly trimmed the "Eastern Orthodox" section of the "Current positions of various churches" section. My rationale for this is that the section was waaay too long and created an imbalance because that section was at least twice the length of the section on the Catholic Church. Moreover, it repeated material that was covered or should have been covered in the "History" section which is itself too long given the existence of History of the Filioque controversy. Over time, the "History" section in this article should be reduced to a summary of History of the Filioque controversy. However, being an inclusionist and also cognizant of the fact that there are Orthodox editors who feel it important to exhaustively present the entire history of Eastern Orthodox theological doctrine, I have created a separate article on Eastern Orthodox teaching regarding the Filioque which preserves the entire "Eastern Orthodox" section of the "Current positions of various churches" section before I trimmed it. Over time, this article should be edited so that it provides only a summary of Eastern Orthodox teaching regarding the Filioque . My initial effort at trimming takes a first step in this direction but I expect additional work can be done to make the "Eastern Orthodox" section even more concise than it is now.
I recognize that Esoglou's edit restriction bars him from editing Eastern Orthodox teaching regarding the Filioque. However, the restriction does not bar him from commenting on the Talk Page. I would urge him to watch that article and engage in discussions on the Talk Page in a collegial and collaborative manner.
-- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 17:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I have completely reorganized this section, commenting out a couple of paragraphs that seemed to be more historical than directly relevant to the "current position" of the Catholic Church. Of course, all history is relevant to the current position but, in the same vein as my trimming of the Eastern Orthodox section, I think we have to draw the line somewhere lest we repeat the whole history of the filioque every time we discuss the current position. I also felt that the "Roman Catholic" subsection was a bit of a mish-mash and tried to re-order the points being made in a more logical flow.
I would appreciate if another editor would review this section to see if the end-result has accurately presented the current Roman Catholic position on the filioque.
-- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 17:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
The section titled "First Eastern opposition" seems to be indicating Monothelite Patriarch Paul II of Constantinople as the "first Eastern opposition" to the filioque. This source, however, suggests that the first true opposition to the filioque arose in the early ninth century. How should we resolve this? -- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 09:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
The text in the "Photian controversy" section includes this sentence: " At least three councils (867, 869, 879) where held in Constantinople over the deposition of Ignatius by Emperor Michael III and the his replacement by Photius." Something seems to be missing in the phrase "and the his replacement by Photius" but I can't figure out what was intended. Can anybody help? -- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 09:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Do you have access to the Lacoste work? I agree that what was stated about Lossky seems quite unlikely, but the source given for that seems to be the same as that given for what is said about Halleux, which has been allowed to remain. The less stable Internet source for the extract from Lacoste is no longer available. Esoglou ( talk) 10:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
The article currently contains this text:
These writings can be used to support either the Latin idea of the procession of the Holy Spirit, or the Orthodox idea. The writings of the Church fathers, announcing that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son do not necessarily lend their support to either the Catholic position or the Orthodox one. The statement that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son can be used to support either position; that the Spirit comes from the Father and through the Son, or from Father and Son as principle cause.
The original reference was to page 17 in Siecienski which was incorrect because that is the first page of his chapter on the New Testament. A better reference would be to page 34 which is the first page of the chapter on the Greek Fathers. However, the article text seems to say something slightly different from what Siecienski wrote on page 34:
As with biblical material, it would be inaccurate to claim that the Greek Patristic corpus explicitly addressed the procession of the Spirit from the Son (positively or negatively) as later theology would understand it. The pneumatological concerns of the Greek fathers (e.g. establishing the full divinity of the Holy Spirit) did not include a detailed exploration of how the Son was (or was not) involved in the hypostatic coming-into-being of the third person of the Trinity. For that reason, the claim, made both by Greeks and Latins throughout the centuries, that the Eastern fathers explicitly advocated or condemned the filioque, cannot be sustained by the evidence we possess.
And yet, the writings of the Greek fathers do contain important Trinitarian principles, later used by both East and West in their respective theologies of the procession. Particularly important in this regard, were the anti-Eunomian writings of the Cappadocian fathers (which expressed a hesitancy about confusing economy with theology), the Council of Constantinople's creedal affirmation that the Spirit proceeded fromt the Father, and the anti-Sabellian polemic (which made the protection of each person's unique hypostatic properties, especially the Father's role as one cause within the godhead, a special concern for the East).
Yet alongside these traditional themes there was also in the Greek Fathers, particularly in the works of Gregory of Nyssa and Cyril of Alexandria, an effort to establish the eternal relationship between the Son and the Spirit , recognizing that the persons of the Trinity, while distinct, cannot be separated. For this reason, there appears in the fathers an increasing awareness that both the mission of the Spirit and his eternal "flowing forth" from the Father take place "through the Son". While not equivalent to the belief that the Spirit eternally "proceeds" from the Son, this teaching remained an important part of Eastern trinitarian theology for centuries to come.
The current article text is a broad, sweeping assertion that sweeps the nuances discussed by reliable sources under the rug. It might be more accurate to say that the Greek Fathers, taken in the aggregate, do not clearly support one side or the other because the issue of procession hadn't really arisen yet. Thus, later theologians had to look back at the Greek Patristic writings and infer what the Greek Fathers would have supported. Thus, some of the writings of individual Greek Fathers can be interpreted for the filioque, others against the filioque, and some can be interpreted both for and against the filioque.
Siecienski's chapter on the Latin Fathers is not available via Google Books so it looks like I'll have to wait until I purchase the book to proceed on that topic.
Comments? -- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 16:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
This article is flagged as WP:POV, but it's unclear from the talk page (or from recent archives) whether the dispute is still ongoing or has been resolved. Marking an article with an NPOV dispute is supposed to be a "temporary measure" (as per WP:NPOV_dispute#What_is_an_NPOV_dispute?), but this one has been marked for more than a year.
If there is still a dispute going on, it would be nice to mark the specific section(s) as opposed to the entire article. PascalLeroy ( talk) 17:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Skimming this article, I noticed that it uses quite a bit of jargon, and needs to be brought down a level to simpler, more accessible language.
Envsgirl ( talk) 01:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Envsgirl
After a quick, not so profound, glance at the archives, I did not find anything about what I'll discuss here. If it has been discussed, I apologize before hand.
Currently, the lead reads "Filioque is a phrase found in the form of Nicene Creed in use in the Latin Church." I am wondering about the use of "Latin Church" (as wikilinked to the Latin Roman Church) as opposed to "Western churches", many of which historically came from the Latin Church. Isn't the phrase exclusive of non-"Roman Latin Churches" (i.e. Anglicans (I know about the mandate, which doesn't clarify the theology), Protestants, Old Catholics, etc.)?
Also, I don't know if by Western churches, it is clear that Western rite Orthodoxy is excluded. What do y'all think? Latin Roman Catholics are not the only ones to theologically support the filioque. Could the phrasing be changed? Am I over reading the phrase? Thanks in advance.--
Coquidragon (
talk)
22:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Maybe "Filioque is a phrase found in the form of Nicene Creed in use in most of the Western Christian churches?"-- Coquidragon ( talk) 01:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
The article doesn't take into account that Kallistos Ware accepts the west's view of the filioque ONLY if couched in the terms of early Fathers such as Augustus (A History of Christian Doctrine Scholars' Editions in Theology p110)
At the bottom of that page he states a difference in position between a filioque as understood by Augustine and a filioque as accepted at the Council of Florence
This distinction that HE makes is not bourne out by the Wiki article
AND thus the article as a whole is unbalanced for whilst it has sections on Orthodox who don't support the filioque AND has those who are supposedly not against it, it doesn't show any divisions in belief within the Roman Catholic church... which Ware notes (p112)
Is the filioque Catholic dogma?
Montalban ( talk) 16:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
An editor at IP 173.79.41.44 has inserted in the article the following comment, which I am moving here:
The phrase "loose and unguarded language", quoted by Siecienski on page 70, did not refer to any denial by Gregory the Great that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The phrase mentioned by 173.79.41.44 is quoted by Siecienski himself in the form: "cum enim constet quia Paracletus Spiritus a Patre simper [ sic] procedat et Filio" (since it is clear that the Paraclete Spirit always proceeds also from the Son). Siecienski adds that a Greek translation of the same text reads instead: "ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς προέρχεται καὶ ἐν τῷ Υἱῷ διαμένει", a statement that the Spirit "proceeds" (not the same verb as in the Nicene Creed, but instead the verb that Maximus the Confessor used to translate Latin procedere, when he approved its use with regard to the Spirit proceeding from the Son) "from the Father and abides in the Son". This translation - a translation, not what Gregory himself wrote - became the basis, Siecienski says, of the later Byzantine assertion that Gregory did not support the double procession.
Siecienski in no way questions the fact that the Latin Fathers said the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as the Father. But he speaks instead of a question that is not dealt with in any depth in the Wikipedia article, namely the interpretation of the phrase "from the Father and the Son". Siecienski says that in the Fathers this phrase did not necessarily carry with it all the notions about cause or principle, single or twofold, that later theologians found in it or attached to it. It is at that level, not that of the use of the phrase "and from the Son" that Siecienski speaks of different Western and Byzantine positions. I don't think we have either the need or the capability of going into that question on Wikipedia, and any attempt will only confuse and mislead. Not even the Latin version of the Nicene Creed goes into that question. What we can say is that the Latin Fathers and some of those in the East - as Maximus agreed - did speak of the Holy Spirit as proceeding (procedere, προϊέναι) from the Father and the Son. Even the presentation now in the Wikipedia article 173.79.41.44 found misleading, and not without reason. I must get around to remedying the obscurity caused by seeming to present Siecienski as doubting that the Latin Fathers spoke of the Holy Spirit as proceeding from the Father and the Son. They did say that. And that is all that the Latin version of the Nicene Creed says. Of course, the Fathers also spoke of the Holy Spirit as proceeding from the Father, but never as proceeding from the Father alone. Esoglou ( talk) 08:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
This article does not explain that the Roman Catholic church has a very violent history of trying to force the filioque to be added into the Creed and accepted permanently and recited in the Nicene Creed by both East and West, UNIVERSALLY, catholicos. That means that all Christians no matter their language or culture would be forced whenever reciting the creed to have to recite the filioque as a permanent part of the creed or accept it as correct teaching and dogma. It is a rather new phenomenon for the Roman Catholic church to not call the Eastern Orthodox heretics for NOT using or accepting the filioque.
The Roman Catholic stance has been they made modifications to the creed outside of an Ecumenical council (with the East) and are justified and can do that PERIOD. It is a relatively new thing for the Roman Catholic church to not push that the Creed both East and West have the filioque and that only the Western Roman Catholic churches have to recite it. The Eastern Catholics are coming to the realization that they are not understood by the Roman Catholic church by in large and that them embracing only the first 7 ecumenical councils as truly Ecumenical is simply not a view held by the Roman Catholic faithful by and large. There are other ugly things coming out that do not bode well for the Unite but that is outside of this article's scope.
LoveMonkey (
talk)
03:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
I refrain from personally responding within the article to the citation request for the statement that not all Orthodox insist on a declaration by the West that Filioque is heretical. So would someone else please respond to it by citing this statement about a "view also held by many Orthodox at the present time"? Or this statement that "some Orthodox theologians, while affirming that the doctrine of the filioque is unacceptable for the Orthodox church, at the same time, having in mind the position of Prof. Bolotov (1854-1900) and his followers, regard the filioque as a 'theologoumenon' in the West"? Or this statement by John Zizioulas? Or something similar? Esoglou ( talk) 10:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
There is missing from this article (as I have pointed out time and time again in the past) a very simple and clear explanation of why the Eastern Orthodox DO NOT ACCEPT the filioque. It could be put in the lede it's so short. The inclusion is something that was not done by council first. It was something done in the Western Church accepted in the Western Church and then by way of authority (Papacy) and war it was unilaterally done and then forced on the East. Note it was forced in degrees where first the East was to allow it because of "problems" with the Latin language and then it became genuine by way of scripture even though anyone that has read the history behind the Pneumatomachi and know that the wording of the part of the Nicene Creed that mentions the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father was worded by Gregory of Nyssa (whom was very much in the know about what putting in the phrase "from the Son" would do to his theology). We are lead to believe that because of the vagueness and hesitancy of statement in some of the early Fathers, the pro filioque were able to justify and propagate their views. But this argument from silence is at first an argument and then a fallacy. In as such it means that the sides that disagree has done so of their own accord. So now which side is showing fidelity and which is imposing? Or that the filioque is implying a participation of the Human Nature of the Son in the procession of the Holy Spirit (i.e. ditheism). LoveMonkey ( talk) 15:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Has anyone noticed how Roman Catholic theologians and Protestant theologians are used to depict and represent the Eastern Orthodox side in this article? Why? Could it be that people dominating this article are only one sided and biased? If I posted an article and started out that article by having one side depicting and interpreting and conveying both sides of the issue THAT WOULD BE BIAS. Why does the section about the Orthodox start out with the name of a ROMAN CATHOLIC theologian (William La Due) and why is this Roman Catholic historian being the person that represents and depicts the Eastern Orthodox perspective? Why is William La Due defining the positions and perspective of the Eastern Orthodox right off the bat when he is a ROMAN CATHOLIC apologist. [12] Why is this person so qualified as to depict to the readers coming to this article and be informed what a perspective that they do not subscribe to -is? LoveMonkey ( talk) 15:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
LoveMonkey, please look up WP:RESTRICT and recall that it was on your insistence that it contains the clause, "Esoglou may add information about Roman Catholic commentary (positive or negative) on Eastern Orthodox teaching/practice. However, any such commentary must be clearly attributed, in the body of the article, to the specific individual or document making it. Moreover, any such commentary must be clearly identified as opinion, rather than as factual information about the nature of EO teaching/practice or its compatibility/incompatibility with RC teaching/practice". My latest edit did attribute the commentary to Western writers, did it not? Your deletion of it was therefore based on a false pretext. Esoglou ( talk) 19:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
The many edits made in the last few days have necessitated a general edit. Here are explanations of some points.
Love Monkey. I have had to question the sourcedness of several statements about Photius that you have inserted and that you seem to have falsely attributed to Siecienski, who, for instance, was not so silly as to assign to the time of Photius papal acceptance of use of "Filioque", which did not occur until 1014, or to say that Photius referred to the opinion of Pope Nicholas III, who became pope only in 1277! Your undoing of your deletion of your own comment, within a section on Orthodox theologians, about Bulgakov being condemned as a heretic by "the Orthodox Church" (more concretely the ROCOR) for his sophiology, not all his teaching, called for an annotation that Bulgakov is generally reckoned an Orthodox theologian. And the information on opinion about the view prevailed among modern Eastern Orthodox theologians belongs under "Eastern Orthodox Church", not under "Recent attempts at reconciliation", which concerns attempts at reconciliation by churches, not by theologians.
Wlbw68. (Мир всем.) I appreciate the trouble you have gone to in providing links to texts of the acts of councils. I have had to make the opening definition neutral and English-grammatical and to return also to the usual description of the Creed in question as the Nicene Creed, leaving until later the indication that this name, though in common use, is somewhat inaccurate. Your insertion of a section on the Cappadocian Fathers necessitated corresponding sections on the Alexandrian Fathers and the Latin Fathers, all of whom belong to the one same Church. Your phrase "The Greek word «ἐκπορευόμενον» corresponds to the Latin word «procedit»" was open to misunderstanding: you of course meant that, where the Greek text uses ἐκπορευόμενον, the Latin uses procedit, but the reader might think you were saying that the two words have the same meaning and, as you know, this unfortunately is not true. The acclamation of the bishops at Chalcedon was not about either creed (both of which had been read), but about the definition adopted by the council, as the text states: "After the reading of the definition ..." (I have replaced the ungrammatical translation of that passage by a published English translation.) I have restored the sourced information about the Council of Ephesus, which somehow got deleted, and placed it in chronological order (as you know very well, the Council of Ephesus predated that of Chalcedon). I see now that I have not yet dealt with the inaccurate translation in the paragraph that begins "Eastern opposition to the Filioque strengthened ..." I have no time left to deal with that immediately. I have already corrected the definition of the Council of Florence: the phrase "τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἐκ πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ ἐκπορεύεσθα" seems to be from the earlier part where each side clarified what they meant by their traditional expressions. Thanks for your intervention. Esoglou ( talk) 10:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Esoglou wrote
LoveMonkey reply
Esoglou wrote
LoveMonkey reply
Esoglou wrote
LoveMonkey reply
The argument was taken a crucial step further in 867 by the affirmation in the East that the Holy Spirit proceeds not merely "from the Father" but "from the Father alone". Here is what I posted..
Esoglou wrote
LoveMonkey reply
Esoglou wrote
And the information on opinion about the view prevailed among modern Eastern Orthodox theologians belongs under "Eastern Orthodox Church", not under "Recent attempts at reconciliation", which concerns attempts at reconciliation by churches, not by theologians.
LoveMonkey reply