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 |
Work of M. Zizioulas has been disputed in many Orthodox circles, and giving him a title "one of the world's leading theologians" is very misleading.
In other words, this article is missing part in which his writings are questioned by traditional Orthodox theology represented in the writings of the Fathers, summarized in the works of prof. V. Lossky.
What is the procedure for tagging the article "disputed"? Thanks.
-- 216.191.72.153 19:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
The edits of Cebactokpatop do not conform to Wikipedia NPOV, and contained insertions of polemic which amounted to vandalism. Many of the claims were unverified. I tried to improve the page to make it conform to NPOV, and placed a vandalism tag on Cebactokpatop's talk-page.
At the same time, I added additional material concerning the content of Zizioulas' ecclesiology. (Despite the polemical allegations of 'ecumenism' previously in the article, there was previously no description of Zizioulas' ecclesiological views.)
In response, Cebastokpatop simply reverted my edits, and placed a vandalism tag on my talk-page.
I am happy to contribute edits on Wikipedia, but I do not wish to become embroiled in endless reverts with someone whose edits on Wikipedia are intended to promote a particular polemic unsuitable for an encyclopedia.
If Cebastokpatop is indeed willing to contribute towards the construction of an article which is NPOV, I would be very happy to work with him.
Seminarist ( talk) 18:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
False accusations easily verifiable by looking at the latest revision of mine. This person is trying to quiet down the voice of the traditional Orthodox people who do not see the work of JZ as Orthodox. That is precisely what we call vandalism, and that is why you deserved tag - vandal.
Cebactokpatop ( talk) 20:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not a vandal, and desire to work towards consensus. I am not trying to prevent an encyclopedic description of criticisms of Zizioulas' thought and episcopacy. But I am trying to prevent the article being presented from a POV.
Thank you for not reinserting certain of the earlier NPOV items.
I have also tried to improve the article in a number of ways:
You have now reverted these changes without explanation three times in the last 24 hours, and have therefore broken the 3RR. Please do not revert these sections again.
In your last edit you reinserted the sentence: "Although the many are amazed with the works of the John Zizioulas, his thought is not widely accepted amongst the Orthodox. Traditional Orthodox see his view of the personhood, Holy Trinity and The Church as untraditional, and different from the view of the Early Church Fathers, more specifically: St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Basil the Great and St. Gregory of Nazianzus (Cappadocian Fathers)."
This sentence is not NPOV, it is not verifiable and it is not of an appropriate style for an encyclopedia entry, for a number of reasons:
Could you rephrase the sentence and add (more) references?
Once again, I would like to work together towards consensus. It would be good if you could add a NPOV description of (1) which "traditionalist" Orthodox criticise Zizioulas' thought; of (2) where they criticise his thought [i.e. give some references]; and of (3) how they criticise Zizioulas' thought [i.e. say what they argue against Zizioulas' theology and episcopacy].
I do not wish the article to be pro-Zizioulas or anti-Zizioulas, but to be NPOV. Hopefully we can achieve that together.
Seminarist ( talk) 20:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Do you really want me to provide you with references showing that Zizioulas and Florovsky are noted theologians?
Would you agree that the paragraph on Zizioulas views on personhood, etc. is weak and needs rewritten?
Seminarist ( talk) 21:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
You have repeatedly shown incivility to me. Please see Wikipedia policy on No Personal Attacks.
You have also have displayed an extremely hostile attitude towards the subject of this article, John Zizioulas. This is not acceptable on Wikipedia. I am concerned that your editing may still be motivated by your dislike of John Zizioulas, the subject of this article. You have alleged him to be 'heterodox', and previously you vansalised this article adding a picture of Zizioulas seated beside the Pope with the caption Zizioulas 'shows his true face'.
Seminarist ( talk) 21:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
This is now the fourth time in two days you have reverted the content of the article without proper explanation.
Please do not remove citations or bibliography I have added previously. They conform to Wikipedia's policy on citing sources.
Seminarist ( talk) 21:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
To speak of one position rather than another as 'traditional Orthodoxy' is a POV, and so does not conform to Wikipedia NPOV. Therefore, it is not appropriate to use the title of 'traditional Orthodoxy' as a label of an anti-Zizioulas theology.
Seminarist ( talk) 21:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia's Polity on sources, material from questionable sources 'should only be used in articles about themselves', and that where such material does appear, it cannot be contentious. For both reasons, therefore, neither the article from the Italian magazine Ortodossia, nor the missionary booklet by Rodoljub Lazic may appear in the John Zizioulas article. For this reason, I am removing these references.
According to Wikipedia's policy on the burden of proof, 'The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material'. You have not provided suitable verification for your claims regarding 'traditionalist' understandings of Zizioulas' thought. Therefore, I am adding a citation needed tag to this material; this material should be removed unless it is properly sourced. If you revert the article to include again this 'traditionalist' material without HAVING PREVIOUSLY achieved consensus, then you are in violation of Wikipedia's burden of proof policy.
Seminarist ( talk) 21:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Please be assured again of my desire to work towards consensus on this article, but only in accordance with Wikipedia standards.
Seminarist ( talk) 21:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Please revert the article to the revision dated: 16:20, 15 February 2008. Let the other party that arrived several days ago proove his claims. While he provide the evidences, that revision should be on display. It is actually, last revision before situation went out of control. Thank you.
Cebactokpatop ( talk) 19:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
When an article is protected as a result of an edit war, it is protected in whatever version it is in when the administrator locates it. It is against policy for administrators to edit the contents of the protected page except in very limited circumstances, including (1) obvious vandalism, (2) uncontroversial changes unrelated to the dispute, or (3) changes for which clear consensus exists. May I suggest that the two of you try to reach consensus during this protection period? You may wish to seek additional feedback from WP:3O to help consensus emerge if the two of you cannot come to terms. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
1. noted theologian: His theology is not Orthodox, and for that reason, he is not Orthodox theologian. Since he is, sadly, still member of the Orthodox clergy, having that assertion implies that he is Orthodox theologian. Text needs to be enhanced to include qualification on whose theologian he is.
2. "Traditionalist" Orthodox: Traditional Orthodox are not to be referenced like that. Added quotes are Seminarist's personal opinion, and are viloation of Wiki's NPOV.
3. Certain Orthodox, who style themselves as "traditionalist": Same as above. This assertion is personal opinion of Seminarist, and viloates NPOV.
4. Positive Assessments in Greece and Serbia: Two bishops named as "positive assessments" are Serbians. Where did the Greeks go? If he wants to add "positive assessments", for the article to be neutral as per Wiki's standards, we will have to add "negative assessments" as well.
5. Seminarist removed complete section citing Traditional Orthodox sources with regards to the JZ theology and work. Even though, all references in that section were provided, he continued with the abuse of the Wiki by continuous removal of that section. Just because he is the fan of the JZ, his personal orientation should not be emphasized on the Wiki's article. Seminarist needs to learn that other opinions are valid on Wiki, as well.
1. He claims that article of the magazine Italia Ortodossa is "extremist". As a proof, he said that it "looked (to him) as extremist". Again, his own opinion - viloation of the NPOV.
2. He claims that book of Rodoljub Lazic is extremist. After asking him on what basis he has put that claim forward, no answer was obtained. I have asked him if he read the book, and no answer was given. Again, his claim contains no proof and represents his own opinion - violation of NPOV.
Cebactokpatop ( talk) 20:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Please read the revision dated 16:20, 15 February 2008 and come to the verdict whether it is in line with the Wiki's policy on neutrality or not. The point I an trying to make is that section titled "Traditional Orthodox View" is ballast to the remaining "pro" sections of the article and without it, the whole article would not be neutral. Thank you.
Cebactokpatop ( talk) 01:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Since this is an encyclopedia the initial description of Zizioulas’ work must be objective and dispassionate. When this impartial assessment has been given a range of views on Zizioulas’ work can be laid out – critical views amongst them, properly referenced. It is prima facie not objective to say that a senior bishop of the Orthodox Church is not orthodox. Of course, the views of critics of Zizioulas can be given their own wikipedia pages, with cross-references.
-- 86.139.212.66 ( talk) 13:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Great. Here we have anonymous face giving suggestions, who can be Seminarist himself.
Cebactokpatop ( talk) 16:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I have read this diff per the request of User:Cebactokpatop. It is my opinion that the section entitled "Traditional Orthodox view of the work of John Zizioulas" presents valid arguments against the authors work, however, it the way it is presented does violate WP:NPOV. In the articles present state, it balances criticism and defense in such away that it does not violate WP:UNDUE. As such, I recommend keeping the present version with the following caveats: the section entitled ""Traditionalist" Orthodox Criticisms of Zizioulas" needs to explain WHO the "traditionalists" are. In addition, the quotes around the word "traditionalist" imply a negative connotation, so they should be removed. Both the aforementioned section and the section entitled "Positive Assessments in Greece and Serbia" also need to have reliable sources attached to their claims. Giving this is a biography, criticisms and/or defenses of a persons views should not be included unless they are cited. I will watchlist this article if anyone needs clarification of my opinion in this case. Justin chat 08:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
You are dreaming. On line article is valid opinion of the faithful Orthodox in Italy.
Cebactokpatop ( talk) 15:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, there are two possible scenarios we can explore. Maintain neutrality of the article by:
Cebactokpatop ( talk) 17:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
No, it is not. You have removed couple of references to the critics of his work tagging them as "extremist", or "potentially extremist". Second one is pure guess as you did not read the book. First one is your personal opinion and violation of WP:NPOV. Current article is for that reason not acceptable besides several other details like quotes around the word Traditional.
Cebactokpatop ( talk) 13:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
You are flooding this page with repeated text. It is considered abuse on all serious internet forums and treated as virus. Would you be so kind and stop with such a childish behavior?
Cebactokpatop ( talk) 14:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I will stop this ping-pong with you, and continue conversation with Justin only.
Cebactokpatop ( talk) 15:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Mistake. I do not feel obliged to provide anything to the person that does not conform to the standard of WP:HONESTY. Proof is here: |Disgraceful Behavior by Seminarist - Proven
Cebactokpatop ( talk) 16:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
No, I did not miss it. Even though opinion described on WP:HONESTY page is not an official Wiki's policy, it is my personal policy based on my home education and religious affiliation.
Cebactokpatop ( talk) 17:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
First, I tend to agree that this article is relatively balanced. The sections that have a citation needed tag definitely need citations, as this is a biography article, criticisms should be well documented. Aside from that a few notes:
Balancing between two polarized views of his work. This would be problematic as it would require constant presence of the judges who would be setting quantities of the "pro" and "against" material, making sure that balance is maintained. How to make sure that judges are neutral?
We can never be positive that editors are neutral, however, that in of itself is never a reason to remove content. We have a variety of ways to ensure that articles are written in a neutral tone. In this case, if you still feel the article isn't, a request for comment might be a good option.
Keeping all material strictly factual. Article would include: biography, bibliography, references to written material of the other people whether "pro" or "against" his work. This option would have to refrain even from the explanation of his theology, as it would require counterweight from the Traditional Orthodox, thus turning it into option #1.
This is counterintuitive. The goal of Wikipedia is to describe notable subjects in as much detail as reliable sources allow. The subject of this article is notable because of his theology, and neutral coverage of his theology (in this case, explaining his views) is an important aspect of the article.
According to WP:PROVEIT, 'The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material'. That means that it is not up to me to prove that the missionary booklet IS a questionable source, but that it is up to you to prove that it is NOT a questionable source.
Nobody can prove a negative, so proving that a source is NOT reliable is quite impossible. When a sources reliability is called into question, a consensus must emerge on whether or not those sources are indeed unreliable. So, in a sense, both sides have a positive proof they must present. I've reviewed the reference that is in question [5], and I tend to agree that it's lacking in reliability. The article appears to be written by editors of Italia Ortodossa, however, I'm unable to determine what that is (is it a magazine, website, et al?). Furthermore, the translated version may or not be accurate, but without the link to the Italian version (and someone that speaks Italian better than I do) it's hard to make a determination. However, since this is a BLP, it is probably more appropriate to include references by known experts (ie, notable theologians) that disagree with the subject, as opposed to editorial boards of various periodicals. Justin chat 07:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions Justin. I have to disagree with your qualification of the Italia Ortodossa. Simple Google search reveals everything about them:
Based on all above facts, how anyone can possibly put down the claim that article is "unreliable"? I see two possibilities:
Justin, please review above information I have provided. Also, let me remind you that you can use Babel Fish Translator at: http://babelfish.altavista.com in order to read the Italian text on those websites. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cebactokpatop ( talk • contribs) 17:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Cebactokpatop ( talk) 21:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I've just noticed that the article on Metropolitan John on Orthodoxwiki has had a similar discussion over the propriety of including this article from Italia Ortodossa, and that they also decided that the article was malicious and inappropriate for a BLP. [7]. Seminarist ( talk) 22:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/John Zizioulas —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cebactokpatop ( talk • contribs) 13:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I'm going to go over the page history and do my own research on the subject. Please give me the weekend to get this done. I want each of you to know that I have no background on this topic and therefore no axe to grind. I look forward to working with both of you to help resolve your issues.
Dorothy Dorothy Kernaghan-Baez ( talk) 04:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Since there is still disagreement over the content of the page, and since you have requested formal mediation, to which I have agreed, please do not make changes to the page which re-introduce material which is the subject of our disagreement. Particularly, please do not introduce material which speaks about 'traditional Orthodox' opinion. The informal mediation and myself agreed that this expression violated WP:WEASEL and WP:NPOV. Your edit summary, which claimed that your changes were in line with the recommendations of informal mediation, was therefore incorrect. Seminarist ( talk) 14:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
According to the official site of the Serbian Orthodox Church, 'the theology of St. Maximus the Confessor and the theology of Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) left the deepest impressions upon' Bp Ignjatije, who 'considers his meeting and friendship with John Zizioulas in and of itself a gift of God.' [9] I think this link provides the citation needed to show that Metropolitan John has indeed been influential upon Bp Ignjatije. Seminarist ( talk) 20:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Cebactokpatop,
I'm not sure why you placed a tag on the statement that Zizioulas is a noted theologian; I've already given a reference to a survey of Orthodox theology by Rowan Williams showing that is the case. Are you questioning the reference? Seminarist ( talk) 16:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what is happening in USA, but in Greece Zizioulas is considered one of the most important modern theologians (for professor Hristos Giannaras he is "the most important since
Gregory Palamas"), especially in the field of ecclestiastical history and history of doctrine, and some of his works are published by the official publishing house of the Orthodox Church of Greece. He is also a prominent member of the Academy of Athens, the most important cultural foundation of Greece--
Vassilis78 (
talk) 15:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Cebactokpatop implies above that the Metropolitan is a heretic. This is utter nonsense! He is very much a mainstream Orthodox theologian. And given that no Orthodox Church has even alleged heresy, much less proven it, the claim by Cebactokpatop is clearly a fringe opinion, at best. -- Allyne ( talk) 17:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Cebactokpatop ( talk) 18:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
No synod of bishops has accused, much less convicted, Metropolitan John of heresy of any kind. Unless and until that happens, Cebactokpatop's assertions are only his private opinions. -- Allyne ( talk) 20:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Could we start the informal mediation by looking at the statements which are currently tagged as lacking sources?
The first of which is "Zizioulas has also been significantly influenced by the ascetical theology of Archimandrite Sophrony (Sakharov)".
Are there references to support this statement? PhilKnight ( talk) 18:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Next, could we examine this statement?
Are there references which support this statement? Also, are there references that contradict this? PhilKnight ( talk) 23:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I think this is slanted. First, saying "his own" strikes me as insinuating he is trying to be innovative, rather than faithful to the Orthodox tradition. Second, Zizioulas understands himself to be basing his work on the Greek Fathers and not Greek philosophy (which he said the Fathers "leavened"). Third, "patristic era writings" sounds like he is basing his work on non-patristic sources from the same era. Fourth, what "modern rationalist philosophy"? -- Allyne ( talk) 01:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Cebactokpatop's remarks are ill-mannered and violate WP:CIVILITY and WP:ETIQ. I hope the mediator will ensure that the tone of the discussion returns to a civil level.
I agree with Allyne that no Orthodox Church has accused Zizioulas of heterodoxy. I would add also that, according to WP:NOR, even if Cebactokpatop gives his own reasons for thinking Zizioulas is heterodox, they cannot be included in the article, since wikipedia does not publish original research.
Beyond this, I agree that the sentence is flawed and should be replaced. Here are my reasons:
In the light of these reasons, I would suggest the following sentence as a replacement: 'Metropolitan John has sought to develop an ontology of personhood as a contribution to a Neopatristic synthesis.' Seminarist ( talk) 21:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Seminarist's proposed sentence. No, I was not building a case based on an abstract. The point of printing the abstract was to respond to the assertion that Papanikolaou's "whole article is about 'defence' of JZ's use of philosophy in his work... I would suggest you to read it before making any further statements." I've read the article and, as the abstract suggests, the article is written to correct a misreading of Zizioulas' use of the Cappadocians. Papanikolaou also does this in his Being with God, especially pages 154-159. Papanikolaou also points out that some of Turcescu's complaints against Zizioulas can be applied equally to Lossky, whom Cebactokpatop holds up as the true Orthodox alternative to Zizioulas. -- Allyne ( talk) 22:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Cebactokpatop ( talk) 00:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Based on the above references, I want to open new subtitle in the article named: "Non-christian and Heterodox Influences on his Thought", and add above citations. I will also provide influences on his work by French Catholic theologians Henri de Lubac and Yves Congar.
Cebactokpatop ( talk) 01:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
In response to these quotes:
But I think we need to keep on track. The issue is whether or not we should keep or modify the sentence "The primary focus of his work was to develop his own ontology of personhood derived from an extensive investigation of Greek philosophy, patristic era writings and modern rationalist philosophy." I don't see anything in the quotes provided by Cebactokpatop that makes me change my earlier view that the sentence is best reworded to 'Metropolitan John has sought to develop an ontology of personhood as a contribution to a Neopatristic synthesis.' This seems to me to be NPOV and to avoid the difficulties I mentioned above.
Seminarist ( talk) 01:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The citations Cebactokpatop gives don't prove his case. First, the mention of some Western philosophers does not suggest that the Papanikolaou's "whole article" is about defending Zizioulas' use of such philosophers. Second, he seems to think that the quotations establish that his thought is founded upon them; it is not. Third, he ignored Seminarist's point that Zizioulas is working on a Neo-patristic synthesis. Zizioulas interacts with several Western philosophers just as the Church Fathers interacted with philosophers such as Plato. Fourth, he is oblivious to the fact that Zizioulas addresses how Buber, et al, fall short of the patristic understanding of personhood. If his interaction with "non-Christian and heterodox influences" is somehow a bad thing and needs to be highlighted, then to be fair we will have to do that with most of the Church Fathers, as well as recent Orthodox theologians such as Lossky. -- Allyne ( talk) 02:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Here is information for a more complete listing of Zizioulas' books available in English including two that are forthcoming:
-- Allyne ( talk) 02:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Cebactokpatop seems to miss the point of the article by Marilynn Lawrence, which is Zizioulas' position that the use of Heidegger is problematic for Orthodox theology. She opines: "I can only wonder what the outcome of Heidegger's thinking would have been had he been confronted from the outset with a more authentic reading of the Church Fathers, such as that of Zizioulas." Yes, she says that Levinas is an influence on Zizioulas. But Papanikolaou sees Levinas is influential upon Zizioulas in his critique of Heidegger, i.e., a Jewish philosopher (Levinas) influences Zizioulas in his critique of a secular philosopher (Heidegger). Why Cebactokpatop should understand this as a criticism of Zizioulas eludes me. -- Allyne ( talk) 03:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
In the first chapter of Communion and Otherness, Zizioulas surveys 20th century Western thinking on personhood in Husserl, Heidegger, and Sartre, and then discusses how two Jewish thinkers – Buber and Levinas – make significant philosophical advances over them. However, he then goes on to show how both Buber and Levinas fall short of patristic thinking on personhood. He clearly sees Levinas as coming closest to the patristic understanding, but he points out how, e.g., Dionysius the Areopagite and St Maximus Confessor are superior to Levinas. The same is true of Macmurray, whom Zizioulas credits as having made an insightful critique of other Western views on personhood; he does not, however, base his own thinking of that of Macmurray. Interacting with non-Orthodox philosophers, and acknowledging what is worthwhile and what is deficient in their thinking when compared to the Church Fathers, is not a reason to criticize Zizioulas. The same criticisms have been made of Lossky. In neither case do they hit the mark. -- Allyne ( talk) 03:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Someone who says he is "traditional Orthodox" should be more concerned about how he treats others. The Church Fathers, the Fathers of the Philokalia, the New Testament writers (I'm thinking especially of St James and St Paul), and our Lord himself had some strong words to say against people who speak ill of their brother. That goes for how you speak to others in this forum, as well as how you speak ill of a bishop of the Church. If you are truly Orthodox, you will be praying the Lenten prayer of St Ephrem these days: "O Lord and Master of my life, give me not the spirit of sloth, idle curiosity/meddling, lust for power and idle talk. But grant unto me, Thy servant, a spirit of chastity, humility, patience and love. Yea, O Lord and King, grant me to see mine own faults and not to judge my brother. For blessed art Thou unto the ages of ages. Amen." Disagreement is one thing, but the spirit of that disagreement and its expression are another. -- Allyne ( talk) 13:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Cebactokpatop ( talk) 13:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Since other party does not want to caracterize the influences, we wil lhave to name them. I propose to replace word "rationalist" with names: Levinas, Buber, Macmurray, Pannenberg and Heidegger. Cebactokpatop ( talk) 13:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Cebactokpatop has been unable to provide any good reasons for maintaining the sentence as it is. It seems to me that the consensus is to replace it with 'Metropolitan John has sought to develop an ontology of personhood as a contribution to a Neopatristic synthesis.'
I suggest that at specific points where Zizioulas uses (to a significant extent) the work of the philosophers and theologians which Cebactokpatop has mentioned, we add mention of the fact where the article discusses those aspects of Zizioulas' thought. That will be more informative than a list of five or six names. Seminarist ( talk) 14:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I don’t know of any suggestion that Zizioulas uses any Greek philosophy other than that of the Church Fathers. His sources are the Cappadocian Fathers and St Maximus Confessor in particular. I’d suggest:
"Zizioulas has developed an ontology of personhood grounded in the work of the Cappadocian Fathers and St Maximus Confessor, but in dialogue with recent philosophers of personhood, particularly Emmanuel Levinas." -- Allyne ( talk) 18:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
All of the proposed is not precise enough, besides repeated attempt to minimize the influence that even Zizioulas himself admitted. Acceptable sentence would be: "The primary focus of his work was to develop his own ontology of personhood derived from an extensive investigation of Greek philosophy, patristic era writings and modern philosophers like: Levinas, Buber, Macmurray, Pannenberg and Heidegger."
In addition to that, references I supplied should be included after proper formatting as per Wiki's standards.
Cebactokpatop ( talk) 19:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I want to make a couple of comments here regarding the sentence we are considering.
Zizioulas' ontological thought is developed principally in the first two chapters of Being as Communion, and the paper 'Human Capacity and Incapacity' which has been reprinted in his new book Communion and Otherness.
Firstly, it is clear from this that Zizioulas' ontological thought is not only concerned with personhood, but also with being, existence, truth and history. Therefore we should not say that Zizioulas is only concerned with developing an ontology of personhood. This is only part of his ontological project.
Secondly, Zizioulas does not borrow ideas from classical Greek philosophy, but only ever criticises them. So we should not say that Zizioulas' position is based on classical Greek philosophy.
Thirdly, Zizioulas does not derive any theological notions from Heidegger, Levinas, Buber, Macmurray or Pannenberg. Rather, he sometimes accepts that they are correct on historical points; he sometimes agrees with criticisms they make of other philosophers; and he sometimes sees them as exemplifying positions which are (to a certain degree) harmonious with his own. There is nothing here that justifies saying that Zizioulas bases his theological ontology on these thinkers.
Beyond this, Zizioulas is explicit that his project is intended as a contribution to a Neopatristic synthesis. In Being as Communion, p. 26, Zizioulas says that his studies are 'intended to offer their contribution to a "neopatristic synthesis" capable of leading the West and the East nearer to their common roots, in the context of the existential quest of modern man.' To develop a neopatristic synthesis is not the same thing as developing one's own ontology of personhood on the basis of non-patristic thinkers. Therefore it would be wrong of us to characterise Zizioulas' project as developing such an idiosyncratic ontology of personhood.
Accordingly, in the light of the foregoing, I would like to propose the following sentence:
I hope this meets with agreement. Seminarist ( talk) 19:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
How about this? "Metropolitan John has developed "a relational ontology in which communion constitutes the key idea for ecclesioolgy as well as anthropology" (Communion and Otherness, xiii). His ontology draws particularly on the Cappadocian Fathers and St Maximus the Confessor, engaging aspects of the philosophy of Martin Heidegger, Martin Buber, and Emmanuel Levinas."-- Allyne ( talk) 20:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
No, what I quoted is from the Metropolitan's preface, not Williams' foreword. I think those suggestions are good. -- Allyne ( talk) 21:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Do make those changes. Email me sometime. -- Allyne ( talk) 21:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Certainly. Here's an idea: the opening paragraph of the 'theology' section could read something like:
Seminarist ( talk) 21:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I like that. My only question is whether to capitalize 'neopartistic.' Due to a hard drive crash, I've temporarily lost my access to the OED. -- Allyne ( talk) 21:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I just checked a couple of sources -- The Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern Christianity and A Companion to the Philosophy of Religion (also from Blackwell). Both references use lowercase. -- Allyne ( talk) 22:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok then - shall we say (I've changed a little of the phrasing):
? Seminarist ( talk) 22:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
That sounds good. As it happens, I just finished reading the following by Metropolian John: "The Holy Trinity and the imago Dei, two thoroughly patristic ideas which no existentialist or any other modern philosophy would use, are the only proper basis for theological personalism" (Communion and Otherness, 95n.).-- Allyne ( talk) 01:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Rejected. Cebactokpatop ( talk) 03:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
It should be clear to the moderators by now that Cebactokpatop is more concerned with insulting everyone who disagrees with him than with making any progress on this article. I humbly suggest that it is time to block him. -- Allyne ( talk) 13:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
A request for user comments has been created at [ [10]]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allyne ( talk • contribs) 15:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I’ve been re-reading the article by Turcescu. The first thing to say is that he never says anything outrageous about Zizioulas, i.e., he never accuses him of heterodoxy or heresy. Second, he never claims that Zizioulas’ views on personhood are mistaken. His claims are, rather, as stated succinctly in his conclusion: “Zizioulas is therefore in error when he contends that the Cappadocians did not understand a person as an individual or when he credits them with having the same concerns we moderns have when combating individualism today” (Turcescu, 537). Third, I think that Turcescu’s arguments are more than adequately answered by both Papanikolaou and Zizioulas himself (in Communion and Otherness, 171-177). -- Allyne ( talk) 19:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Requests_for_mediation/John_Zizioulas —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cebactokpatop ( talk • contribs) 19:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Seminarist. I've watched the mediation attempts here and think they have been unproductive. Priot to Cebactokpatop filing the request for formal mediation, Allyne requested a comments page on User Cebactokpatop. I think that is the way to go. -- Fr Lev ( talk) 21:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that appears to be the easiest way... "eliminate" me, and get open hands to applaud your guru Zizioulas in this place any way you like. Cebactokpatop ( talk) 12:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The anti-Zizioulas missionary pamphlet by Lazic may be found here. Seminarist ( talk) 23:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
How long before we can return to working on this page? -- Fr Lev ( talk) 17:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The book represents analysis of the various writings, interviews, statements, etc. of John Zizioulas, with the comments exposing heterodoxy of that man. Here are some examples taken out of the book (my poor translation into English):
Zizioulas wrote: "To be created means to be mortal, and creation is under constant threat of absolute annihilation. Death is characteristic of the creation." (Христологија и постојање I, стр. 179, 180); and further "...to be created means to incur the death as return to unbeing, to nothingness... The death is corporal part of the creation..." (Христологија и постојање II, стр. 125)
Mr. Lazic, in his response to the above statements, quotes Church fathers, at the same time, asking the question: If JZ is right, how possibly God could say after He finished the creation of the world: "God looked at what he had done, and it was good"?
Fathers Mr. Lazic quotes:
Almost the whole book is in that tone. He is using patristic writings to expose heterodoxy in the thought of John Zizioulas. The book can be "Anti-Zizioulas" to those who have no idea what Orthodoxy is all about. More precise definition of the book would be - the book puts the thought of John Zizioulas to the public shame in the world of real Orthodoxy.
Cebactokpatop ( talk) 19:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
This example taken out of the book of Mr. Lazic is dealing with the heterodox thought of JZ in relation to the homosexuality. In the interview, being asked about his opinion on the matter of homosexuality, JZ answered (my poor translation into English):
John Zizioulas said: "If homosexuality is considered as sin... The Church has to accept homosexuals. Of course, they will undergo transformation in the extent possible, as there are natural limitations which can not be overcome."
Mr. Lazic, in his response to the above statement after extensively quoting the Bible where homosexuality is clearly defined as sin, writes: "Metropolitan says 'IF homosexuality..' leaving the possibility that it is not a sin. What is it if it is not sin? Resolution to this question we find at the end of the answer, where Metropolitan talks about 'transformation to the extent possible', because of 'natural limitations..' Besides uncertainty of his answer, we can recognize in his thought that homosexuality is disease, perhaps incurable, as some limitations 'can not be overcome'... Such an opinion may share some contemporary psychiatrists and Metropolitan, but, Holy Scriptures and Holy Fathers - do not."
Cebactokpatop ( talk) 20:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
If you are going to provide a quote from Metropolitan John, it would be good to at least give the English title of the book it comes from, even if you don't have the English translation of it at hand. The quote you give is not given any context, and the conclusion Lazic and you draw from it is inconsistent with Metropolitan John's theology. -- Fr Lev ( talk) 19:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Sentences without context and containing ellipses are not adequate for evaluating someone's theology. -- Fr Lev ( talk) 20:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I don’t see anything in the quotation from Metropolitan John that is in disagreement with the Church Fathers that C says RL cites. Metropolitan John certainly believes that God called the creation God. He is clearly talking about creation after the Fall, when St Paul says death entered the world.
To say that “[a]lmost the whole book [of RL’s] is in that tone” is not a commendation. What has been presented thus far seems the worst kind of proof-texting that does a disservice to the Church Fathers, as well as to Metropolitan John.
As to C’s claim that RL’s book holds the Metropolitan up “to the public shame in the world of real Orthodoxy,” this is so far removed from reality that I don’t know how to answer it. -- Fr Lev ( talk) 01:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Cebactokpatop quotes from Zizioulas' paper Christology and Existence (originally published in Synaxi in 1982, then in French in Contacts in 1984-85, and now in English in Communion and Otherness).
Here is what Cebactokpatop quotes Zizioulas saying:
He then asserts that such a position is heterodox and that 'exposure' brings shame on Zizioulas.
Now, here is what Zizioulas actually says:
And immediately following this quote, Zizioulas quotes St Athanasius, saying exactly the same thing as Zizioulas:
From this, two things are clear:
Far from bringing shame on Zizioulas, any 'shame' arising from Cebcatokpatop's edits heap upon his own head. Unable to find any legitimate quotes showing Zizioulas to be heterodox, Cebactokpatop has to stoop to the depths of misquotation.
And if Cebactokpatop has misquoted Zizioulas once, I don't trust him not to do it again. Cebactokpatop has shown himself to be an untrustworthy source. No quotation provided by Cebactokpatop should be trusted without independent corroboration.
In future, Cebactokatop, please provide reliable quotes, which may be verified by other editors.
Seminarist ( talk) 02:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
His book I will be quoting from is printed by: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, Crestwood, New York, 2002, paperback.
Page 49-50: "The eternal survival of person as a unique unrepeatable and free "hypostasis", as loving and being loved, constitutes the quintessence of salvation, the bringing of the Gospel to man. In the language of he Fathers this is called "divinization" (theosis), which means participation not in the nature or substance of God, but in His personal existence. The goal of salvation is that the personal life which is realized in God should also be realized on the level of human existence. Consequently salvation is identified with the realization of personhood in man."
That passage is heterodox in several ways:
If we read more subsequent pages, up to page 65, we can easily find many confirmations to this conclusion. In those pages, we can find him taking about "dissolution and annihilation of the body", "disintegration of the hypostasis, which is death", etc. On page 52, we find another heterodox statement:
What does he tell us here? That Adam was bound to death even before his fall. That death was always present in the creation, and not something that entered this world as a result of our transgression. To the Orthodox, there is no need to explain how HETERODOX this thought of JZ is.
In all of those pages, between 49 and 65, JZ talks about tragedy of "biological hypostasis", perspectives of the new one (ecclesial hypostasis) acquired through Baptism, and third one he had to invent to "explain" how the two mentioned (also invented) relate to each other - eucharistic hypostasis. He talks many times about "body" and "eros" when he tries to explain how they can survive... but NOT a single word mentioning - THE SOUL! Mankind he invented has NO souls! Souls do not exist in his anthropology.
Two extremely heterodox finds in this short revision of several pages of his book:
Who preaches both of these heresies? Seventh Day Adventist cult.
Cebactokpatop ( talk) 02:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Cebactokpatop:
But in any case, your arguments cannot be included on the John Zizioulas page, since wikipedia does not allow original research.
Seminarist ( talk) 03:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Not true. In Othodoxy, "essence" and "substance" are synonims. Nature is something completely different. Zizoulas is aware of that when he says: "participation not in the nature or substance of God".
So much about your knowledge of Orthodox theology.
Cebactokpatop ( talk) 03:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I was talking about the Orthodox theological tradition and theologians such as St John of Damascus and Vladimir Lossky. Since even hyper-tradiionalists in Orthodoxy venerate these men as theologians, I think it is safe to say that Cebactokpatop is stepping outside of Orthodox tradition. His idea of responding to citations of texts from undisputed theological authorities is to say "heheheheh" and impugn motives. I'm glad the process has begun to block this fellow. He shouldn't be contributing to an encyclopedia. -- Fr Lev ( talk) 14:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Cebactokpatop, your claims are incorrect, and they now have strayed so far off course that they have nothing to do with the subject of the John Zizioulas article. It is clear that your arguments violate WP:NOR, and so could never merit inclusion in the article anyway. You are repeatedly rude and incivil; that is why Allyne, Fr Lev and I have posted an RfC concerning your conduct. Until such time as you become interested in making constructive edits to the John Zizioulas page, I don't see any reason to continue discussing with you.
Seminarist ( talk) 15:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
It is interesting that attention to language, which obsessed the Fathers, is dismissed here by Cebactokpatop. The Council of Nicaea, after all, was at loggergeads over one iota, yet the difference between homosousios (the Orthodox view) and homoiousios (the Arian view) makes all the difference in the world! What is also striking is the staggeringly false claim that Metropolitan John’s “thought is so obviously heterodox that Orthodox theologians do not feel a need to refute his writings.” Virtually everything I have read by Orthodox theologians about Metropolitan John has been very positive, be it Bishop Kallistos Ware, Christos Yannaras, Fr John Meyendorff, Fr Boris Bobrinskoy, Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos, Bishop Ignjatije Midić, Aristotle Papanikolaou, etc. Cebactokpatop is more interested in his partisan, polemical agenda than with accurate reporting. I give up. Moderators, help! I'm done responding to this. -- Fr Lev ( talk) 16:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I have named numerous Orthodox theologians who have spoken highly of Metropolitan John Zizioulas and his contributions to theology. Bishop Kallistos Ware of Oxford University is perhaps one of the best-known writers on Orthodoxy in the English-speaking world. Christos Yannaras is, along with Metropolitan John, perhaps the best-known Greek Orthodox theologian alive. Fr John Meyendorff, who wrote the introduction to Being as Communion, was a distinguished patristics scholar trained at the Sorbonne and was the dean of St Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary in New York. Fr Boris Bobrinskoy has been the rector of the St Sergius Orthodox Theological Institute in Paris. Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos of Greece is a highly regarded (and quite conservative) writer throughout Orthodoxy. Bishop Ignjatije Midić is a professor at the Serbian theological institute. Aristotle Papanikolaou is a professor at Fordham and author of a book-length study of Metropolitan John. And, of course, the Metropolitan remains a bishop in good-standing of the Patriarchate of Constantinople and an advisor to Patriarch Bartholomew.
All that Cebactokpatop offers is a polemical pamphlet in Serbian, a polemical article from an Italian magazine, a snarky comment from a Greek archbishop in Australia, and one academic article which, although disagreeing with Metropolitan John, draws none of the extreme conclusions of heterodoxy that Cebactokpatop does. There is no question here as to what the overwhelming academic consensus is. Cebactokpatop represents a very tiny minority of opinion within the Orthodox Church. More than that, his conduct on this page has been atrocious. His use of sources is either incompetent or deliberately misleading, and he refuses to deal with citations from authorities (such as St John of Damascus) when they say undermines his case. And, always, he is personally abusive to anyone who has the temerity to disagree with him. His behavior may be well-suited to pamphleteering and yellow journalism, but they do not conform either to the rules or the spirit of this encyclopedia project. -- Fr Lev ( talk) 19:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
More misleading information. As I said, Turcescu criticizes Metropolitan John but doesn't draw any extreme conclusions such as claiming Metropolitan John is heterodox. Peter Leithart writes a very positive article and thinks highly of the Metropolitan. Archbishop Chrysostomos and Hieromonk Patapios are part of a "resistance" Church that is not in communion with any of the ancient patriarchates, and this is also true of The Orthodox Christian Witness. These may be fine folks, but one cannot reasonably claim that they represent the Orthodox Church. One can, of course, take their position that the ancient patriarchates have all abandoned the Orthodox faith, but then it is clear how marginal a point of view this is. Fr John Behr is a professor at St Vladimir's and I don't believe for a moment that he believes the Metropolitan is heterodox. So the only "mainstream" authority he names is an Australian archbishop whose opinion is not shared by his own Patriarch or Patriarchate. He invokes mainstream people who do not share his (Cebactokpatop) views. This is his evidence that most" Orthodox theologians think the Metropolitan is heterodox! On the other hand, I quoted mainline Orthodox authorities. This is sad. -- Fr Lev ( talk) 21:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Now there is a Masonic conspiracy.... I think this conversation should be moved to a blog for Weekly World News or an urban legends site. -- Fr Lev ( talk) 22:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I have two suggested changes. First, apart from a first reference to Zizioulas as Metropolitan John of Pergamon, I think it would be appropriate to refer to him simply as “Zizioulas” in the article, in that it is not an ecclesiastical website.
Second, I think we should ad the following. If added, I will provide the footnotes citing references to both Being as Communion and Communion and Otherness.
-Critique of Western Philosophy of the Person- Although some critics of Zizioulas have suggested that the sources of his thinking on personhood are Western philosophers rather than the Church Fathers, a careful reading of his work shows that the opposite is the case. While acknowledging the contributions to philosophical anthropology by Edmund Husserl, John Macmurray, Martin Heidegger, Martin Buber, and Emmanuel Lévinas, Zizioulas is very specific in claiming that their philosophy of the human person is fundamentally inadequate. Moreover, he argues that this inadequacy can only be met by the patristic understanding of the person, particularly as developed by the Cappadocian Fathers. -- Fr Lev ( talk) 15:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Cebactokpatop has selectively cited Papanikolaou. If one reads the text, Papanikolaou notes that the same charge of being influenced by modern personalism has been made against Lossky, as well as Metropolitan John. Thus he cherry-picks a charge that Papanikolaou points out is made against Lossky, his sine qua non of Orthodoxy. And, of course, Papanikolaou acquits both theologians. He goes on to cite the differences between the Metropolitan and those modern philosophers and that, for the Metropolitan, only a Trinitarian theology that affirms the monarchy of the Father can provide an adequate theology of personhood. As Papanikolaou says, "[Zizioulas} and Lossky are no more superimposing a philosophical system on the Eastern patristic writers than did these same writers Hellenize the teachings of Jesus" (160). Metropolitan John and Lossky simply have done what the Fathers did -- "thinking about the authoritative texts of the tradition in light of the questions, challenges, and prevailing philosophical currents of their time" (ibid). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fr Lev ( talk • contribs) 01:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Metropolitan John precisely corrects all of the philosophers he cites, including Buber. No open-minded reader, i.e., no one who wasn't trying to grind a particular axe, could read what the Metropolitan has said about Buber and think otherwise. And to suggest that there is anything heterodox in the Buber quote is utterly absurd. The quote is, "Individuality makes its appearance by its differentiation from other individualities." This is nothing but the non-contoverisal claim that A is not B because A is not the same as B. -- Fr Lev ( talk) 19:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I meant to add that, whatever Turcescu says, Cebactokpatop is grossly misrepresenting St Gregory of Nyssa, who is quite aware of the danger of equating the two terms. Metropolitan John provides the textual evidence from St Gregory's Ex communibus notionibus that to say the Persons are three "individuals" as humans are, is a "misuse of language". St Gregory, therefore, specifies ways in which certain qualities cannot be predicated of the Divine Persons -- addition or diminution, alteration or change. more than one ontological cause (the Father), and any other properties or qualities except those of ontological relation (e.g., Father is Father, and not Son). This is not heterodox. To deny this, to claim that person must by synonomous with individual entails the conclusion that we confess three Individuals, and that is not simply heterodox, but heresy. In atempting to libel the Mteropolitan, Cebactokpatop leads himself into confessing heresy. -- Fr Lev ( talk) 19:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Turcescu criticizes the Metropolitan on the question of person versus individual by indicating that St Gregory of Nyssa sometime uses ἄτομον (atomon) “to express the notion of the person.” Of the Cappadocians, only St Gregory uses atomon as equivalent to hypostasis or prosopon. So one could stop here and say that only one of the Cappadocians followed a usage contrary to the Metropolitan’s reading. But that would still leave a misimpression. For if one thought that St Gregory was saying atomon as predicated of human persons could be predicated of divine persons simpliciter, we would be left with the heresy of tritheism. But St Gregory was not foolish, which is why he never said any such thing. The other Fathers (Cappadocian or otherwise) never run the risk of confusing someone (such as Turcescu and his fervent disciple, Cebactokpatop) by using atomon as equivalent to person. While we find the Orthodox confession of three hypostaseis or three prosopa, nowhere in Orthodox theology do we find the confession of three atoma. Thus Turcescu’s criticism of the Metropolitan’s refusal to equate atomon with either prosopon or hypostasis can only by employed in a defense of tritheism. While at no point on these pages has Cebactokpatop ever read someone else’s posts charitably, I will give him the benefit of the doubt and not infer that he is arguing for tritheism. And if I am right about his intent (I am no mind reader, as he pointed out), then he needs to consider revising his support of Turcescu’s argument. -- Fr Lev ( talk) 00:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I changes "a sizeable number" to "there are" unless and until an authoritative cite can quantify this. -- Fr Lev ( talk) 23:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
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 |
Work of M. Zizioulas has been disputed in many Orthodox circles, and giving him a title "one of the world's leading theologians" is very misleading.
In other words, this article is missing part in which his writings are questioned by traditional Orthodox theology represented in the writings of the Fathers, summarized in the works of prof. V. Lossky.
What is the procedure for tagging the article "disputed"? Thanks.
-- 216.191.72.153 19:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
The edits of Cebactokpatop do not conform to Wikipedia NPOV, and contained insertions of polemic which amounted to vandalism. Many of the claims were unverified. I tried to improve the page to make it conform to NPOV, and placed a vandalism tag on Cebactokpatop's talk-page.
At the same time, I added additional material concerning the content of Zizioulas' ecclesiology. (Despite the polemical allegations of 'ecumenism' previously in the article, there was previously no description of Zizioulas' ecclesiological views.)
In response, Cebastokpatop simply reverted my edits, and placed a vandalism tag on my talk-page.
I am happy to contribute edits on Wikipedia, but I do not wish to become embroiled in endless reverts with someone whose edits on Wikipedia are intended to promote a particular polemic unsuitable for an encyclopedia.
If Cebastokpatop is indeed willing to contribute towards the construction of an article which is NPOV, I would be very happy to work with him.
Seminarist ( talk) 18:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
False accusations easily verifiable by looking at the latest revision of mine. This person is trying to quiet down the voice of the traditional Orthodox people who do not see the work of JZ as Orthodox. That is precisely what we call vandalism, and that is why you deserved tag - vandal.
Cebactokpatop ( talk) 20:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not a vandal, and desire to work towards consensus. I am not trying to prevent an encyclopedic description of criticisms of Zizioulas' thought and episcopacy. But I am trying to prevent the article being presented from a POV.
Thank you for not reinserting certain of the earlier NPOV items.
I have also tried to improve the article in a number of ways:
You have now reverted these changes without explanation three times in the last 24 hours, and have therefore broken the 3RR. Please do not revert these sections again.
In your last edit you reinserted the sentence: "Although the many are amazed with the works of the John Zizioulas, his thought is not widely accepted amongst the Orthodox. Traditional Orthodox see his view of the personhood, Holy Trinity and The Church as untraditional, and different from the view of the Early Church Fathers, more specifically: St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Basil the Great and St. Gregory of Nazianzus (Cappadocian Fathers)."
This sentence is not NPOV, it is not verifiable and it is not of an appropriate style for an encyclopedia entry, for a number of reasons:
Could you rephrase the sentence and add (more) references?
Once again, I would like to work together towards consensus. It would be good if you could add a NPOV description of (1) which "traditionalist" Orthodox criticise Zizioulas' thought; of (2) where they criticise his thought [i.e. give some references]; and of (3) how they criticise Zizioulas' thought [i.e. say what they argue against Zizioulas' theology and episcopacy].
I do not wish the article to be pro-Zizioulas or anti-Zizioulas, but to be NPOV. Hopefully we can achieve that together.
Seminarist ( talk) 20:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Do you really want me to provide you with references showing that Zizioulas and Florovsky are noted theologians?
Would you agree that the paragraph on Zizioulas views on personhood, etc. is weak and needs rewritten?
Seminarist ( talk) 21:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
You have repeatedly shown incivility to me. Please see Wikipedia policy on No Personal Attacks.
You have also have displayed an extremely hostile attitude towards the subject of this article, John Zizioulas. This is not acceptable on Wikipedia. I am concerned that your editing may still be motivated by your dislike of John Zizioulas, the subject of this article. You have alleged him to be 'heterodox', and previously you vansalised this article adding a picture of Zizioulas seated beside the Pope with the caption Zizioulas 'shows his true face'.
Seminarist ( talk) 21:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
This is now the fourth time in two days you have reverted the content of the article without proper explanation.
Please do not remove citations or bibliography I have added previously. They conform to Wikipedia's policy on citing sources.
Seminarist ( talk) 21:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
To speak of one position rather than another as 'traditional Orthodoxy' is a POV, and so does not conform to Wikipedia NPOV. Therefore, it is not appropriate to use the title of 'traditional Orthodoxy' as a label of an anti-Zizioulas theology.
Seminarist ( talk) 21:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia's Polity on sources, material from questionable sources 'should only be used in articles about themselves', and that where such material does appear, it cannot be contentious. For both reasons, therefore, neither the article from the Italian magazine Ortodossia, nor the missionary booklet by Rodoljub Lazic may appear in the John Zizioulas article. For this reason, I am removing these references.
According to Wikipedia's policy on the burden of proof, 'The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material'. You have not provided suitable verification for your claims regarding 'traditionalist' understandings of Zizioulas' thought. Therefore, I am adding a citation needed tag to this material; this material should be removed unless it is properly sourced. If you revert the article to include again this 'traditionalist' material without HAVING PREVIOUSLY achieved consensus, then you are in violation of Wikipedia's burden of proof policy.
Seminarist ( talk) 21:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Please be assured again of my desire to work towards consensus on this article, but only in accordance with Wikipedia standards.
Seminarist ( talk) 21:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Please revert the article to the revision dated: 16:20, 15 February 2008. Let the other party that arrived several days ago proove his claims. While he provide the evidences, that revision should be on display. It is actually, last revision before situation went out of control. Thank you.
Cebactokpatop ( talk) 19:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
When an article is protected as a result of an edit war, it is protected in whatever version it is in when the administrator locates it. It is against policy for administrators to edit the contents of the protected page except in very limited circumstances, including (1) obvious vandalism, (2) uncontroversial changes unrelated to the dispute, or (3) changes for which clear consensus exists. May I suggest that the two of you try to reach consensus during this protection period? You may wish to seek additional feedback from WP:3O to help consensus emerge if the two of you cannot come to terms. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
1. noted theologian: His theology is not Orthodox, and for that reason, he is not Orthodox theologian. Since he is, sadly, still member of the Orthodox clergy, having that assertion implies that he is Orthodox theologian. Text needs to be enhanced to include qualification on whose theologian he is.
2. "Traditionalist" Orthodox: Traditional Orthodox are not to be referenced like that. Added quotes are Seminarist's personal opinion, and are viloation of Wiki's NPOV.
3. Certain Orthodox, who style themselves as "traditionalist": Same as above. This assertion is personal opinion of Seminarist, and viloates NPOV.
4. Positive Assessments in Greece and Serbia: Two bishops named as "positive assessments" are Serbians. Where did the Greeks go? If he wants to add "positive assessments", for the article to be neutral as per Wiki's standards, we will have to add "negative assessments" as well.
5. Seminarist removed complete section citing Traditional Orthodox sources with regards to the JZ theology and work. Even though, all references in that section were provided, he continued with the abuse of the Wiki by continuous removal of that section. Just because he is the fan of the JZ, his personal orientation should not be emphasized on the Wiki's article. Seminarist needs to learn that other opinions are valid on Wiki, as well.
1. He claims that article of the magazine Italia Ortodossa is "extremist". As a proof, he said that it "looked (to him) as extremist". Again, his own opinion - viloation of the NPOV.
2. He claims that book of Rodoljub Lazic is extremist. After asking him on what basis he has put that claim forward, no answer was obtained. I have asked him if he read the book, and no answer was given. Again, his claim contains no proof and represents his own opinion - violation of NPOV.
Cebactokpatop ( talk) 20:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Please read the revision dated 16:20, 15 February 2008 and come to the verdict whether it is in line with the Wiki's policy on neutrality or not. The point I an trying to make is that section titled "Traditional Orthodox View" is ballast to the remaining "pro" sections of the article and without it, the whole article would not be neutral. Thank you.
Cebactokpatop ( talk) 01:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Since this is an encyclopedia the initial description of Zizioulas’ work must be objective and dispassionate. When this impartial assessment has been given a range of views on Zizioulas’ work can be laid out – critical views amongst them, properly referenced. It is prima facie not objective to say that a senior bishop of the Orthodox Church is not orthodox. Of course, the views of critics of Zizioulas can be given their own wikipedia pages, with cross-references.
-- 86.139.212.66 ( talk) 13:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Great. Here we have anonymous face giving suggestions, who can be Seminarist himself.
Cebactokpatop ( talk) 16:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I have read this diff per the request of User:Cebactokpatop. It is my opinion that the section entitled "Traditional Orthodox view of the work of John Zizioulas" presents valid arguments against the authors work, however, it the way it is presented does violate WP:NPOV. In the articles present state, it balances criticism and defense in such away that it does not violate WP:UNDUE. As such, I recommend keeping the present version with the following caveats: the section entitled ""Traditionalist" Orthodox Criticisms of Zizioulas" needs to explain WHO the "traditionalists" are. In addition, the quotes around the word "traditionalist" imply a negative connotation, so they should be removed. Both the aforementioned section and the section entitled "Positive Assessments in Greece and Serbia" also need to have reliable sources attached to their claims. Giving this is a biography, criticisms and/or defenses of a persons views should not be included unless they are cited. I will watchlist this article if anyone needs clarification of my opinion in this case. Justin chat 08:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
You are dreaming. On line article is valid opinion of the faithful Orthodox in Italy.
Cebactokpatop ( talk) 15:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, there are two possible scenarios we can explore. Maintain neutrality of the article by:
Cebactokpatop ( talk) 17:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
No, it is not. You have removed couple of references to the critics of his work tagging them as "extremist", or "potentially extremist". Second one is pure guess as you did not read the book. First one is your personal opinion and violation of WP:NPOV. Current article is for that reason not acceptable besides several other details like quotes around the word Traditional.
Cebactokpatop ( talk) 13:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
You are flooding this page with repeated text. It is considered abuse on all serious internet forums and treated as virus. Would you be so kind and stop with such a childish behavior?
Cebactokpatop ( talk) 14:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I will stop this ping-pong with you, and continue conversation with Justin only.
Cebactokpatop ( talk) 15:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Mistake. I do not feel obliged to provide anything to the person that does not conform to the standard of WP:HONESTY. Proof is here: |Disgraceful Behavior by Seminarist - Proven
Cebactokpatop ( talk) 16:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
No, I did not miss it. Even though opinion described on WP:HONESTY page is not an official Wiki's policy, it is my personal policy based on my home education and religious affiliation.
Cebactokpatop ( talk) 17:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
First, I tend to agree that this article is relatively balanced. The sections that have a citation needed tag definitely need citations, as this is a biography article, criticisms should be well documented. Aside from that a few notes:
Balancing between two polarized views of his work. This would be problematic as it would require constant presence of the judges who would be setting quantities of the "pro" and "against" material, making sure that balance is maintained. How to make sure that judges are neutral?
We can never be positive that editors are neutral, however, that in of itself is never a reason to remove content. We have a variety of ways to ensure that articles are written in a neutral tone. In this case, if you still feel the article isn't, a request for comment might be a good option.
Keeping all material strictly factual. Article would include: biography, bibliography, references to written material of the other people whether "pro" or "against" his work. This option would have to refrain even from the explanation of his theology, as it would require counterweight from the Traditional Orthodox, thus turning it into option #1.
This is counterintuitive. The goal of Wikipedia is to describe notable subjects in as much detail as reliable sources allow. The subject of this article is notable because of his theology, and neutral coverage of his theology (in this case, explaining his views) is an important aspect of the article.
According to WP:PROVEIT, 'The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material'. That means that it is not up to me to prove that the missionary booklet IS a questionable source, but that it is up to you to prove that it is NOT a questionable source.
Nobody can prove a negative, so proving that a source is NOT reliable is quite impossible. When a sources reliability is called into question, a consensus must emerge on whether or not those sources are indeed unreliable. So, in a sense, both sides have a positive proof they must present. I've reviewed the reference that is in question [5], and I tend to agree that it's lacking in reliability. The article appears to be written by editors of Italia Ortodossa, however, I'm unable to determine what that is (is it a magazine, website, et al?). Furthermore, the translated version may or not be accurate, but without the link to the Italian version (and someone that speaks Italian better than I do) it's hard to make a determination. However, since this is a BLP, it is probably more appropriate to include references by known experts (ie, notable theologians) that disagree with the subject, as opposed to editorial boards of various periodicals. Justin chat 07:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions Justin. I have to disagree with your qualification of the Italia Ortodossa. Simple Google search reveals everything about them:
Based on all above facts, how anyone can possibly put down the claim that article is "unreliable"? I see two possibilities:
Justin, please review above information I have provided. Also, let me remind you that you can use Babel Fish Translator at: http://babelfish.altavista.com in order to read the Italian text on those websites. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cebactokpatop ( talk • contribs) 17:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Cebactokpatop ( talk) 21:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I've just noticed that the article on Metropolitan John on Orthodoxwiki has had a similar discussion over the propriety of including this article from Italia Ortodossa, and that they also decided that the article was malicious and inappropriate for a BLP. [7]. Seminarist ( talk) 22:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/John Zizioulas —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cebactokpatop ( talk • contribs) 13:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I'm going to go over the page history and do my own research on the subject. Please give me the weekend to get this done. I want each of you to know that I have no background on this topic and therefore no axe to grind. I look forward to working with both of you to help resolve your issues.
Dorothy Dorothy Kernaghan-Baez ( talk) 04:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Since there is still disagreement over the content of the page, and since you have requested formal mediation, to which I have agreed, please do not make changes to the page which re-introduce material which is the subject of our disagreement. Particularly, please do not introduce material which speaks about 'traditional Orthodox' opinion. The informal mediation and myself agreed that this expression violated WP:WEASEL and WP:NPOV. Your edit summary, which claimed that your changes were in line with the recommendations of informal mediation, was therefore incorrect. Seminarist ( talk) 14:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
According to the official site of the Serbian Orthodox Church, 'the theology of St. Maximus the Confessor and the theology of Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) left the deepest impressions upon' Bp Ignjatije, who 'considers his meeting and friendship with John Zizioulas in and of itself a gift of God.' [9] I think this link provides the citation needed to show that Metropolitan John has indeed been influential upon Bp Ignjatije. Seminarist ( talk) 20:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Cebactokpatop,
I'm not sure why you placed a tag on the statement that Zizioulas is a noted theologian; I've already given a reference to a survey of Orthodox theology by Rowan Williams showing that is the case. Are you questioning the reference? Seminarist ( talk) 16:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what is happening in USA, but in Greece Zizioulas is considered one of the most important modern theologians (for professor Hristos Giannaras he is "the most important since
Gregory Palamas"), especially in the field of ecclestiastical history and history of doctrine, and some of his works are published by the official publishing house of the Orthodox Church of Greece. He is also a prominent member of the Academy of Athens, the most important cultural foundation of Greece--
Vassilis78 (
talk) 15:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Cebactokpatop implies above that the Metropolitan is a heretic. This is utter nonsense! He is very much a mainstream Orthodox theologian. And given that no Orthodox Church has even alleged heresy, much less proven it, the claim by Cebactokpatop is clearly a fringe opinion, at best. -- Allyne ( talk) 17:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Cebactokpatop ( talk) 18:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
No synod of bishops has accused, much less convicted, Metropolitan John of heresy of any kind. Unless and until that happens, Cebactokpatop's assertions are only his private opinions. -- Allyne ( talk) 20:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Could we start the informal mediation by looking at the statements which are currently tagged as lacking sources?
The first of which is "Zizioulas has also been significantly influenced by the ascetical theology of Archimandrite Sophrony (Sakharov)".
Are there references to support this statement? PhilKnight ( talk) 18:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Next, could we examine this statement?
Are there references which support this statement? Also, are there references that contradict this? PhilKnight ( talk) 23:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I think this is slanted. First, saying "his own" strikes me as insinuating he is trying to be innovative, rather than faithful to the Orthodox tradition. Second, Zizioulas understands himself to be basing his work on the Greek Fathers and not Greek philosophy (which he said the Fathers "leavened"). Third, "patristic era writings" sounds like he is basing his work on non-patristic sources from the same era. Fourth, what "modern rationalist philosophy"? -- Allyne ( talk) 01:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Cebactokpatop's remarks are ill-mannered and violate WP:CIVILITY and WP:ETIQ. I hope the mediator will ensure that the tone of the discussion returns to a civil level.
I agree with Allyne that no Orthodox Church has accused Zizioulas of heterodoxy. I would add also that, according to WP:NOR, even if Cebactokpatop gives his own reasons for thinking Zizioulas is heterodox, they cannot be included in the article, since wikipedia does not publish original research.
Beyond this, I agree that the sentence is flawed and should be replaced. Here are my reasons:
In the light of these reasons, I would suggest the following sentence as a replacement: 'Metropolitan John has sought to develop an ontology of personhood as a contribution to a Neopatristic synthesis.' Seminarist ( talk) 21:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Seminarist's proposed sentence. No, I was not building a case based on an abstract. The point of printing the abstract was to respond to the assertion that Papanikolaou's "whole article is about 'defence' of JZ's use of philosophy in his work... I would suggest you to read it before making any further statements." I've read the article and, as the abstract suggests, the article is written to correct a misreading of Zizioulas' use of the Cappadocians. Papanikolaou also does this in his Being with God, especially pages 154-159. Papanikolaou also points out that some of Turcescu's complaints against Zizioulas can be applied equally to Lossky, whom Cebactokpatop holds up as the true Orthodox alternative to Zizioulas. -- Allyne ( talk) 22:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Cebactokpatop ( talk) 00:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Based on the above references, I want to open new subtitle in the article named: "Non-christian and Heterodox Influences on his Thought", and add above citations. I will also provide influences on his work by French Catholic theologians Henri de Lubac and Yves Congar.
Cebactokpatop ( talk) 01:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
In response to these quotes:
But I think we need to keep on track. The issue is whether or not we should keep or modify the sentence "The primary focus of his work was to develop his own ontology of personhood derived from an extensive investigation of Greek philosophy, patristic era writings and modern rationalist philosophy." I don't see anything in the quotes provided by Cebactokpatop that makes me change my earlier view that the sentence is best reworded to 'Metropolitan John has sought to develop an ontology of personhood as a contribution to a Neopatristic synthesis.' This seems to me to be NPOV and to avoid the difficulties I mentioned above.
Seminarist ( talk) 01:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The citations Cebactokpatop gives don't prove his case. First, the mention of some Western philosophers does not suggest that the Papanikolaou's "whole article" is about defending Zizioulas' use of such philosophers. Second, he seems to think that the quotations establish that his thought is founded upon them; it is not. Third, he ignored Seminarist's point that Zizioulas is working on a Neo-patristic synthesis. Zizioulas interacts with several Western philosophers just as the Church Fathers interacted with philosophers such as Plato. Fourth, he is oblivious to the fact that Zizioulas addresses how Buber, et al, fall short of the patristic understanding of personhood. If his interaction with "non-Christian and heterodox influences" is somehow a bad thing and needs to be highlighted, then to be fair we will have to do that with most of the Church Fathers, as well as recent Orthodox theologians such as Lossky. -- Allyne ( talk) 02:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Here is information for a more complete listing of Zizioulas' books available in English including two that are forthcoming:
-- Allyne ( talk) 02:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Cebactokpatop seems to miss the point of the article by Marilynn Lawrence, which is Zizioulas' position that the use of Heidegger is problematic for Orthodox theology. She opines: "I can only wonder what the outcome of Heidegger's thinking would have been had he been confronted from the outset with a more authentic reading of the Church Fathers, such as that of Zizioulas." Yes, she says that Levinas is an influence on Zizioulas. But Papanikolaou sees Levinas is influential upon Zizioulas in his critique of Heidegger, i.e., a Jewish philosopher (Levinas) influences Zizioulas in his critique of a secular philosopher (Heidegger). Why Cebactokpatop should understand this as a criticism of Zizioulas eludes me. -- Allyne ( talk) 03:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
In the first chapter of Communion and Otherness, Zizioulas surveys 20th century Western thinking on personhood in Husserl, Heidegger, and Sartre, and then discusses how two Jewish thinkers – Buber and Levinas – make significant philosophical advances over them. However, he then goes on to show how both Buber and Levinas fall short of patristic thinking on personhood. He clearly sees Levinas as coming closest to the patristic understanding, but he points out how, e.g., Dionysius the Areopagite and St Maximus Confessor are superior to Levinas. The same is true of Macmurray, whom Zizioulas credits as having made an insightful critique of other Western views on personhood; he does not, however, base his own thinking of that of Macmurray. Interacting with non-Orthodox philosophers, and acknowledging what is worthwhile and what is deficient in their thinking when compared to the Church Fathers, is not a reason to criticize Zizioulas. The same criticisms have been made of Lossky. In neither case do they hit the mark. -- Allyne ( talk) 03:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Someone who says he is "traditional Orthodox" should be more concerned about how he treats others. The Church Fathers, the Fathers of the Philokalia, the New Testament writers (I'm thinking especially of St James and St Paul), and our Lord himself had some strong words to say against people who speak ill of their brother. That goes for how you speak to others in this forum, as well as how you speak ill of a bishop of the Church. If you are truly Orthodox, you will be praying the Lenten prayer of St Ephrem these days: "O Lord and Master of my life, give me not the spirit of sloth, idle curiosity/meddling, lust for power and idle talk. But grant unto me, Thy servant, a spirit of chastity, humility, patience and love. Yea, O Lord and King, grant me to see mine own faults and not to judge my brother. For blessed art Thou unto the ages of ages. Amen." Disagreement is one thing, but the spirit of that disagreement and its expression are another. -- Allyne ( talk) 13:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Cebactokpatop ( talk) 13:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Since other party does not want to caracterize the influences, we wil lhave to name them. I propose to replace word "rationalist" with names: Levinas, Buber, Macmurray, Pannenberg and Heidegger. Cebactokpatop ( talk) 13:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Cebactokpatop has been unable to provide any good reasons for maintaining the sentence as it is. It seems to me that the consensus is to replace it with 'Metropolitan John has sought to develop an ontology of personhood as a contribution to a Neopatristic synthesis.'
I suggest that at specific points where Zizioulas uses (to a significant extent) the work of the philosophers and theologians which Cebactokpatop has mentioned, we add mention of the fact where the article discusses those aspects of Zizioulas' thought. That will be more informative than a list of five or six names. Seminarist ( talk) 14:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I don’t know of any suggestion that Zizioulas uses any Greek philosophy other than that of the Church Fathers. His sources are the Cappadocian Fathers and St Maximus Confessor in particular. I’d suggest:
"Zizioulas has developed an ontology of personhood grounded in the work of the Cappadocian Fathers and St Maximus Confessor, but in dialogue with recent philosophers of personhood, particularly Emmanuel Levinas." -- Allyne ( talk) 18:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
All of the proposed is not precise enough, besides repeated attempt to minimize the influence that even Zizioulas himself admitted. Acceptable sentence would be: "The primary focus of his work was to develop his own ontology of personhood derived from an extensive investigation of Greek philosophy, patristic era writings and modern philosophers like: Levinas, Buber, Macmurray, Pannenberg and Heidegger."
In addition to that, references I supplied should be included after proper formatting as per Wiki's standards.
Cebactokpatop ( talk) 19:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I want to make a couple of comments here regarding the sentence we are considering.
Zizioulas' ontological thought is developed principally in the first two chapters of Being as Communion, and the paper 'Human Capacity and Incapacity' which has been reprinted in his new book Communion and Otherness.
Firstly, it is clear from this that Zizioulas' ontological thought is not only concerned with personhood, but also with being, existence, truth and history. Therefore we should not say that Zizioulas is only concerned with developing an ontology of personhood. This is only part of his ontological project.
Secondly, Zizioulas does not borrow ideas from classical Greek philosophy, but only ever criticises them. So we should not say that Zizioulas' position is based on classical Greek philosophy.
Thirdly, Zizioulas does not derive any theological notions from Heidegger, Levinas, Buber, Macmurray or Pannenberg. Rather, he sometimes accepts that they are correct on historical points; he sometimes agrees with criticisms they make of other philosophers; and he sometimes sees them as exemplifying positions which are (to a certain degree) harmonious with his own. There is nothing here that justifies saying that Zizioulas bases his theological ontology on these thinkers.
Beyond this, Zizioulas is explicit that his project is intended as a contribution to a Neopatristic synthesis. In Being as Communion, p. 26, Zizioulas says that his studies are 'intended to offer their contribution to a "neopatristic synthesis" capable of leading the West and the East nearer to their common roots, in the context of the existential quest of modern man.' To develop a neopatristic synthesis is not the same thing as developing one's own ontology of personhood on the basis of non-patristic thinkers. Therefore it would be wrong of us to characterise Zizioulas' project as developing such an idiosyncratic ontology of personhood.
Accordingly, in the light of the foregoing, I would like to propose the following sentence:
I hope this meets with agreement. Seminarist ( talk) 19:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
How about this? "Metropolitan John has developed "a relational ontology in which communion constitutes the key idea for ecclesioolgy as well as anthropology" (Communion and Otherness, xiii). His ontology draws particularly on the Cappadocian Fathers and St Maximus the Confessor, engaging aspects of the philosophy of Martin Heidegger, Martin Buber, and Emmanuel Levinas."-- Allyne ( talk) 20:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
No, what I quoted is from the Metropolitan's preface, not Williams' foreword. I think those suggestions are good. -- Allyne ( talk) 21:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Do make those changes. Email me sometime. -- Allyne ( talk) 21:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Certainly. Here's an idea: the opening paragraph of the 'theology' section could read something like:
Seminarist ( talk) 21:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I like that. My only question is whether to capitalize 'neopartistic.' Due to a hard drive crash, I've temporarily lost my access to the OED. -- Allyne ( talk) 21:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I just checked a couple of sources -- The Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern Christianity and A Companion to the Philosophy of Religion (also from Blackwell). Both references use lowercase. -- Allyne ( talk) 22:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok then - shall we say (I've changed a little of the phrasing):
? Seminarist ( talk) 22:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
That sounds good. As it happens, I just finished reading the following by Metropolian John: "The Holy Trinity and the imago Dei, two thoroughly patristic ideas which no existentialist or any other modern philosophy would use, are the only proper basis for theological personalism" (Communion and Otherness, 95n.).-- Allyne ( talk) 01:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Rejected. Cebactokpatop ( talk) 03:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
It should be clear to the moderators by now that Cebactokpatop is more concerned with insulting everyone who disagrees with him than with making any progress on this article. I humbly suggest that it is time to block him. -- Allyne ( talk) 13:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
A request for user comments has been created at [ [10]]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allyne ( talk • contribs) 15:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I’ve been re-reading the article by Turcescu. The first thing to say is that he never says anything outrageous about Zizioulas, i.e., he never accuses him of heterodoxy or heresy. Second, he never claims that Zizioulas’ views on personhood are mistaken. His claims are, rather, as stated succinctly in his conclusion: “Zizioulas is therefore in error when he contends that the Cappadocians did not understand a person as an individual or when he credits them with having the same concerns we moderns have when combating individualism today” (Turcescu, 537). Third, I think that Turcescu’s arguments are more than adequately answered by both Papanikolaou and Zizioulas himself (in Communion and Otherness, 171-177). -- Allyne ( talk) 19:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Requests_for_mediation/John_Zizioulas —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cebactokpatop ( talk • contribs) 19:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Seminarist. I've watched the mediation attempts here and think they have been unproductive. Priot to Cebactokpatop filing the request for formal mediation, Allyne requested a comments page on User Cebactokpatop. I think that is the way to go. -- Fr Lev ( talk) 21:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that appears to be the easiest way... "eliminate" me, and get open hands to applaud your guru Zizioulas in this place any way you like. Cebactokpatop ( talk) 12:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The anti-Zizioulas missionary pamphlet by Lazic may be found here. Seminarist ( talk) 23:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
How long before we can return to working on this page? -- Fr Lev ( talk) 17:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The book represents analysis of the various writings, interviews, statements, etc. of John Zizioulas, with the comments exposing heterodoxy of that man. Here are some examples taken out of the book (my poor translation into English):
Zizioulas wrote: "To be created means to be mortal, and creation is under constant threat of absolute annihilation. Death is characteristic of the creation." (Христологија и постојање I, стр. 179, 180); and further "...to be created means to incur the death as return to unbeing, to nothingness... The death is corporal part of the creation..." (Христологија и постојање II, стр. 125)
Mr. Lazic, in his response to the above statements, quotes Church fathers, at the same time, asking the question: If JZ is right, how possibly God could say after He finished the creation of the world: "God looked at what he had done, and it was good"?
Fathers Mr. Lazic quotes:
Almost the whole book is in that tone. He is using patristic writings to expose heterodoxy in the thought of John Zizioulas. The book can be "Anti-Zizioulas" to those who have no idea what Orthodoxy is all about. More precise definition of the book would be - the book puts the thought of John Zizioulas to the public shame in the world of real Orthodoxy.
Cebactokpatop ( talk) 19:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
This example taken out of the book of Mr. Lazic is dealing with the heterodox thought of JZ in relation to the homosexuality. In the interview, being asked about his opinion on the matter of homosexuality, JZ answered (my poor translation into English):
John Zizioulas said: "If homosexuality is considered as sin... The Church has to accept homosexuals. Of course, they will undergo transformation in the extent possible, as there are natural limitations which can not be overcome."
Mr. Lazic, in his response to the above statement after extensively quoting the Bible where homosexuality is clearly defined as sin, writes: "Metropolitan says 'IF homosexuality..' leaving the possibility that it is not a sin. What is it if it is not sin? Resolution to this question we find at the end of the answer, where Metropolitan talks about 'transformation to the extent possible', because of 'natural limitations..' Besides uncertainty of his answer, we can recognize in his thought that homosexuality is disease, perhaps incurable, as some limitations 'can not be overcome'... Such an opinion may share some contemporary psychiatrists and Metropolitan, but, Holy Scriptures and Holy Fathers - do not."
Cebactokpatop ( talk) 20:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
If you are going to provide a quote from Metropolitan John, it would be good to at least give the English title of the book it comes from, even if you don't have the English translation of it at hand. The quote you give is not given any context, and the conclusion Lazic and you draw from it is inconsistent with Metropolitan John's theology. -- Fr Lev ( talk) 19:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Sentences without context and containing ellipses are not adequate for evaluating someone's theology. -- Fr Lev ( talk) 20:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I don’t see anything in the quotation from Metropolitan John that is in disagreement with the Church Fathers that C says RL cites. Metropolitan John certainly believes that God called the creation God. He is clearly talking about creation after the Fall, when St Paul says death entered the world.
To say that “[a]lmost the whole book [of RL’s] is in that tone” is not a commendation. What has been presented thus far seems the worst kind of proof-texting that does a disservice to the Church Fathers, as well as to Metropolitan John.
As to C’s claim that RL’s book holds the Metropolitan up “to the public shame in the world of real Orthodoxy,” this is so far removed from reality that I don’t know how to answer it. -- Fr Lev ( talk) 01:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Cebactokpatop quotes from Zizioulas' paper Christology and Existence (originally published in Synaxi in 1982, then in French in Contacts in 1984-85, and now in English in Communion and Otherness).
Here is what Cebactokpatop quotes Zizioulas saying:
He then asserts that such a position is heterodox and that 'exposure' brings shame on Zizioulas.
Now, here is what Zizioulas actually says:
And immediately following this quote, Zizioulas quotes St Athanasius, saying exactly the same thing as Zizioulas:
From this, two things are clear:
Far from bringing shame on Zizioulas, any 'shame' arising from Cebcatokpatop's edits heap upon his own head. Unable to find any legitimate quotes showing Zizioulas to be heterodox, Cebactokpatop has to stoop to the depths of misquotation.
And if Cebactokpatop has misquoted Zizioulas once, I don't trust him not to do it again. Cebactokpatop has shown himself to be an untrustworthy source. No quotation provided by Cebactokpatop should be trusted without independent corroboration.
In future, Cebactokatop, please provide reliable quotes, which may be verified by other editors.
Seminarist ( talk) 02:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
His book I will be quoting from is printed by: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, Crestwood, New York, 2002, paperback.
Page 49-50: "The eternal survival of person as a unique unrepeatable and free "hypostasis", as loving and being loved, constitutes the quintessence of salvation, the bringing of the Gospel to man. In the language of he Fathers this is called "divinization" (theosis), which means participation not in the nature or substance of God, but in His personal existence. The goal of salvation is that the personal life which is realized in God should also be realized on the level of human existence. Consequently salvation is identified with the realization of personhood in man."
That passage is heterodox in several ways:
If we read more subsequent pages, up to page 65, we can easily find many confirmations to this conclusion. In those pages, we can find him taking about "dissolution and annihilation of the body", "disintegration of the hypostasis, which is death", etc. On page 52, we find another heterodox statement:
What does he tell us here? That Adam was bound to death even before his fall. That death was always present in the creation, and not something that entered this world as a result of our transgression. To the Orthodox, there is no need to explain how HETERODOX this thought of JZ is.
In all of those pages, between 49 and 65, JZ talks about tragedy of "biological hypostasis", perspectives of the new one (ecclesial hypostasis) acquired through Baptism, and third one he had to invent to "explain" how the two mentioned (also invented) relate to each other - eucharistic hypostasis. He talks many times about "body" and "eros" when he tries to explain how they can survive... but NOT a single word mentioning - THE SOUL! Mankind he invented has NO souls! Souls do not exist in his anthropology.
Two extremely heterodox finds in this short revision of several pages of his book:
Who preaches both of these heresies? Seventh Day Adventist cult.
Cebactokpatop ( talk) 02:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Cebactokpatop:
But in any case, your arguments cannot be included on the John Zizioulas page, since wikipedia does not allow original research.
Seminarist ( talk) 03:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Not true. In Othodoxy, "essence" and "substance" are synonims. Nature is something completely different. Zizoulas is aware of that when he says: "participation not in the nature or substance of God".
So much about your knowledge of Orthodox theology.
Cebactokpatop ( talk) 03:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I was talking about the Orthodox theological tradition and theologians such as St John of Damascus and Vladimir Lossky. Since even hyper-tradiionalists in Orthodoxy venerate these men as theologians, I think it is safe to say that Cebactokpatop is stepping outside of Orthodox tradition. His idea of responding to citations of texts from undisputed theological authorities is to say "heheheheh" and impugn motives. I'm glad the process has begun to block this fellow. He shouldn't be contributing to an encyclopedia. -- Fr Lev ( talk) 14:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Cebactokpatop, your claims are incorrect, and they now have strayed so far off course that they have nothing to do with the subject of the John Zizioulas article. It is clear that your arguments violate WP:NOR, and so could never merit inclusion in the article anyway. You are repeatedly rude and incivil; that is why Allyne, Fr Lev and I have posted an RfC concerning your conduct. Until such time as you become interested in making constructive edits to the John Zizioulas page, I don't see any reason to continue discussing with you.
Seminarist ( talk) 15:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
It is interesting that attention to language, which obsessed the Fathers, is dismissed here by Cebactokpatop. The Council of Nicaea, after all, was at loggergeads over one iota, yet the difference between homosousios (the Orthodox view) and homoiousios (the Arian view) makes all the difference in the world! What is also striking is the staggeringly false claim that Metropolitan John’s “thought is so obviously heterodox that Orthodox theologians do not feel a need to refute his writings.” Virtually everything I have read by Orthodox theologians about Metropolitan John has been very positive, be it Bishop Kallistos Ware, Christos Yannaras, Fr John Meyendorff, Fr Boris Bobrinskoy, Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos, Bishop Ignjatije Midić, Aristotle Papanikolaou, etc. Cebactokpatop is more interested in his partisan, polemical agenda than with accurate reporting. I give up. Moderators, help! I'm done responding to this. -- Fr Lev ( talk) 16:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I have named numerous Orthodox theologians who have spoken highly of Metropolitan John Zizioulas and his contributions to theology. Bishop Kallistos Ware of Oxford University is perhaps one of the best-known writers on Orthodoxy in the English-speaking world. Christos Yannaras is, along with Metropolitan John, perhaps the best-known Greek Orthodox theologian alive. Fr John Meyendorff, who wrote the introduction to Being as Communion, was a distinguished patristics scholar trained at the Sorbonne and was the dean of St Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary in New York. Fr Boris Bobrinskoy has been the rector of the St Sergius Orthodox Theological Institute in Paris. Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos of Greece is a highly regarded (and quite conservative) writer throughout Orthodoxy. Bishop Ignjatije Midić is a professor at the Serbian theological institute. Aristotle Papanikolaou is a professor at Fordham and author of a book-length study of Metropolitan John. And, of course, the Metropolitan remains a bishop in good-standing of the Patriarchate of Constantinople and an advisor to Patriarch Bartholomew.
All that Cebactokpatop offers is a polemical pamphlet in Serbian, a polemical article from an Italian magazine, a snarky comment from a Greek archbishop in Australia, and one academic article which, although disagreeing with Metropolitan John, draws none of the extreme conclusions of heterodoxy that Cebactokpatop does. There is no question here as to what the overwhelming academic consensus is. Cebactokpatop represents a very tiny minority of opinion within the Orthodox Church. More than that, his conduct on this page has been atrocious. His use of sources is either incompetent or deliberately misleading, and he refuses to deal with citations from authorities (such as St John of Damascus) when they say undermines his case. And, always, he is personally abusive to anyone who has the temerity to disagree with him. His behavior may be well-suited to pamphleteering and yellow journalism, but they do not conform either to the rules or the spirit of this encyclopedia project. -- Fr Lev ( talk) 19:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
More misleading information. As I said, Turcescu criticizes Metropolitan John but doesn't draw any extreme conclusions such as claiming Metropolitan John is heterodox. Peter Leithart writes a very positive article and thinks highly of the Metropolitan. Archbishop Chrysostomos and Hieromonk Patapios are part of a "resistance" Church that is not in communion with any of the ancient patriarchates, and this is also true of The Orthodox Christian Witness. These may be fine folks, but one cannot reasonably claim that they represent the Orthodox Church. One can, of course, take their position that the ancient patriarchates have all abandoned the Orthodox faith, but then it is clear how marginal a point of view this is. Fr John Behr is a professor at St Vladimir's and I don't believe for a moment that he believes the Metropolitan is heterodox. So the only "mainstream" authority he names is an Australian archbishop whose opinion is not shared by his own Patriarch or Patriarchate. He invokes mainstream people who do not share his (Cebactokpatop) views. This is his evidence that most" Orthodox theologians think the Metropolitan is heterodox! On the other hand, I quoted mainline Orthodox authorities. This is sad. -- Fr Lev ( talk) 21:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Now there is a Masonic conspiracy.... I think this conversation should be moved to a blog for Weekly World News or an urban legends site. -- Fr Lev ( talk) 22:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I have two suggested changes. First, apart from a first reference to Zizioulas as Metropolitan John of Pergamon, I think it would be appropriate to refer to him simply as “Zizioulas” in the article, in that it is not an ecclesiastical website.
Second, I think we should ad the following. If added, I will provide the footnotes citing references to both Being as Communion and Communion and Otherness.
-Critique of Western Philosophy of the Person- Although some critics of Zizioulas have suggested that the sources of his thinking on personhood are Western philosophers rather than the Church Fathers, a careful reading of his work shows that the opposite is the case. While acknowledging the contributions to philosophical anthropology by Edmund Husserl, John Macmurray, Martin Heidegger, Martin Buber, and Emmanuel Lévinas, Zizioulas is very specific in claiming that their philosophy of the human person is fundamentally inadequate. Moreover, he argues that this inadequacy can only be met by the patristic understanding of the person, particularly as developed by the Cappadocian Fathers. -- Fr Lev ( talk) 15:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Cebactokpatop has selectively cited Papanikolaou. If one reads the text, Papanikolaou notes that the same charge of being influenced by modern personalism has been made against Lossky, as well as Metropolitan John. Thus he cherry-picks a charge that Papanikolaou points out is made against Lossky, his sine qua non of Orthodoxy. And, of course, Papanikolaou acquits both theologians. He goes on to cite the differences between the Metropolitan and those modern philosophers and that, for the Metropolitan, only a Trinitarian theology that affirms the monarchy of the Father can provide an adequate theology of personhood. As Papanikolaou says, "[Zizioulas} and Lossky are no more superimposing a philosophical system on the Eastern patristic writers than did these same writers Hellenize the teachings of Jesus" (160). Metropolitan John and Lossky simply have done what the Fathers did -- "thinking about the authoritative texts of the tradition in light of the questions, challenges, and prevailing philosophical currents of their time" (ibid). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fr Lev ( talk • contribs) 01:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Metropolitan John precisely corrects all of the philosophers he cites, including Buber. No open-minded reader, i.e., no one who wasn't trying to grind a particular axe, could read what the Metropolitan has said about Buber and think otherwise. And to suggest that there is anything heterodox in the Buber quote is utterly absurd. The quote is, "Individuality makes its appearance by its differentiation from other individualities." This is nothing but the non-contoverisal claim that A is not B because A is not the same as B. -- Fr Lev ( talk) 19:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I meant to add that, whatever Turcescu says, Cebactokpatop is grossly misrepresenting St Gregory of Nyssa, who is quite aware of the danger of equating the two terms. Metropolitan John provides the textual evidence from St Gregory's Ex communibus notionibus that to say the Persons are three "individuals" as humans are, is a "misuse of language". St Gregory, therefore, specifies ways in which certain qualities cannot be predicated of the Divine Persons -- addition or diminution, alteration or change. more than one ontological cause (the Father), and any other properties or qualities except those of ontological relation (e.g., Father is Father, and not Son). This is not heterodox. To deny this, to claim that person must by synonomous with individual entails the conclusion that we confess three Individuals, and that is not simply heterodox, but heresy. In atempting to libel the Mteropolitan, Cebactokpatop leads himself into confessing heresy. -- Fr Lev ( talk) 19:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Turcescu criticizes the Metropolitan on the question of person versus individual by indicating that St Gregory of Nyssa sometime uses ἄτομον (atomon) “to express the notion of the person.” Of the Cappadocians, only St Gregory uses atomon as equivalent to hypostasis or prosopon. So one could stop here and say that only one of the Cappadocians followed a usage contrary to the Metropolitan’s reading. But that would still leave a misimpression. For if one thought that St Gregory was saying atomon as predicated of human persons could be predicated of divine persons simpliciter, we would be left with the heresy of tritheism. But St Gregory was not foolish, which is why he never said any such thing. The other Fathers (Cappadocian or otherwise) never run the risk of confusing someone (such as Turcescu and his fervent disciple, Cebactokpatop) by using atomon as equivalent to person. While we find the Orthodox confession of three hypostaseis or three prosopa, nowhere in Orthodox theology do we find the confession of three atoma. Thus Turcescu’s criticism of the Metropolitan’s refusal to equate atomon with either prosopon or hypostasis can only by employed in a defense of tritheism. While at no point on these pages has Cebactokpatop ever read someone else’s posts charitably, I will give him the benefit of the doubt and not infer that he is arguing for tritheism. And if I am right about his intent (I am no mind reader, as he pointed out), then he needs to consider revising his support of Turcescu’s argument. -- Fr Lev ( talk) 00:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I changes "a sizeable number" to "there are" unless and until an authoritative cite can quantify this. -- Fr Lev ( talk) 23:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)