Talk:Essence–Energies distinction (Eastern Orthodox theology)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Uncreated acts

I have read of uncreated energies and essences, but what about uncreated acts ? Since essences and energies are usually defined as pure act, could it be that the uncreated elements merely refer to uncreated acts ? ADM (talk) 02:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

OK whats dubious about V Lossky?

I came here to discuss the "dubious" citations tags made in the article. LoveMonkey (talk) 02:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Dubious passage on Aquinas

For Aquinas since God is simplistic and unchanging, God in concept lacks potential (dunamis in Greek). God according to Aquinas is pure energy or action. Therefore without potential, God not being dynamic (ever-changing), God as eternal, is without distinction between his actions in the world (called existence) and his essence.

There are numerous problems here:

1. What does "in concept" mean in the first sentence?

2. The passage equivocates between two senses of the term "dynamic". First it uses Greek dunamis in its ancient philosophical sense, to refer to potential. Then it uses English "dynamic" in its modern sense, to mean "ever-changing". Granted, if X is ever-changing, then X must have the potential to change. But X's dunamis in the sense of X's unrealized potential is still distinct from X's "dynamism" in the sense of X realizing its potential for change. Of course, the part about God not being "dynamic" could actually be cut out without damaging the logic of the argument. However, it's still an equivocation.

3. For Aquinas, God's existence is not his "actions in the world". God's existence is just that--his existence. When Aquinas says that God's existence is not distinct from his essence, he means that existing is an essential property of God; he means that God necessarily exists and cannot cease to exist. Granted, since Aquinas sees God as pure actuality, one could deduce that he would probably be opposed to the essence-energies distinction; however, I don't see how Aquinas's remarks about God's existence are directly relevant to the essence-energies distinction in Eastern Orthodoxy. Even if they are, the passage provides no quotes from a secondary source explaining how they are relevant; thus, the passage is original research.

--Phatius McBluff (talk) 19:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The above comments appear to still be valid. In particular, I agree with the last two sentences "I don't see how Aquinas's remarks about God'sexistence are directly relevant to the essence-energies distinction in Eastern Orthodoxy. Even if they are, the passage provides no quotes from a secondary source explaining how they are relevant; thus, the passage is original research." --Richard S (talk) 16:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Richard I did not comment on the previous comments because the editor may not understand what Wikipedia is. However Richard you like reminding people of what Richard says wikipedia is. So I will CORRECT you. I don't care what you think. Notice how I am not saying things from my own opinion. At best I summarizes and or try to come up with an overview of another sources opinion. Richard really needs to show good faith as this comment above appears sarcastic as do his hypocritical behavior in treating Esoglou differently then me under other articles like the Greek Orthodox term theosis article. As Richard just removed from the article a section header and section I created based on a book called Aristotle East and West which covers from the perspective of an E/O philosophy Professor what enegeria (energy) and syngergeia (synergy) are East (Aristotle, E/O) and West (Aquinas, RCC). (Did Richard do that to be funny, since when is it OK to blanket delete over style rather then rewrite). Wikipedia policy tells Richard to use the Copyedit template not delete. SARCASM anyone???? Richard here is denying what specific Orthodox theologians have said. Not what I have said. All of this appears to me being Richard not acting in good faith. As much of what this previous editor notes, was already clarified in the article Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theological differences. If Richard would like he can take a flight to Athens Greece and argue with Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos) of Nafpaktos. No one is stopping you. As the article Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theological differences was created by Richard. Maybe Richard should go back in good faith and start reading as he is asking people to restart a whole set of edit wars on this article that have already occurred on that article (again the article that Richard created). However Richard's poor excuse of I don't have time or the energy does not absolve him from the policies here at Wikipedia. And if Richard reads the article and still can't seem to see since he seems to be suffering from some sort of selective memory or some sort of POV that blinds him to what has already been covered, while he was present at that other set of incidents, then we will need to escalate this. Because Richard has already had this and the other complaints that he has noted addressed in other articles in the past. And his comments appear to be critical and almost sarcastic considering what Richard has already been involve in. And being sarcastic and or engaging in selective memory and or stepping up to bat for his pal Esoglou is not going to change what is already archived here on wikipedia. Richard needs to accept that if he criticizes he can be criticized. Considering the months I have given in ironing out this Aquinas issue under the other mentioned article that Richard created. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring much of the histrionics and invective above, I do wish to respond that what is being characterized as "selective memory" and/or "stepping up to bat for ... Esoglou" is not at all my intent here. I came here because I wanted to be sure I was on solid ground in making some assertions over at Talk:Theosis. I had avoided reading this article in the past because I figured I understood the basic concept and didn't want to get bogged down in the details.

What I found when I got here was another article with significant flaws in it. Not necessarily theological flaws which, even if they do exist, would not be appropriate to be concerned with since our job is to report the theology, not critique it. I'm talking about flaws in organization, grammar and diction. There are also what I perceive to be flaws in clarity of presentation. It may be that these flaws are only due to my own ignorance of the subject matter. I do not claim to be knowledgeable in theology, Orthodox or even Catholic theology. However, some part of these articles should be accessible to the average layman with minimal knowledge of theology viz. the lead section and the intro to each major subsection. I do not think we have achieved that with this article.

If the answers to my questions in other sections of this Talk Page can be readily arrived at by reading sections of this Talk Page or other Talk Pages, I am amenable to being given links to those sections. I am just unwilling to wade through gobs and gobs of contentious bickering to arrive at an understanding of these issues. WP:TLDR applies here.

--Richard S (talk) 20:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggest we drop discussion of this text, which is no longer in the article. 18:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Esoglou, I think the end of Phatius' 3rd point is still valid viz. "Granted, since Aquinas sees God as pure actuality, one could deduce that he would probably be opposed to the essence-energies distinction; however, I don't see how Aquinas's remarks about God's existence are directly relevant to the essence-energies distinction in Eastern Orthodoxy. Even if they are, the passage provides no quotes from a secondary source explaining how they are relevant; thus, the passage is original research."

The current text still says nothing about how Aquinas' teaching about existence and essence are related to the Orthodox concept of "essence-energies distinction". Admittedly, it's not a very big leap to infer from this that Aquinas "would probably be opposed to the essence-energies distinction" but it is a bit of a leap and we should be explicit if only because it forces us to move away from use of Aquinas as a primary source and towards use of secondary sources that explicitly say that Aquinas' teaching is or is not related to the Orthodox concept of "essence-energies distinction". We already have Orthodox sources that say that it is. Do we have Catholic sources that make the linkage?

Because Aquinas predates Palamas by over half a century, he could not have opined on Palamas' theology. However, we could look for a Catholic source that uses Aristotle and Aquinas to attack Palamas. If we could find that, then we would have established a clear linkage between Aquinas and Palamas that does not require the reader to make a leap.

--Richard S (talk) 20:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

You are right. I agree. Esoglou (talk) 20:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The only solution to this debate is to find a secondary source. Does any secondary source explicitly say that Aquinas's identification of God's essence with God's existence rules out a distinction between essence and energies? If so, then let's put it in. The closest that I can find is this: "It is to be noted that the philosophic opponents of Hesychasm always borrow their weapons from St. Thomas Aquinas and the Western Schoolmen. They argue, quite in terms of Latin Aristotelean philosophy, that God is simple; except for the Trinity there can be no distinctions in an actus purus. This distinct energy, uncreated light that is not the essence of God, would be a kind of demiurge, something neither God nor creature; or there would be two Gods, an essence and an energy."[1] However, this source doesn't really focus on Aquinas; it simply says that Western theologians assumed that God was absolutely simple and therefore could not be divided into essence and energies. Perhaps, instead of focusing on Aquinas, we should simply note that medieval Western theologians, upon encountering the essence-energies theory, tended to reject it on the grounds that God is absolutely simple. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 20:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I like that. If you want to put it in the article, please feel free to do so. Otherwise, I'll try to get around to it when I have more time. I have already spent waaaay too much time on Wikipedia for today. --Richard S (talk) 21:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

On Phatius's final observation also I agree. Mention Aquinas only as an example of the then prevailing Aristotle-based metaphysics that was a tool used by Latin theologians of the time. Remember the old statement by old Fortescue: "Latin theology on the whole was too deeply impregnated with the Aristotelean Scholastic system to tolerate a theory that opposed its very foundation." But of course Aristotelean metaphysics has not been canonized by the Roman Catholic Church and, as has also been mentioned, there are Roman Catholic theologianss who have incorporated the distinctions of Palamas into their own thinking. Roman Catholicism has room for both anti-Palamites and pro-Palamites. Esoglou (talk) 21:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Roman Catholic perspective

I have commented out the section titled "Orthodoxy and Scholasticism" on the grounds that it reads more as if it were a paraphrase of something written by Romanides or Lossky. This would be inappropriate because it leads the reader to infer that Wikipedia accepts and endorses such views. Wikipedia should report on what a view is without endorsing or rejecting it. This is the essence of NPOV. We may well wish to make the points that are covered in this section; however, we must do so by attributing those opinions to Romanides (or whoever) that are his. If we make an assertion without attribution, it must be unchallengeable (e.g. we could say "Romanides is an Orthodox theologian who castigates the Western Church for its heretical doctrines." That assertion needs a reference but does not need an inline attribution.

Assertions like "THe use of the syllogism by Aquinas has the potential to be viewed by the East as speculative" is an opinion disguised as a fact. First of all it's weaseling. Anything has the potential to be viewed as speculative; whether it is viewed that way or not requires a "yes or no" assertion. If it is viewed that way, then say so. If not, then the whole sentence is meaningless. Next, we need to answer the question "WHO views it as speculative"? This sort of problem exists throughout the section that I commented out.

--Richard S (talk) 22:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Accusations of hypocrisy

[2] Why don't you email John he's available through the blog.. Maybe you can tell him to stick it in his ear like you told me? [3] LoveMonkey (talk) 19:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Because John isn't asking me to spend my time poring over edit histories to look for violations of WP:3RR. You do not come off well whining about somebody edit-warring over the 3RR line when you are the "whoa, stop before I cross the 3RR line partner in crime". Nonetheless, you got the proof, you got the place to report it (WP:3RRNB). Go for it. --Richard S (talk) 19:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC) [NB: This comment was expanded from its original --Richard S (talk) 20:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)]

You got proof of incivility report it, oh looks like what happen to you happens whenever I post that 3rr complaint on Esoglou. Nothing. BTW I post it in a nice section that you ignored [4] and I never asked you to pour over it or stick it in your ear. Only read what people have already said rather then assume that your questions have not been answered and that people should stop and take the time to go an answer them YET AGAIN. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I reported your personal attack as a Wikiquette alert because it says there "don't post a report here if what you want is a block". If I want a block to be imposed, the appropriate place to request it is WP:ANI. Are you arguing that I should have gone to WP:ANI and asked for a block? If I had, I might have gotten a response but I'm not sure you really wanted that.

As for reporting Esoglou for violating 3RR, you could do that and he would probably draw a warning from an admin but not a block. The problem here is that blocks are meant to preventative, not punitive. In other words, if there is an edit war in progress, and someone crosses the 3RR line, an admin can block them as a means of putting an end to the edit war. When I was an admin, I strongly preferred protecting the page as a means of stopping an edit war. Blocks tend to be taken personally and my attitude was that it was better to employ a more impersonal mechanism for stopping the edit war. Since that particular edit war is 4 days old, I doubt an admin would do anything about it except to slap Esoglou's wrist and say "Don't do that again". Of course, as I've pointed out to you, a user can be blocked even without crossing the 3RR line. A history of edit-warring can lead to a block as long as the block is preventative, not punitive.

--Richard S (talk) 20:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Excuses excuses excuses. Why is Richard even on this article? How is this article in the scope of what Richard has to offer as his set of expertize that he is knowable about. It is not. Richard is here because of Esoglou. And I'll bet that Richard will not admit that. Nor address it. LoveMonkey (talk) 21:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

My primary "set of expertise" is my ability to read English and differentiate between an atrocious sentence (or non-sentence) and a fairly well-written one. I also have some ability to detect non sequiturs and other examples of prose that does not flow well. On occasion, I can even spot a logical fallacy. I claim no expertise in theology and an almost abject ignorance of Orthodox theology. --Richard S (talk) 22:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

See there ya go. Source this source that no I don't care to read nor will I. I expect this and you better do that, but I don't have to. See. Richard can't answer those questions because they would expose why Richard is on this article and those intentions are not considered valid here at Wikipedia. However Richard will ask me to explain to him everything about this that he doesn't understand but is editing on this article about it. When I don't have to, because neither he nor Esoglou should be editing on this article, at best they could argue they can edit on the Roman Catholic section but they even edit war and argue over that. LoveMonkey (talk) 22:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Incivility vs. personal attack

There's been plenty of incivility thrown around these Orthodox/Catholic Talk Pages. I have a certain editor in mind as being the worst offender and the identity of that editor can easily be established by reviewing the Talk Page.

However, IMO, there is a difference between incivility and a personal attack. It is perhaps a fine line but I see it as the difference between saying "the sentence you wrote is moronic" and "you are a moron". The difference between "your assertion is wrong" and "you are a liar". Calling someone "lazy" is arguably a personal attack but saying that he was lazy because he didn't do something (like read a source) is more uncivil than a personal attack. Calling someone "totally mentally incompetent" is a personal attack but so ridiculous an insult that only a moron would take offense at it so it's not really that much of a personal attack. Calling someone a liar, on the other hand, can be truly offensive and should not be done. As they might say in Texas, "Them there is fighting words."

If we can't find a way to be civil to each other, let us at least eschew the personal attacks as they can turn an editing environment already made yucky and unpleasant by incivility into one that is truly hostile.

Too bad that I should have to be saying this on Christmas Eve.

--Richard S (talk) 20:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

O yeah that and these other uncivil statements of your own Richard. [5], [6] I have never been that uncivil to anyone Christmas or not. Including you or Esoglou. Typical edit warring nonsense. You go read it and you then prove it to me. And then I'll argue with you that I don't like it and try and undermine sources. Thats whats meant by WP:OWN. And that is exactly what Wikipedia is not. LoveMonkey (talk) 21:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

A more moderate and more mainstream Western Orthodox source

There should be an more centered and less "conservative" perspective in this article. As such I have added the moderate and more ecumenical (well more middle of road and respectful to both East and Western traditions) of Professor David Bradshaw. Enough with the same old shoving down peoples throats the nonsense of conflict. I think that his position is a very good center ground that both East and West can use to common ground. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

A new and refreshing attitude considering the history of these articles. I commend the change in attitude and would hope for it to continue. Unforunately, the section is poorly written and awkwardly positioned in the flow of the article. I've commented it out for now (in truth, I didn't realize it was a new section until I saw this Talk Page comment). Can we work on a way to integrate this material into the article in a way so that it doesn't stick out like a sore thumb? --Richard S (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I will say my attitude is a reflection of my experience. I will say your latest set of edits appear to reject my contributions. You have made comments that reflect that you are not here in good faith as you remove Professor Bradshaws section without discussion here on the talkpage. Richard is not a theologian nor has Richard studied Orthodox theology. But here is Richard attacking what is in the article. Using double talk to say how good something is that he removed from the article. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I am only attacking what is in the article because I don't understand it. I am not saying the theology is wrong. I'm just saying the exposition of the theology is unclear. Are you writing these articles only for Orthodox readers or only for Orthodox theologians? If so, there is an OrthodoxWiki for that (as you know). If you are writing for a more general audience, it would help if the arguments were presented clearly and concisely and in simple enough terms that a person with only a modicum of exposure to theology can understand it. (Actually, I suspect the OrthodoxWiki appreciates those qualities as well). I assert that, if I don't understand it, 90% of readers won't understand it either. Let's not forget that our goal is to serve the reading audience.--Richard S (talk) 20:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

LoveMonkey, I don't think that Richard's remark "A new and refreshing attitude considering the history of these articles" was specifically directed at your attitude. I think it was a more general remark about the usual attitudes about the East-West theological divide. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 17:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Why hello Phatius. Good to see you back here. I can only try and call em as I see em. As for what you have said. It is not that we moderates are not trying. But everyone knows better so it becomes a game of the same old tired partisans. I can not speak to your experience. Only mine. I am so tired of their tired old dialog. The church is not to be, have worldly power as whatever government in place has that duty. There can be no Pope (as the head of the church or stand in for Christ) in the East nor Aquinas, revelation is not something one gets a degree in. P.S. I hope that it is understood for one to be called a philosopher or Aristolean for example to a E/O is an insult a sign of weakness. I hope Phatius takes the time to read Bradshaw not to like or dislike (I don't care) but at least to understand. [7] LoveMonkey (talk) 18:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Also Phatius please confirm...You agree with Richard removing Bradshaw from the article? As I created just a starting point that could be covered here on the talkpage and used as a current now today look at Orthodox theological understanding East and West. Also the West's Aristotle is rejected by the modern Greek Philosophers in Greece as anyone who has read Constantinos Athanasopoulos for example can validate. This is a Greek Orthodox theological article not a philosophy one. The limit is to what extent philosophy informed or relates to this and thats all. "A fig for your fine Aristotle." google that Phatius. Ha better yet [8]. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Hard to see moderation and not "shoving down people's throats the old nonsense of conflict" in what is written immediately above but maybe it reads differently in Greek.

(edit conflict)

Thanks for the assumption of good faith, Phatius. Unfortunately, I was specifically commenting on LoveMonkey's general attitude towards these topics. In the past, he has focused on less moderate, less ecumenical views that have asserted an irreconcilable incompatibility between East and West (e.g. Romanides and Lossky). We have also been led to believe that these views represent the view of the Orthodox Church without any suggestion that there might be multiple views (e.g. hard-liners vs. moderates). I have never claimed to be a theologian, let alone knowledgeable in Orthodox theology. I was just surprised (nay, even shocked) at the hardline positions that have been presented in a number of articles over the past couple of years. I very earnestly and sincerely welcome the inclusion of more moderate views.

That said, I didn't "delete the text without discussion on the Talk Page". My explanation is immediately above. (See WP:BRD)

First of all, it's not doubletalk to welcome a new spirit and attitude of moderation while rejecting poorly written text offered in that praiseworthy attitude. I didn't remove the text from the article because I objected to its content. I removed it because it was "poorly written and awkwardly positioned in the flow of the article". I'm not objecting to having Bradshaw's POV inserted in the article. I just don't think it is expressed clearly and I don't understand what point is intended to be made by the text in question.

--Richard S (talk) 18:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

First of all you don't blanket delete thats bad faith. You post a copyedit template. You BRD when the contribution is nonsubstative not when you dislike the style. Nothing was or is stopping Richard from rewriting the passage. And as long as you post it here first and we agree (thats wiki talk for collaborating) theres no reason to believe it will get justly reverted. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I didn't "blanket delete". I commented out the text with an explanation in the edit summary AND the commented out section why I was doing it. That's not bad faith, that's collaboration.

Re BRD, you were bold, I reverted, now we are discussing. That is the WP:BRD model. You reverted my commenting out of the section. That's the first step to edit-warring, an invitation which I will decline although it galls me to have another flaw introduced into this article which already has plenty of areas which need improvement. You may wish to consider reading WP:ROWN. I find 0RR a difficult approach to follow but 1RR is pretty good and I try to stick to that more often than not.

You have intimated here and in another section on this Talk Page that I should rewrite the section or put up a {{copyedit}} template. The problem is that I can't rewrite or copyedit the section because it's pretty nigh upon incomprehensible. I don't understand what meaning is intended and the Google Books link only provides snippets from which it would be risky to attempt an accurate reconstruction of Bradshaw's argument. If the Google Books link provided a preview, I would at least attempt to read and synopsize Bradshaw's argument but that is just impossible given only snippets. Look, if you want this content inserted and you don't want it to look downright stupid, then you need to do the "heavy lifting" and adequately synopsize Bradshaw's position for us. You don't seem to have had any problem doing it for Romanides and Lossky so why not spend a little effort and do it for Bradshaw as well? (There, how's that for a civil alternative to calling someone "lazy"?) --Richard S (talk) 19:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

An apology is due here... I mistook the Google Books link for a "snippets only view". It appears that it is actually a series of results which have links to the actual pages in "preview mode". Thus, it is possible to read Bradshaw's book online. I'm not guaranteeing how much of it I myself will read but I did want to acknowledge that I had too hastily dismissed the link as "snippets only". --Richard S (talk) 20:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Phatius should ignore you. As you verging on beligent in your incivility.[9] protecting Esoglou's disruptive behavior..As I have never said anything even close to the incivility that you have shown me, AGAIN. [10]. You admit in the edit summary that your going to engage in hypocrasy and I should stick my complaint in my ear. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Gee... if I had said that you should stick your complaint in your ear, that would have been relatively civil. What I meant was that you should stick a certain part of your anatomy in your ear (if that is physically possible). So report me to WP:WQA if you wish. --Richard S (talk) 20:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Reply to LoveMonkey: I have no opinion about Bradshaw, since I haven't read him yet. Just to clear up a possible misunderstanding, I'm neither a Roman Catholic nor a Thomist (despite my interest in those subjects). I just stepped in here because I thought you had misinterpreted Richard's comment. I will now step out, because I have no opinion on this debate. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 20:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

You are a good soul Phatius. Thank you. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Eastern Orthodox perspective (organization of section needs work)

The organization of the Level 2 section titled "Eastern Orthodox perspective" needs work. First of all, it consists of only one Level 3 subsection titled "The Immanence and Transcendence of God". In general, sections that have only one subsection are not a good idea. The only situation where one might want to do this is if the section has a substantial intro and then a substantial singleton subsection. Even then, it's not a great idea but it might be acceptable in such a situation. The current section has no such intro and so one wonders why we need the Level 3 subsection titled "The Immanence and Transcendence of God" which itself has no introductory text either. Is it intended that there might be additional Level 3 subsections? If not, I would propose deleting that subsection title and promoting all the Level 4 subsections to Level 3.

Also, there is a Level 5 subsection heading titled "1.1.1.2 Eastern Orthodox views". This is very strange in a section that is already titled "Eastern Orthodox perspective". Is it intended that there be other subsections on views outside the Orthodox Church (e.g. the view of the Catholic Church?) Doing that would be strange since the entire section is supposed to be about the "Eastern Orthodox perspective". The subsection should be retitled.

NB: Level 4 and Level 5 subsections should be avoided as much as possible. The article outline should help the reader navigate the article. Too many levels makes the outline get in the way of reading rather than helping. --Richard S (talk) 19:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

OK could an editor here on Wikipedia whom has a good working knowledge of the subject please come to the article and make the suggested changes as Richard has shown bad faith and engaged in incivility and hostility towards other editors (and members of the Eastern Orthodox) here on wikipedia.[11] As such Richard can not be trusted to edit this article. As Richard has claimed that he is ignorant of the subject matter and is not a member of the Eastern Orthodox church. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

On the claiming to know the Essence of God as heresy

Why is the Roman Catholic section lacking the argument of Pope Benedict the XII and his claiming that Pope John XXII had engaged in heresy over his rejection of experiencing the essence of God. As Benedict's reputation of not only John but also the Armenians whom where seeking reconciliation with Rome. For claiming that one can not experience the essence of God even after death? How is it that someone of them Popes could have been infallible cause one of the bunch is or appears to be wrong. LoveMonkey (talk) 21:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

You got secondary sources to back up these assertions, put them in the text. As for Papal infallibility, perhaps you should read the article. Most notably, consider the instances of papal infallibility. --Richard S (talk) 22:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Now theres that hypocrasy I was talking about. Here Richard tells me to read about something. While claiming he just doesnt have the time or energy to do so himself. LoveMonkey (talk) 22:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, Pope John XXII did not actually reject the idea that the blessed would one day experience the essence of God. He simply claimed that that experience would not occur until after the universal judgment. Pope Benedict XII declared that the blessed see God's essence immediately upon entering heaven.

I don't think papal infallibility is an issue here, because it applies only to instances where popes explicitly define something as a doctrine. Pope John XXII never explicitly declared that everyone must believe in his view, so Catholics don't have to think that his view is infallible. In contrast, Pope Benedict XII did formally declare it a doctrine that the blessed see God's essence (in the encyclical Benedictus Deus[12]), so after that, it became a doctrine that the blessed see God's essence immediately upon entering heaven. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 23:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

That's really helpful. I think we should put it in the text. I imagine that there is an implication that only the blessed see God's essence and only when they enter heaven. However, unless they stated that explicitly, I suppose there is room left open for some faithful to see God's essence while here on earth through hesychasm. --Richard S (talk) 23:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Very Good Phatius. So from your perspective do the Eastern Orthodox believe dogmatically to teach that those that say they can EVER see the essence of God are heretics? LoveMonkey (talk) 17:17, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

POV Whitewashing and removal of sources critical of Roman Catholic position

This article has been white washed by Roman Catholic POV pushing editors whom are editwarring in order to remove positions expressed that show the history of this type may put them in a bad light. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

God's existences (plural)

I leave it to others to consider whether it is good Eastern Orthodox theology to attribute (in Essence–Energies distinction#The existences of God) a number of existences to God and to present both the Son and the Holy Spirit as "God's hands that created the finite or material world". Has the Greek word "hypostasis", whose use in Trinitarian theology corresponds to the use of the English word "person" in the same context, been perhaps confused with the Greek word "hyparxis"? I express no view myself. Much the same applies to the expression "The realities of God" in the following section, rather than speaking of the reality of God. Esoglou (talk) 07:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

None? Now Esoglou is condemning the Orthodox theology of St Irenaeus and his refutation of Orthodox Christianity against the Paganizing that the West calls Gnosticism. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

PS Esoglou is also attacking V. Lossky AGAIN. So now that Esoglou has edit warred on the following articles filioque, Roman Catholic-Eastern Orthodox theological differences, East West Schism, theoria, theosis. Boy Esoglou just hates the philokalia. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks on me will not make me abandon my neutral position on this question. Esoglou (talk) 18:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Pointing out that Esoglou has a history of POV pushing on and misrepresenting Orthodox theological positions on various articles is not an attack it is only reflecting on the documented history of Esoglou's edit warring behavior over that spectrum of articles here on Wikipedia. Esoglou should read the Eastern Orthodox works of Lossky before attempting to censor and or silence or disregard them out of hand. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I notice that Yannaras speaks not of "existences" of God, but of "personal existences" of God, the ways in which God exists as a person or persons. That seems different from speaking of God's "existences" in an absolute sense. When not speaking explicitly about the persons, as for instance on the top of page 42, the start of the section "c. Natural Energies", Yannaras uses the singular and speaks of God's "existence", not his "existences". Esoglou (talk) 16:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The existences of God

When I confess to being a stumbler vis-a-vis theology, this is the sort of stuff that I quickly get lost in. Nonetheless, Esoglou raises some interesting points. Let's look at the text, line-by-line:

God as infinite and hyper-being (as existent) is called the Father (hypostasis)[24] as origin of all things created and uncreated.[25] God's hands that created the finite or material world are the uncreated existences (hypostases) of God named the Son (God incarnate Jesus Christ) and God immaterial and in Spirit (called the Holy Spirit).[26] Since all of the existences of God as well as all things derive from the Father. What is uncreated as well as created also too, comes from God the Father (hypostasis).[27] The God as uncreated in ousia is infinite and is therefore beyond (not limited to) being or existence.[7] The ousia of God is uncreated and is a quality shared as common between the existences of God. This in Eastern Christianity is called hyper-being, above being (hyperousia).[28][29]

• "God as infinite and hyper-being is called the Father (hypostasis)"
  • Well, I'm not sure the Catholics would identify the Father solely as being "infinite" because this suggests that God the Son and God the Holy Spirit is finite. This sounds strange to my Catholic ears.
  • Also, saying "God as hyper-being is called the Father" suggests that hyper-being applies only to the Father but hyper-being is later defined as hyperousia which presumably is the difference between essence (ousia/hyperousia) and energies. Or am I totally confused here?

• "God's hands that created the finite or material world are the uncreated existences (hypostases) of God named the Son and God immaterial and in Spirit."
  • So this sentence reduces to "God's hands are the uncreated existences of God named the Son and God (the Spirit)"
  • This argues that the finite or material world was created by God the Son and God the Spirit
  • I'm unfamiliar with this view of creation. I understand that "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was God" but I'm still unconvinced that God the Son and God the Spirit are the creators of the material world. Is this Eastern Orthodox theology? Once again, sounds strange to my Catholic ears.

• "What is uncreated as well as created comes from God the Father (hypostasis)"
  • The juxtaposition of "hypostasis" in parentheses and "God the Father" suggests that the two are equivalent. But "God the Father" is just one of the "Three Hypostases in one Ousia". It's not clear to me what purpose the word "hypostasis" has in this sentence and I think the meaning relative to "God the Father" needs to be clarified. If the parenthetical text read "one of the three hypostases of God", it would be clearer.

• "The God as uncreated in ousia is infinite and therefore beyond (not limited to) being or existence."
  • As written, this is unobjectionable except that it seems to suggest that the hypostases of God are finite and limited which, for my theologically naive understanding, sounds really strange. I suppose one can make an argument that anything that exists is somehow "finite" and that therefore the hypostases of God are therefore "finite" whereas the ousia/hyperousia of God is infinite. I don't think the Catholics think this way but I could be wrong. I am not well-versed in theology.

• "This in Eastern Christianity is called hyper-being, above being (hyperousia)"
  • First of all, there are three words/phrases here: "hyper-being", "above being" and "hyperousia". Are the three equivalent? I think they are. If I have understood the intent of the sentence, then the sentence is poorly written because the equivalence of the three is unclear.

--Richard S (talk) 17:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not going to read for you. If you want sourcing add the citations. And this is nothing more then edit warring. Go to the store and buy a copy of Vladimir Lossky and read it for yourself. [13] LoveMonkey (talk) 21:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

A very obvious attempt to bring Esoglou policy abuse and edit warring behavor to this article.

First Richard needs to request and IP check on me and Cody. They he needs to go ask Cody about these things above. As Cody can and I am most positive will provide sourcing. But if Richard was actually reading sources or had any training in Eastern Orthodoxy theology this all would be first day of class stuff. Richard is ignoring sourcing and or then arguing over what those sources say, just like Esoglou because he is now pushing a POV and wars over what he does not like and whatever source happens to have said it. LoveMonkey (talk) 21:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I have indeed asked Cody for assistance and he has graciously provided some answers to my questions although not to all of them. FWIW, LoveMonkey may wish to read Wikipedia:CheckUser. If he understood Wikipedia policy concerning the use of IP checking, he would not suggest its use in unwarranted circumstances. There needs to be very strong evidence that two users are operating as socks before a Checkuser will be performed. I have never had any suspicion whatsoever that Cody and LoveMonkey were socks of the same person. I don't think anybody has ever suggested that. --Richard S (talk) 17:19, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be quite ridiculous to suggest that LoveMonkey and Cody are the same person. Apart from the fact that Cody is in Romania (as his Google Books citations demonstrate) and LoveMonkey is, if I remember right, in Tennessee and (although he has called himself a Greek Orthodox) seems to have shown, by his earlier difficulties in using the definite article, that his first language is a Slavic one) - apart from all that, they are two very different characters. Esoglou (talk) 17:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Despicable nonsense. How can I be against something I have asked you to do? Esoglou has already been accused and caught having puppet accounts on Wikipedia. I suggested what I did to make sure that it is clear I am NOT doing the same type of edit warring. I suggest also that Esoglou remove his accidental WP:OUTING attempt as that will do well to get him banned. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The realities of God

I also have some confusion about this section...

It is also taught that there are three distinct realities of God. There is the hypostases of God in existence; Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Second there is the essence, nature, substance, being of God as ousia that confirms that each hypostasis of God is God, as only God is uncreated. God is uncreated as infinite, God is uncreated as logos, God is uncreated as immaterial Spirit, life, consciousness. There finally is God as the energies (uncreated and supernatural) activities of God in the created world as well as the created world itself i.e. love, beauty, faith, good, kindness, truth, humility and wisdom.[31]

So... it seems we are saying that there are "three distinct realities of God", of which the three hypostases are only one reality. The essence (ousia) is a second reality and then the energies (energeia) are yet a third reality. I am familiar with the concept of hypostasis and ousia but the word "reality" is new to me in the context of theology. Is there a Greek word that is used for this concept?

• "Second there is the essence, nature, substance, being of God as ousia that confirms that each hypostasis of God is God, as only God is uncreated. God is uncreated as infinite, God is uncreated as logos, God is uncreated as immaterial Spirit, life, consciousness."
  • I have problems with this sentence at several levels.
  • First of all, how is it exactly that the essence of God "confirms" that each hypostasis of God is God?
  • Second what is the role of the phrase "as only God is uncreated"? The ousia is uncreated and the hypostases are also uncreated but what exactly is the logical inference that is being made here? It sounds like "Because the ousia is uncreated and is God, and because the hypostases are also uncreated, therefore the hypostases are also God because only God is uncreated". Once again, I am poorly trained in philosophy and theology but this syllogism seems wrong to me. Or specifically, the premise that "God is uncreated" and that the assertion that "the hypostases are uncreated" are unobjectionable but the logical connection (i.e. inference) between the ousia being uncreated and the hypostases being uncreated is unclear to me. Moreover, I don't see why we need to be making this point at all.
  • Thirdly, why do we need to repeat "God is uncreated as infinite, God is uncreated as logos, God is uncreated as immaterial Spirit, life, consciousness." here? Didn't we just say that (or something to that effect) in the section immediately preceding (the one titled "The existences of God")?

• "There finally is God as the energies (uncreated and supernatural) activities of God in the created world as well as the created world itself i.e. love, beauty, faith, good, kindness, truth, humility and wisdom."
  • OK... if I've got this right, God is kind of like an onion. We can all see the energies of God as the third reality (like the outer layer of an onion) "activities of God in the in the created world as well as the created world itself i.e. love, beauty, faith, good, kindness, truth, humility and wisdom."
  • But we cannot see the first reality, the "essence" (ousia) of God
  • The hypostases are then something different (a second reality) that is neither essence nor energies? And, are the hypostases visible (like the energies) or invisible (like the ousia)? This essence-energies distinction is more complicated than I had originally understood it to be.

• Later in this article, we assert " Traditionally, the energies have been experienced as light, such as the light of Mount Tabor that appeared at the Transfiguration " and "Orthodox tradition likewise holds that this light may be seen during prayer (Hesychasm) by particularly devout individuals, such as the saints."
  • Now, I'm confused... we wrote is the third reality of "God as the energies (uncreated and supernatural activities of God in the created world as well as the created world itself" visible to all humans? I would think it is, insomuch as we can all see the created world as well as "seeing" love, beauty, faith, good, kindness, truth, humility and wisdom.
  • But then, what are the energies such as the light of Mount Tabor and that seen during Hesychasm? Are these a special category of energies that only the elect can see? Are the energies only visible to the elect or only some of them reserved for the elect and others visible to common men?

--Richard S (talk) 18:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

John Sanidopoulos's blog entry [14] doesn't address the questions above. He doesn't use words such as hypostasis and ousia in his blog entry, let alone the word "reality". Neither does Lossky use the word "reality" in the text quoted in the reference. I am familiar with the words ousia and hypostasis although I don't claim to be an expert in all the theological and philosophical nuances of the words. I am not at all familiar with the use of the word "reality" in discussing aspects of the Godhead. I'm open to acknowledging that this is because I'm an ignoramus. Just show me where this word is used in this context and indicate whether it is a standard term in Orthodox theology or if it is a neologism. --Richard S (talk) 20:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes John's article does address it. Richard wants a 4 years degree in 15 minutes and is behaving most uncivil and unrealistic in his requests his behavior is appearing obstinate which coupled with his admission he is going to be hypocritical makes this entire endeavor appear to be an exercise in futility.[15] However it does not speak to the answers in a fashion that Richard likes, so Richard discards it out of hand. How is it that Richard misses what it say about the essence and the energy distinction of God? So the article does not have this passage in it?

"Aquinas renders the divine energy into the divine essence as a necessity. The Orthodox Church would consider it blasphemous that God must act out of necessity, for God remains within His essence and within the three hypostaseis. God is not Being regulated by His energy but he Himself regulates His energy. God is not pure energy but the energizer." LoveMonkey (talk) 21:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I have a number of questions but perhaps the most significant one is: "Where does the word 'reality' come from?" This is a new word to me but, as I've said, I don't claim to be knowledgeable in theology, let alone Orthodox theology. --Richard S (talk) 22:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

(I have also posted the following here, but I think I should have posted it on this talk page.) As far as I see, the above discussion refers to the distinction between the Essence (also referred as Being or Ousia), the Hypostases (the three personal existences of God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit) and the Energies (also referred as activities or operations, and also as light, love, grace, beauty, fire, glory). I think some good explanations about these distinctions can be found in a document (of just 7 pages) titled "On the Notions of Essence, Hypostasis, Person, and Energy in Orthodox Thought", which contains some excerpts from the book "Elements of faith" written by the EO theologian Yannaras. Cody7777777 (talk) 23:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, since one major E/O Source Papankolaou is already in the article and Richard nor Esoglou will or seem to not be able to respect or accept that. The teaching of the triple-hypostasis reality of God is Eastern. Heres another. [16]

Its sad that non Eastern Orthodox editors will not read Orthodox sources and are on this article attacking it while being ignorant of its actual substance. LoveMonkey (talk) 22

20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Roman Catholic perspectives

Moving this discussion out of the commented text inside the article page and here to the Talk Page where it belongs.

The article text had this text in it...

The Roman Catholic Church admits more than one perspective in theology, distinguishing between doctrine itself, which is single and must be accepted by Roman Catholics, and theological elaborations of doctrine, which may be several and may even differ considerably from one another and yet be legitimately held by Roman Catholics, as seen in the example of the 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia article by George Joyce on the Blessed Trinity. After setting forth the Church's doctrine on the Trinity, the article then explains the different ways in which the doctrine is interpreted in Greek theology and in Latin theology, without denigrating either interpretation or suggesting that Roman Catholics are limited to adopting only one of the two.

While I accept that the text above is true and applicable, it is nonetheless a bit strange to have in the article text as it was written. Among other things, unless we have a source that says this explicitly in relation to Catholic/Orthodox differences in general or (better yet) the Catholic view on the essence-energies distinction, it is vulnerable to the charge of original research. The discussion of the CE entry on the Blessed Trinity is perhaps enlightening but it begs the reader to ask the question "what does this have to do with the essence-energies distinction?" Let us look for better ways to make this point. The text here would be fine on an article Talk Page but not in the article itself. --Richardshusr

It is only given as one concrete example of the acceptance, mentioned by the Second Vatican Council, of differing understandings and confessions of God's truth: "as seen in the example". Better placed after the Council's declaration? --Esoglou

The real problem, for me, is that the article text is going off-topic and engaging in a discussion of diversity in Catholic theology. The problem is that we are referring to the CE entry on the Blessed Trinity to establish the principle that Catholic theology accepts diversity and then arguing that Catholic theology can also accept diversity vis-a-vis Palamism. Sorry, but this is an example of synthesis. There is no guarantee that tolerance of diversity vis-a-vis the Blessed Trinity is transferable to Palamism/hesychasm. In fact, the CE entry on Quietism identifies it as a heresy and ranks hesychasm as an example of Quietism viz. "Medieval Quietism is further represented in the vagaries of Hesychasm...". Thus, we cannot use the Greek and Latin theologies sections of the CE entry on the Blessed Trinity to be proof of the tolerance of diversity with respect to Palamism/Hesychasm. You will need to find support for this idea in the writings of later Catholic theologians.

Instead of beating around the bush, we should come right out and say what you said elsewhere on this page: that the spectrum of acceptable Catholic theology is broad enough to accept both pro-Palamist and anti-Palamist views. It would be great if we could find secondary source that says exactly that. Failing that, we could look for examples of pro-Palamist and anti-Palamist writings in Catholic publications.

IMO, this section of the article should make two major points: first, that for most of the past 700 years, Catholic theologians have viewed Palamism and hesychasm as unacceptable polytheism. Second, I don't know how and when exactly things changed but, relying on your superior knowledge, I accept that by the late 20th century Catholic theology had come to tolerate (if not exactly embrace) Palamism as acceptable within the range of orthodox teaching. Inside the first point, we should explain how Aristotle and Aquinas influenced Catholic theologians of the late medieval period to reject Palamas and hesychasm as unacceptable polytheistic "magic". All of this ideally backed up by citations to secondary sources, not primary ones.

--Richard S (talk) 23:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

While some Western theologians see the theology of Palamas as introducing an inadmissible division within God, others have incorporated his theology into their own thinking (Kallistos Ware in Oxford Companion to Christian Thought (Oxford University Press 2000 ISBN 0-10-860024-0), p. 186), maintaining that there is no conflict between his teaching and Roman Catholic thought.("Several Western scholars contend that the teaching of St. Gregory Palamas himself is compatible with Roman Catholic thought on the matter" (Michael J. Christensen, Jeffery A. Wittung (editors), Partakers of the Divine Nature (Associated University Presses 2007 ISBN 0-8386-4111-3), p. 243).) Esoglou (talk) 23:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Sometime the Roman Catholic criticism section better get added back. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:14, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

If the "Roman Catholic criticism section" is the section that was titled "Orthodoxy and Scholasticism", then I have already explained here why I think that section fails WP:NPOV. To provide an analogy, it would not be NPOV to assert in an article "President Obama is a socialist". It would however be NPOV and encyclopedic to assert "According to many leaders of the Republican party, they view President Obama as a socialist". The first sentence makes an assertion about Obama without attributing it to any person and thus it suggests that the assertion is universally accepted as true. The second sentence attributes the POV to a group of people and thus does not make any assertion as to universal acceptance. This is precisely the issue in the text that I commented out. Too many of the sentences make bald assertions of fact that suggest universal acceptance. If the text is modified to attribute the assertions to the Orthodox Churc, or perhaps more accurately, to some Orthodox theologians, I would not have a problem with restoring the text. In fact, I am generally in favor of restoring it provided that it is modified as I have indicated. This is why I commented it out rather than deleting it. --Richard S (talk) 09:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Remarked out your remark out of it and it is now re-added back into the article. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Denial of accusations of conspiratorial collusion

For the record, in one of his bouts of histrionics, LM alleges that the only reason I am involved in this article is because Esoglou is here suggesting some kind of conspiratorial collusion and stalking. In truth, I don't remember exactly how I got to the Theosis and Essence-Energies distinction articles. However, my interaction with LM started at History of Christianity when he complained with reason that the article focused on the history of the western church and gave short shrift to the history of the Eastern Orthodox Church. I suggested that we address the problem by first creating an article titled History of the Eastern Orthodox Church which I created and then worked with him to flesh out. (Note to self and LoveMonkey : we need to go back to History of Christianity and see how well the History of the Eastern Orthodox Church is represented there).

From History of the Eastern Orthodox Church, our attention moved to East-West schism. After LoveMonkey expanded East-West schism to an unacceptable length with a detailed discussion of the theological differences between the two churches, I proposed that we create Catholic - Orthodox theological differences in order to keep East-West schism readable. It is from my participation in that article that I developed an interest in Theosis and Essence-Energies distinction.

As I say, I am not sure how exactly Theosis and Essence-Energies distinction wound up on my watchlist but it was likely from following the discussion at Talk:Catholic - Orthodox theological differences. In all honesty, I would not even know that these terms existed, let alone what they meant were it not for my participation in the discussion at Talk:Catholic - Orthodox theological differences. And, yes, I have taken Esoglou's side on a number of occasions at Talk:Catholic - Orthodox theological differences but that should not be interpreted as conspiracy or collusion. I admit that it is possible that I may have come here from watching the User talk:Esoglou or User talk:Taiwan boi. I don’t really track this kind of thing closely so my recollection is very dim in this regard.

I do wish to say that I am offended and insulted that LM chooses to turn his annoyance at being reported for a violation of WP:NPA into an attitude of challenging my contributions and even my motives for involvement. I have worked mightily to help him get his ideas presented in a number of articles even when they have been inserted into articles inappropriately and even when they have been severely flawed in organization, grammar and coherence.

I won't say that I am surprised. This is standard operating procedure for LM. I just figured I'd present my POV for the record.

--Richard S (talk) 17:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I am finding myself a bit surprised at how much this charge rankles me. I got to this article because I was trying to make sure I was on solid ground about something that was being discussed at Talk:Theosis. I've been aware of the existence of this article for over a year but I generally avoided getting involved because I figured it was theology that was "over my head". I confess that I have no clear memory of why I got involved with Theosis. I am deeply annoyed that I should have to defend my participation in these articles at all. --Richard S (talk) 17:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

2 people is hardly a conspiracy. Also your sarcasm and hypocritical behavior in being critical to me and not hold Esoglou in check makes it look like you are in "collaboration". You could have avoided that by not being hypocritical. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring AGAIN

I reverted Esoglou's revert of my wording IN THE ARTICLE INTRODUCTION.[17] Barlaam accused Palamas of more the Euchitism. IF this article is to be an overview then only one of the accusations or anyone of the accusation is not broad enough and overview for an encyclopedia article. There are plenty more then one source to the event as there are more then one supposed heresy that Barlaam accused Palamas of. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

You surely know that, if you want Wikipedia to say Barlaam accused Palamas of more heresies than the sourced one, you must provide citations at that point, instead of just reverting. Esoglou (talk) 15:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

It's only "edit warring" when another editor reverts your edits? It takes two or more editors to engage in an edit war. The purpose of WP:BRD is to suggest that, when there is a disagreement, discussion is preferable to edit-warring. If you cannot reach an agreement with the editor who disagrees with you, then follow the dispute resolution procedure. --16:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardshusr (talk • contribs)

?? Which editor posted this unsigned comment? We already at least 2 reverts of my wording by Esoglou. And it was this reverting I was noting. Are you saying the revert warring is not part of edit warring anymore? I am seriously asking that question. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

If another editor reverts you and you revert his revert, then you are both engaged in an edit war. My definition is that anything more than one edit of essentially the same text is edit warring. Thus, the first edit inserting text is OK. A revert of that edit is also OK. (See WP:BRD). Anything beyond that is edit warring in my book. My comment was intended to point out the hypocrisy of complaining about Esoglou's reverts of your edits when both his reverts (beyond 1) and your reversions of his reverts are edit-warring. It is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. You are both at fault but that fault can be overlooked if you stop edit-warring and discuss the problem here. Whining about the other editor edit-warring is useless and will be ignored. If an uninvolved editor sees two or more editors edit-warring, he can report that edit war to the appropriate admin noticeboard and get some relief (usually in the forms of blocks or page protection). Both you and Esoglou provide useful contributions to this and other articles so I am loath to ask for blocks or page protection as that would only impede progress. That is why I posted my complaint at WP:WQA rather than at WP:ANI. I didn't want a block. At least not yet. --Richard S (talk) 17:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

No, if the article is inaccurate it should be corrected. Look at the second source I added and tell me if you find the name of that heresy mentioned in the source Esoglou added? You will not. As that is a distraction and gives the appearance someone is trying to again paint Palamas as a heretic. Why would something like that be in the intro to an article like this? The intro should be as general as possible. Also since this is another Eastern Orthodox theology article why is Esoglou posting things from his POV into an article on a topic he has of yet to clarify that he has an apt understanding of. This type of editing is not acceptable. Nor can it be to the benefit of the project as it is nothing of pure POV pushing. As it is one source that is not validated by other Orthodox sources. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

LoveMonkey wrote " if the article is inaccurate it should be corrected". Of course. However, the burden of proof is on editors wishing to insert or restore text. If you believe that "various heresies" is correct, then the burden of proof is on you to provide references establishing "various heresies". A citation to a long article by Romanides is perhaps a step in the right direction but a direct quote establishing "various heresies" would help. Ideally, that quote would identify the heresies that were charged. (note; of course, we are talking about the specific charges of heresy laid by Barlaam, not Romanides' conception of what heresies Palamas may have been thought guilty of).

But the real point here is that, if someone disagrees with you, it is incumbent on you to discuss the problem here and not engage in an edit war.

--Richard S (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I have pointed out below that at least one variation of this debate as already taken place on another article. So I have already in some degree attempted dialog. Also the Roman Catholic sources themselves accuse Palamas of various heresies. And I just had added that very thing before Esoglou began his tired and old pattern to frustrate and wear down his fellow editors here. As this is not about both positions. This is about white washing the Roman Catholic behavior that is a documented thing of the past and informs the Orthodox peoples of the Mediterranean, Middle East, Balkins, Eastern Europe, Russia. As Esoglou has shown he will do whatever he can deny that those opinions be used. Your comments and behavior as well are not doing anything but convincing me of the validity of what the Eastern Orthodox have historically said when dealing with the Roman Catholics and the ugliness of the past shared between the two groups. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

If by "one variation of this debate", you mean this edit referenced below, I am having difficulty seeing how this relates to the current discussion. No matter. The point here is that, for reasons that I don't quite understand, Esoglou seems to feel that it is important to assert that there was only one charge of heresy and you feel it important to assert that there were more than one heresies alleged. If you can document that multiple heresies were alleged, then please do it. As I've stated, a catalog of such heresies attributed to reliable source would help resolve this dispute. --Richard S (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for being unclear again. What I objected to was the removal from the text of the mention of the specific heresy that Palamas was accused of. Esoglou (talk) 18:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Well when the charge is that we as Eastern Orthodox Christians are contaminated by the Western construct falsely called gnosticism this is what p____ses people off! Esoglou coupled with Fortsce saying we (the E/O) created a Demiurge is just the kind of nonsense that causes people to get involved with this. There is no such thing as gnosticism. THERE NEVER WAS. The gnostics where people whom wanted to take Christianity and make it into their own little Mystery Cults. They got protection by the pagan powers that were then. Orthodox Christianity is not a Mystery Religion. The EO was a secret society but not to hide anything only to protect it from the pagans, once legalized Christianity had and has no "secrets" to sell anyone. Enough with the ignorance about the history of the Eastern Orthodox church. The gnosis of these cults was magic and secrets contained in books or in boxes they where cheap knock offs of the Eleusinian Mysteries these sneaky implications are nauseating. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I saw that, in one of the versions wiped out in the edit war, there was a mention of Messalianism. I have found two sources that discuss the Barlaam's charge of heresy as being that of Messalianism: [18] and [19]. It should be noted that Lossky is one of the authors of the second source. That said, I would like to suggest that this debate is unnecessary. First of all, it seems to me unimportant to name the specific heresy or assert that there was only one asserted (or that there were various). The key point that is important is that Palamas was charged with being heretical. I wonder if it wouldn't be useful to have a "Background" section which provides some of the details of the Palamas/Barlaam dispute. This would allow us to get into a little more detail about the specifics of the dispute without burdening the lead section with those details. --Richard S (talk) 18:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

It is completely fine within the context of an Eastern Orthodox source to explain one allegation or another it is not fine in the introduction to an overview (at best) to a theological subject that will contain more then just one side of the issue. As it added to the implication of already quoted Roman Catholic sources. That implication is a MASSIVE insult to the Eastern Orthodox. That type of thing should at least be in the body of the text and in at least some context. Thats my complaint. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is that it is indeed important to explain what precisely Palamas was accused of - all the more if the insult was massive, and all the more if the citable sources are three, not just one - but I will not insist on my opinion. Esoglou (talk) 20:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Multiple articles covering Palamism

NB: I am NOT, at this time, proposing a merger of any articles. However, I do think we should look at the inadequacy of coverage of Palamism in multiple articles. Palamism redirects to Tabor Light (which is, in my opinion, the wrong place for it to redirect)

In addition to the article on Gregory Palamas, we also have articles on Theosis (Eastern Orthodox theology), Hesychasm, Essence-Energies distinction and Tabor Light.

Am I wrong in asserting that all of these articles (except for the biographical one on Palamas himself) are just parts of the overall doctrine known as Palamism? It seems to me that we could either merge all of these articles into one big one titled Palamism or we could at least construct an article titled Palamism that introduces each of the subtopics in summary style and then links to the main article on each subtopic.

I really think that the current state of affairs gives the reader a fragmented view of Palamism and requires him to find and read several articles in order to construct an integrated and complete picture. It is much like the four blind men describing different parts of the elephant.

Comments?

--Richard S (talk) 20:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

OK... I've created an article titled Palamism. At the moment, it is not much more than a collection of lead sections plus the section titled "Development of the Doctrine" that I originally assembled for this article from Hesychasm and Gregory Palamas. I think this new article can serve as an "umbrella" summary article for all these detailed articles that describe different parts of the elephant. --Richard S (talk) 21:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Mass-energy equivalence

I think that the Catholic Church believes in mass–energy equivalence, like Einstein's formula, at least in spiritual terms. Meaning that energy can easily become an essence in itself, and that an essence can easily be equated as an energy. And this is true for God also. ADM (talk) 03:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I should probably not reply to this, since this is not a forum, but nonetheless you're old comment has attracted my attention, and I would like to give a small reply. As far as I understand, according to EO doctrines, mass would not be identified with essence (or nature, being, ousia, and anyway the EO are not allowed to describe divine essence), I think it would rather be identified with an energy/attribute (also in the case of humans). Cody7777777 (talk) 17:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it is a mistake to try to compare these two. mass-energy equivalence is a physical concept and we are talking metaphysics here. The correct doctrines on the Catholic side have to do with the equivalence of the essence and attributes of God. I agree with Cody that mass and essence are absolutely not the same thing. It doesn't matter whether we are talking EO or Catholic doctrine. They are actually almost opposites. Oh well... uh, to assert that gets into the dispute over the "uncreated light". --Richard S (talk) 17:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

So pointing out more assumptions made from pure ignorance

If this article is named after Palamas' teaching of the Essence-Energy distinction then what about those councils called the Hesychast councils that made that teaching Dogma? How many times does that have to be said? I am therefore restoring section that show various Roman Catholic theologians speaking negatively about the dogma of the Heyschasm councils or Palamism. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:47, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I think one problem that Esoglou and LoveMonkey have had is in failing to draw a distinction between historical attitudes of the Catholic Church and the current teaching of the Catholic Church. Esoglou has made a case for the assertion that the spectrum of acceptable Catholic teaching today encompasses both pro-Palamite and anti-Palamite views. However, I think the CE makes it clear that Catholic theologians of 1900 (and probably the 600 years before that) almost unanimously rejected Palamas. Now, I don't have any secondary sources to back up that last assertion although I think that is the general tone of the discussion here and at Talk Pages of other relevant articles. Perhaps we need to take the approach of describing the historiography of Catholic teaching on this issue. Describing only the nearly unanimous rejection of Catholic theologians in 1900 presents only part of the picture. Describing only the more tolerant view of the 21st century also presents only part of the picture. The entire picture can be understood only if the story is told in the sense of historiography rather than presenting a single theological view at a particular point in time. --Richard S (talk) 09:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for not having made it clear that I do hold that, from the time when the hesychasm controversy arose (in the Eastern Church) until the first part of the twentieth century, Western theologians, with extremely few exceptions, rejected outright the ideas of Palamas. I have said that this remained in the Western Church an opinion of theologians; unlike the Eastern Church, which held a number of synods to decide on the matter, the question has never been the object of a synodal or other official decision of the Western Church as such. But what I most wanted to make clear is that nowadays - which is what counts in discussion of Roman Catholic-Eastern Orthodox theological differences - the matter is not one on which the West raises objections against the East even at the level of the opinion of theologians, much less at the official level. I have no difficulty whatever in accepting claims that certain Eastern theologians raise objections on the matter against the West, although the verification that Richard has (rightly) requested has not yet been provided. Esoglou (talk) 13:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Esoglou, I agree with what you wrote above with the exception that "the verification... has not yet been provided". I remember that this is the sort of thing that Romanides (and/or Lossky) have criticized the Church for. I feel like I've read it in one or more of the sources that LM has provided in the discussion of another article. I confess to a laziness in not poring over the archives to find it but I think it was in Talk:Catholic - Orthodox theological differences. I know LoveMonkey wants me to go buy Romanides and read him for myself. I regret that this is not even a remote possibility. I didn't request verification because I doubted the assertion. I requested a citation because it would approve the article. --Richard S (talk) 16:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't remember any verification being provided. One form of verification would be to show that, as Fortescue claims, the essence-energies real (not merely notional) distinction is a dogma of the Eastern Orthodox Church. There seems to be no conclusive proof that the Eastern Orthodox consider it to be dogma. At least, the discussion on this forum seems to come down on the side of saying that it is not dogma. Esoglou (talk) 17:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

First of all, thank you very much for the link to the forum. Reading that discussion was very enlightening and I am considering joining that forum in hopes of learning more about these Catholic-Orthodox topics. Unfortunately, as you know, such forums are not considered reliable sources so we must seek to find proper sourcing for the assertions from there that we find useful.\

I would like to point out that you and I are talking about two different things. You wrote "I have no difficulty whatever in accepting claims that certain Eastern theologians raise objections on the matter against the West, although the verification that Richard has (rightly) requested has not yet been provided." I was responding to that sentence exactly as written. I have read stuff provided by LoveMonkey from the writings of Romanides and/or Lossky that attacks the Western Church for its Aristotelian/Scholasticism. Do those writings specifically tie that Scholasticism to Theosis and Essence-Energies? I confess that I don't remember the details of what I read but I would be surprised if it didn't.

You have shifted away from the original sentence about "certain Eastern theologians" to whether these objections are part of EO dogma. This is an entirely different question. Many months ago, I myself had raised this question in my naive, uninformed way because the opinions of Romanides and Lossky seemed to me to be at odds with a more ecumenical attitude expressed by the Pope and the patriarchs. I was assured by Cody that, if a theologian expressed something that was outside of the EO dogma, he would have been smacked down (my words) by other Orthodox theologians and clerics. Assuming good faith, I accepted his assurances although I was amazed that Eastern theologians maintained such discipline and unanimity compared to Western theologians who are such a fractious lot.

If we could find some reliable secondary sources who opine on whether or not Palamist doctrine is EO dogma or not, that would be a great help. Asserting that it is not without sources is no better than asserting that it is without sources. LoveMonkey asserts that the Hesychast councils established Palamism as dogma. This is perhaps a bit of OR relying on primary sources but do you challenge the assertion?

--Richard S (talk) 17:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't this source establish that Palamism is Orthodox doctrine? I think our energies should not be focused on arguing that Palamism isn't EO dogma. It should be focused on establishing that anti-Palamism isn't Catholic dogma. --Richard S (talk) 17:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I shifted away from the original sentence. It declared: "At the same time, some Orthodox theologians{{Citation needed|date=December 2010}}{{who?|date=December 2010}} have characterized the Catholic rejection of the essence-energies distinction as heretical." The statement that the theologians have charaterized as heretical the rejection by Catholic theologians of the claimed real essence-energies distinction was not verified. I mentioned the question of dogma only as a possible way of verifying that they considered the rejection not just as wrong, but as heretical. The sentence has now been removed. So there is now no need to look for verification of it. I wonder too whether the mention that Fortescue calls it an EOC dogma is helpful. It is, as you say, an accepted Eastern Orthodox doctrine, whether it is a dogma, like the consubstantiality of the Son, or not. Esoglou (talk) 19:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Ummmm... here's what I remember (dimly)... I have a vague recollection of reading the writings of some Orthodox theologian (either Romanides or Lossky) arguing that the Western Church had been polluted by paganism and Arianism resulting in the errors of Aristotelianism and Scholasticism. I seem to remember that the word "heretical" was used because I had a very strong visceral reaction to reading that at the time. Whether those writings explicitly discussed the essence-energies distinction in that context is beyond my memory. At the time, the essence-energies distinction was not the focus of the discussion. The Romanides or Lossky text in question was provided by an Orthodox editor (more likely LoveMonkey than Cody), probably at Talk:Catholic - Orthodox theological differences though possibly also at Talk:East - West schism. It's been a long while (several months at least) and I didn't commit any of it to memory just a general understanding of the Orthodox position. Perhaps LoveMonkey would be so kind as to provide the source again here. --Richard S (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Pure ignorance. How is it that councils held in the East before Nicene was considered valid? Esoglou is implying that here on Wikipedia that Roman Catholic editors take councils that where not attended by the Roman Catholic church as not councils that are binding and define dogma. As if the councils that came after the Chaldean council, are not ecumenical because Egypt was not longer in communion with the other Patriarchs? This is the Original Research that I keep complaining about. As if the Eastern Orthodox Council of Jerusalem 1672 did not define dogma. And that council wasn't that long ago. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

What is this accusation? "Here on Wikipedia", councils accepted by the Roman Catholic Church are valid sources for Roman Catholic teaching, no matter when they were held. They are not necessarily valid sources for Eastern Orthodox teaching. Nor for the teaching of the Chaldaean/Assyrian Church. And I think that councils of the Eastern Orthodox, such as the 1672 Synod of Jerusalem, while not valid sources for the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, are valid sources on Wikipedia for Eastern Orthodox doctrine, but LoveMonkey has been known to deny this, though here he seems to have changed his mind. (I presume, by the way, that by "Chaldean" LoveMonkey meant instead "Chalcedonian" or "of Chalcedon".) Esoglou (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

You see. Now Esoglou posts he doesn't understand that Esoglou is saying that Eastern Orthodox church councils can establish dogma. So according to Esoglou the council where probably just for fun. That whole correct or dogma thing is only real when the Vatican makes it OK. Wow Esoglou asked for someone to explain to him that church councils are to establish dogma. And here Esoglou is on a theological article for a church that Esoglou doesn't even belong to. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, I have repeatedly stated that councils are authoritative and can establish dogma for their own churches. In the past I have had to try to overcome a certain editor's reluctance to accept as authoritative for the Eastern Orthodox Church the declarations by the 1672 Pan-Orthodox Council on the Eucharist, on grace, on predestination etc. Esoglou (talk) 20:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

But not here, but not now. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Organization of Roman Catholic material

I think that the new Catholic info added to the intro is good. However, ideally the intro shouldn't contain information that isn't also mentioned elsewhere in the article. The intro's function is to summarize, not to be a section unto itself. I am going to move the Catholic info from the intro to the section on Roman Catholic views below. In the intro, I will replace it with 2 or 3 brief sentences of summary. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 18:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Based on a cursory glance, your reorg looks good. I agree that the lead was getting too detailed and so pushing the details into the body of the article is a good thing. --Richard S (talk) 19:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your edit. If I had tuned in earlier, I would have asked you to consider, while you were making the change, whether also to remove the long quotation from Aquinas's Summa contra Gentiles about whether there is a real essence-existence distinction in God, whose relevance to an article on whether there is a real essence-energies distinction is by no means obvious. Is it too late to ask you now? Esoglou (talk) 19:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello Esoglou. As the situation currently stands, I agree that the material from the Summa contra Gentiles is of dubious relevance. What we would need is some secondary source arguing that those specific statements from the SCG represent an obstacle to the essence-energies distinction. Until such a source is found, I think it would be appropriate to remove the SCG material. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 19:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Would you please remove it, perhaps after a suitable interval? As you know, I prefer, where possible, to leave such changes to others, since my edits have often, possibly because of their author, been speedily reversed. Esoglou (talk) 19:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Not even close this is how Esoglou has handled these types of things in the past. Esoglou for example uses The Longer Catechism of The Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church to source Eastern Orthodox dogma when it has been sourced to Esoglou that the document is a generally worded document as a response to Protestantism and not to be taken as a document that reflects Eastern Orthodox dogma specifically.

"Non-Orthodox Ted Campbell writes that, for "Orthodox Teachings on Religious Authority", "the Confession of Dositheus (1672) and the Russian Catechism of Philaret cannot always be utilized, because at some points they illustrate a tendency of Orthodox teachers in their periods to utilize characteristically Western terminology (such as "transubstantiation" or " purgatory"), which have not been subsequently held as binding on Orthodox expressions of the faith".[249] This gives as the reason why the Catechism of Philaret cannot always be utilized the fact that it illustrates a tendency to use characteristically Western terminology." [20]

As a matter of fact Esoglou just again added the passage about the supposed teaching of Hell from Philaret, to the Roman Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences TODAY [21] without including that passage from Campbell giving an uniformed reader the impression that The Longer Catechism of The Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church does not have that understanding..And can be used to define Eastern Orthodox dogma and over-ride that specific dogma whenever it does not paralleled Roman Catholic theology. When this was pointed out to Esoglou, Esoglou engage in original research by making this statement in the article:

This is a caveat about terminology. As for the substance of the doctrine contained in the Catechism of Philaret, when Campbell sets forth the "Orthodox Teachings on Human Nature and Salvation" (including the afterlife), he repeatedly cites it as a source for knowledge of those teachings.

Esoglou then sources HIS commentary on Ted Campbell with Ted Campbell's book.[22] LoveMonkey (talk) 18:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Removal of citation request

I don't understand why Richard removed the citation request for the statement that Barlaam accused Palamas of several heresies, when the cited source mentions only one heresy. But I will not insist. Esoglou (talk) 16:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I see that LoveMonkey has now added another citation. That too only speaks of heresy in the singular number. Unlike the other citation, it seems not to specify the heresy in question. Esoglou (talk) 17:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I added Romanides showing how it is ignorant to teach the more commonly held beliefs and history of the conflict between Barlaam and Palamas as strictly accusing Palamas of Messilians. As Not just Romanides but other Greek theologians have direct comments of these misconceptions. As the Orthodox in the know of this will read the header of this article and reject it as Western Nonsense. [23] I already pointed this all out to Esoglou on the filioque article some two months ago. [24] Esgolou is completely in the dark about Eastern Orthodoxy. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I edited the lead to use the ambiguous phrase "against the charge of heresy" which is intended to be vague as to how many heresies were charged. Hopefully, this will address Esoglou's concern. I will comment that I find the references unsatisfying mostly because they point to long articles. In such cases, it would be helpful if the reference provided a specific quotation that supports the assertion. Ideally, a link to Google books with a page reference would provide the reader with enough to verify the assertion. A link to an entire article with the inference that "somewhere in there you will find support for the assertion" is, as I said, unsatisfying. --Richard S (talk) 17:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Whatever was LoveMonkey's purpose of inserting the Romanides attack on Meyendorff (the above explanation is not crystal clear), it certainly does not show general readers of Wikipedia that Barlaam really did accuse Palamas of more heresies than one. LoveMonkey, in the section immediately above this, suggests that some conclusion to his liking may be drawn from the fact that the second citation does not specify the heresy that is specified in the first citation. Does anyone think that this means that the unspecified heresy mentioned in the second citation must be different from the specified heresy mentioned in the first? But why bother?

Richard has since changed from "various heresies" to "the charge of heresy". Again, let it be. But I do think that specifying what heresy the charge was about was or would be helpful. Esoglou (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Ugh. It seems we are discussing the same issue in two different sections. I'd like to understand why you think it would be helpful to be specific about the charge and whether you think a "Background" section would help. Please reply to my comment in the above section so as to stop bifurcating the discussion. --Richard S (talk) 18:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't you think it is more informative to say what form of heresy Palamas was accused of, rather to say vaguely that he was accused of some form or other of heresy?

The link to the Wikipedia article on that particular heresy is background enough.Esoglou (talk) 18:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the "Development of the doctrine" section of Palamism, you will see that I have specified Messalianism as the charge laid against the Hesychasts by Barlaam. The source for this is Meyendorff. Later in the same section, I also documented that Palamas easily refuted this charge. The source for this is also Meyendorff. --Richard S (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

This is why it is important to read what the Eastern Orthodox find deficient in Meyendorff and why I try not to use him as his take on the actual Essence Energy distinction is quite wrong. If you read this entire article you will see how much of the tangled mess his teachings have cause can be untangled. [25] And yes Bishop Chrysostomos and Father Romanides where friends. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Gnosticism

I had been thinking about this for over a week but I hesitated to bring it up because I knew it could unleash a firestorm of invective and abuse from one or more editors. I was also afraid that my linking Palamism to Gnosticism was my own original research. However, now that LoveMonkey has already brought it up, I guess this is a good time to get into it. When I read that medieval Catholic scholars viewed the Orthodox conception of an "essence" of God that was distinct from the three hypostases as a "demiurge", my mind leapt to the Gnostics who also had the concept of a demiurge. I haven't seen the term Gnosticism used in any of the articles related to this topic (e.g. Theosis) so I wondered why that was. Neoplatonism has been mentioned but the linkage has not been presented as clearly and explicitly as I think it should be

So my question is: Did Catholic scholars historically consider Palamism to be tainted with the Gnostic concept of a demiurge or did they distinguish the "essence" of God as being a different concept from the Gnostic concept of a demiurge. My own speculation is that they understood the two conceptions to be different (because, in my mind, they are in fact different). I think this is why the term NeoPlatonist is more commonly used to criticize Palamas.

Can anyone more knowledgeable than I shed light on this question? Is it worth mentioning the demiurge of the Gnostics at all? Have Catholic theologians ever accused the Orthodox of being tainted by Gnosticism because of their adoption of Palamism?

--Richard S (talk) 18:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Let me be restrained in saying these things. As I will post as best without some uglier emotions. Just remember the word heresy comes from the book Against the false knowledge by Irenaeus. To call someone's theology "gnostic" in the context of this discussion is to call them "heretics". As the word heretic comes from Irenaeus and that book and is used to describe the "gnostics". I can only say that you have done this in ignorance. Thats all. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Irenaeus may have used the word heretic to describe the Gnostics but that doesn't mean that Christians only use the term to describe Gnostics. There are many other heresies than just Gnosticism. However, I do fully understand that to characterize a group as Gnostic is to call them heretical.

We have already established that Catholic theologians have in the past considered the Orthodox doctrine of Palamism to be heretical. We've established that Messalian has been used to characterize that heresy. What I'm asking is whether they have ever used the word "gnostic" to characterize that heresy. The fact that you mentioned the term "gnostic" without my mentioning it suggests that there is indeed a sensitivity among Orthodox to being called gnostic. What I'm wondering is where does that sensitivity come from? Are there reliable sources that show that Catholics characterize the Orthodox as having gnostic tendencies? Or are there reliable sources that show that Orthodox theologians defend the Orthodox Church from either real or imagined accusations of gnosticism?

--Richard S (talk) 19:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

No sir Richard, it not open to your interpretation. This is a bad thing to have on this article's talkpage. And this will only validate what the Eastern Orthodox partisans have heard in the past from the Roman Catholic church (implying or otherwise). Wikipedia can be read internationally. You really don't have the understanding to step into this. And your personal feelings have pushed you to escalate this in this way. This is unfortunate and, as a matter of dis-closer being only one side of the problem (the RCC never allowing the West to hear the Orthodox side of the schism), you are now introducing and exhibiting the behavior that people believe is a tyranny toward the East. I will leave it at that. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

LoveMonkey wrote "what the Eastern Orthodox partisans have heard in the past from the Roman Catholic church (implying or otherwise)". But that is exactly my question. What is it that "Eastern Orthodox partisans have heard in the past from the Roman Catholic church (implying or otherwise)"? Does it include a charge of gnosticism? Does this word arise in (hopefully historical) polemics between Catholics and Orthodox? Why did you use the word first when nobody else on this page had mentioned it? I'm not trying to assert that Orthodox theology is gnostic. I am asking whether any reliable source has made this charge. I'm asking whether it is part of the debate or not. --Richard S (talk) 19:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

If LoveMonkey doesn't want it, and if it is difficult or perhaps even impossible to prove that, in connection with the essence-energies question, Westerners called Easterners Gnostics, why waste time on it? Esoglou (talk) 19:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I was just asking the question because of my own intellectual curiosity. I thought it was just idle speculation until LM mentioned it himself in one of his recent rants so I figured I'd ask. If nobody has any information to support my speculation, I will let it drop. I do think that we should look at the link between NeoPlatonism and Palamism since, I believe, that linkage does have support in the sources. --Richard S (talk) 20:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Rants? What is meant by Fortescue's use of the word "demiurge" in his article called Hesychasm on the Catholic Encyclopedia's website? Any Roman Catholic here know? Also gnosticism isn't used to describe the gnostics in the East that's a Western construct and a modern one at that. Thats two major's sarcastic remarks made by Richard while claiming to be above such behavior.. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

If you are taking these comments about gnosticism as attacking or sarcastic, you are misreading me completely. It is precisely Fortescue's use of the word "demiurge" that got me thinking along these lines. To me the word "demiurge" immediately evokes Gnosticism although I am now learning that it could also mean "NeoPlatonist" but that's not something I know much about so I need to understand this better. You keep writing as if Fortescue is making these attacks. If you read what he wrote carefully, he is describing what other Catholics thought of Palamas and Hesychasm. So, naturally, I want to know... who are these people he is talking about and what precisely did they say vis-a-vis "demiurge" and the "essence" of God? If you step back, breathe deeply and look at Gnosticism objectively instead of viscerally, you will see that at least some Gnostics thought that there was a demiurge who may have been an antagonist to God the creator. (See Gnosticism section of the Wikipedia article on Demiurge). Platonism and NeoPlatonism also have a concept of a demiurge. See the section on Platonism and Neoplatonism. Now that I re-read Fortescue's entry on Hesychasm in the CE, I see that his use of "demiurge" links Hesychasm to Neoplatonism. Perhaps the view is that the Gnostics adopted the concept of the "demiurge" from the NeoPlatonists and the Hesychasts also adopted the concept from the NeoPlatonists and that there is no linkage between the Gnostics and the Hesychasts except that they both borrowed the concept of demiurge from the NeoPlatonists. Note also that I am not asserting that the Hesychasts have any concept of a "demiurge". What I am asserting is that Fortescue asserts that Catholics who reject Hesychasm view the essence-energies distinction as related to the NeoPlatonist concept of a "demiurge". This, then, is part of the core of Catholic criticism and rejection of Hesychasm: the fear of a division in the Trinity through the construction of a concept equivalent to a "demiurge". IMO, all of this needs to be spelled out more clearly in the article. --Richard S (talk) 21:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

As is pointed out as a matter of Orthodox dogma on the Father hypostasis the -One God in father. So the Orthodox dogma of the father under Palamas is never challenged nor undermine. Fortescue had made many mistakes in the article about what he is talking about. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

EOC dogma

I don't object to having the article say the real distinction between God's essence and his "energies" is EOC dogma. I was only worried that someone else might object, due to the fact that the only sources we have for the statement come from the Western and century-old Catholic Encyclopedia. Esoglou (talk) 18:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

No Romanides states in the various articles I have posted. Go to the Wikipedia article on the Councils and you'll see Romanides even claims that the Hesychast councils are indeed the last ecumenical councils.[26] Again not wanting to be informed about the subject you are editing on. Ignoring things not reading Orthodox sources. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

It's really quite interesting. There are many, many sources that assert that the Orthodox only accept the First seven ecumenical councils as truly ecumenical. The link that LoveMonkey provides shows that it's not totally ridiculous to ask whether the Orthodox accept the Eighth and Ninth as ecumenical since there is so much emphasis on "seven ecumenical councils". The best that my poor layman's mind can make of this is to assert that the Orthodox accept the Eight and Ninth councils as establishing dogma but without asserting that they are ecumenical in the sense that the first seven are. Otherwise, why draw a distinction between the First seven ecumenical councils and the following two?

It's also interesting to note what is written in Wikipedia about the Fifth Council of Constantinople

"The result of these councils is accepted as having the authority of an ecumenical council by Orthodox Christians[1] who sometimes call it the Ninth Ecumenical Council. Principal supporters of the view that this series of councils comprises the Ninth Ecumenical Council include Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos) of Nafpaktos, Fr. John S. Romanides, and Fr. George Metallinos."

Perhaps I'm reading too much into this but why does the second sentence use the phrase "principal supporters of this view"? This suggests that there are opponents to the "view". Are there any Orthodox sources that contradict this view? I would expect there aren't any but the Wikipedia passage is curiously worded.

--Richard S (talk) 19:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Why discuss this question at all? It seems irrelevant to the article. I believe that the view mentioned is a minority view among the Eastern Orthodox, and that the general view is that the ecumenical councils were seven, not nine. But as long as LoveMonkey does not object to having the article call the reality of the essence-energies distinction a dogma of the Eastern Orthodox Church, we can consider the matter settled. It would be nice, but not at all necessary, to cite here an explicit Eastern Orthodox source for the statement, not just the two Catholic Encyclopedia writers. And I think we can just leave it to LoveMonkey to supply it, if he thinks it important. Esoglou (talk) 19:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I posted a source and link now the two Roman Catholic editors here are blatantly ignoring the responses of other editors. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I have (again) spent waaay too much time on Wikipedia today. Among my accomplishments is the creation of an article on Palamism (see justification in the section below). I will try to look at your source some other time (possibly tonight, possibly tomorrow). --Richard S (talk) 21:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Esoglou, you may find this link to a translation of Martin Jugie's work "The Palamite Controversy" interesting. In particular, there is a section where he discusses how Palamism became the official doctrine of the Eastern Orthodox Church.--Richard S (talk) 23:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, Yves Congar wrote "Nowadays, Palamism is almost universally accepted by Orthodox theologians. But does all this evidence point to a dogma? There are strong reasons for doubting it." (I Believe in the Holy Spirit, Volume 3) --Richard S (talk) 04:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations on your research! It seems then that we cannot make Wikipedia say simply that the Palamite teaching is dogma for the Eastern Orthodox Church, but will have to report it as a common view.

On a related question, I see that Congar reports, immediately after the quotation you give, a denial that the Palamite doctrine has been dogmatically condemned by the Catholic Church: see the same page of Congar. Esoglou (talk) 09:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

According to the following "Ware asserts that it is impossible to understand any aspect of Orthodox theology or spirituality without taking into account the dogma of the distinction-in-unity between the essence of God and His uncreated energies".Cody7777777 (talk) 17:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Whatever is meant by "distinction-in-unity". Is it perhaps in line with the distinction formalis ex natura rei, neither ontological nor merely conceptual, posited by Duns Scotus and attributed by G. Philips to Palamas, a distinction clearly compatible with the Roman Catholic magisterium? Esoglou (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

As far as I see, the expression "distinction-in-unity" is another way to refer to Palamas' doctrine of essence-energies distinction. I appreciate that there are modern RC theologians who wish to make the essence-energies distinction compatible with RC thought, but I have still not seen any explicit evidence that the RC magisterium would acknowledge as dogma the "distinction-in-unity" between the God's essence and energies. Cody7777777 (talk) 16:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

And Philips interprets Palamas's doctrine of essence-energies distinction as concerning a distinction that is not ontological, but is one that is neither ontological nor merely conceptual. Esoglou (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:SYN worries

I'm worried that the article's current organization may cause it to violate WP:SYN. I admit that I may be partly responsible for getting the article into this current state. The article reports various negative and positive remarks about Palamas and Hesychasm by Catholic commentators, but it does not always explain whether these remarks are directed specifically at the essence-energies distinction or at some other aspect of Palamism. For example:

• Fortescue reported that Palamas charged his opponents with fifty heresies and that Palamas himself, when condemned by a synod summoned by the Patriarch of Constantinople in 1345, "outwardly" withdrew what Fortescue called Palamas's "heresy". [Problem: Which of Palamas's teachings are being referred to as "heresy" here? Is Fortescue referring to the essence-energies distinction, or is he not? For all we know, Fortescue could be calling Hesychast practices "heresy" without meaning to call the essence-energies theory "heresy".]
• The later twentieth century saw a remarkable change in the attitude of Roman Catholic theologians to Palamas, a "rehabilitation" of him that has led to increasing parts of the Western Church considering him a saint, even if uncanonized. [Problem: This sentence does not explain whether the "rehabilitation" of Palamas's views to which includes a rehabilitation of the essence-energies distinction. To simply imply that it does include it constitutes an "original synthesis", which WP:SYN forbids. Either this sentence should be reworded to say that RC theologians have "rehabilitated" the essence-energies distinction (not just Palamism in general), or we should add a (sourced) sentence below it, saying something like, "This 'rehabilitation' has included [emphasis added] greater openness to the essence-energies distinction.]

These statements, which are all properly sourced, create a problem in an article specifically devoted to the essence-energies distinction. Because the article is specifically about the essence-energies distinction, readers might assume that all negative and positive remarks about Palamism are remarks about the essence-energies distinction. To imply that all of the negative and positive remarks about Palamism currently reported in the article are specifically about the essence-energies distinction would be an "original synthesis" of our research--something ruled out by WP:SYN.

Any ideas on how to reorganize the material?

P.S.: I'm also bothered by the Ludwig Ott statement. Does Ott explicitly say that the absence of distinction between attributes and essence rules out the essence-energies distinction? It may seem obvious that it does, but we cannot use Ott as an example of resistance to the essence-energies distinction unless Ott actually refers to the essence-energies distinction; to do so would be an original synthesis. (In the footnoted quotation from Ott, Ott says that the absence of distinction between attributes and essence rules out a teaching of Gilbert of Poitiers; the quotation does not refer to Palamas.) --Phatius McBluff (talk) 21:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeh, I've been worried about some of these issues also but I've deferred addressing them in favor of looking at the big picture. I invite you to take a look at Palamism and see if we can fit these various comments by Ott and Fortescue in the right place in that article. Doing that might help you decide whether those comments belong in this article as well. If nothing else, it feels better to move text to another article than to delete it altogether. --Richard S (talk) 22:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

On point 1, Fortescue is there speaking of the teaching that the Constantinople synod of November 1344 (which Fortescue places in 1345) condemned and excommunicated Palamas for. We have no certainty that Fortescue is expressing his personal judgement and that he is not merely referring to what that synod called the condemned views.

Point 2. Since the point on which Western theologians condemned Palamism was precisely his positing a real distinction between God's essence and his energies, I think that Phatius's edit can stand. I don't see what else Palamas has been reproached for in the West.

Point 3. As indicated in my conversation with Cody, I find no reference - at least no explicit reference - in Ott to the essence-energies distinction. Esoglou (talk) 22:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

On point 1: I'm not sure what you're responding to here. My point was simply that the Fortescue statement is ambiguous, since it doesn't say what Palamite views the synod condemned. If the condemned views included the essence-energies distinction, then we should say so explicitly. If the condemned views did not include the essence-energies distinction, then why are they even being mentioned in an article on the essence-energies distinction? For us to simply imply that the condemned views included the essence-energies distinction, without a source that explicitly says so, constitutes an "original synthesis".

On point 2: Fair enough.

On point 3: In that case, do you think we should remove the Ott statement from this article? I don't feel strongly either way, but I think WP:SYN technically requires us to remove it. (Otherwise, we risk giving the impression that Ott's statement rules out the essence-energies distinction. It very well may rule out the essence-energies distinction, but for us to imply that it does would be an "original synthesis".) --Phatius McBluff (talk) 23:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Point 1. I think you are right in suggesting that I was not really responding to this point. I should have answered that I think that nothing other than Palamas's claim of an ontological distinction between God's essence and energies can seriously be suggested as what Palamas was condemned for and what he had to withdraw (outwardly) as a result of the 1344/1345 synod. I should not have been led astray by the question whether, in speaking of this as heretical, Fortescue was expressing his own personal judgement or was only referring to the synod's judgement. This other question can be let lie.

Point 3. I do think that keeping the Ott statement would be Wikipedia-forbidden synthesis. But perhaps Cody or someone else can prove me wrong. Esoglou (talk) 10:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be no ground whatever for supposing that Western theologians considered hesychasm as such (apart, that is, from Palamas's 15th-century claim to base it on an ontological essence-energies distinction in God) to be in any way heretical. Vailhé explicitly said there was nothing startling in the theological principles of its 14th-century form identifying the light seen on Tabor with the brightness perceived by those who used the practice. Esoglou (talk) 11:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

It appears that Ludwig Ott also claimed "In the Greek Church, the 14th century mystic-quietistic Sect of the Hesychasts or Palamites (so-called after the monk Gregory Palamas (f 1359) taught a real distinction between the Divine Essence and the Divine Efficacy or the Divine attributes". Cody7777777 (talk) 16:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I was of course wrong. Palamas was of the 14th century, not the 15th. I apologize. Still, Vailhé does distinguish between hesychasm as taught by Gregory of Sinai and the later theology of Palamas. Ott is explicitly talking about the situation after Palamas's intervention. Esoglou (talk) 16:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Cody. I worried that Esoglou is now engaged in WP:SYN and WP:OR by labeling the experience of the light of Tabor as "brightness". As anyone whom has read what was finally written down explaining the experience would obviously consider calling the experience as brightness a form of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit page 322 Philokalia Volume four 70, 71. As this is a direct attack on the Divine Energy of Grace is describe as by St Gregory of Sinai as fire. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Section 2.4.1

I "hid" the following paragraph, which used to be visible in section 2.4.1:

Whether there is a real distinction between the essence and the energies of God is disputed. Those who deny the reality of the distinction in God hold either that the distinction is merely logical or mental (Nominalists), or that it an objective formal distinction (Scotists), or that it is a virtual distinction (Thomists).

The source provided for the following paragraph uses the expression "attributes", not "energies". I do not dispute that the source's author would regard God's energies as attributes of God. But I am worried that using this source to describe various positions on the essence-energies distinction constitutes an "original synthesis" forbidden by WP:SYN. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 18:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The source also talks in the same context of the doctrine of Palamas and does so very negatively (p. 146). Does that perhaps make you change your mind? Esoglou (talk) 19:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I notice too that you have used "many ... some" to quantify the divergent opinions on whether Palamas upheld a real (may I, just perhaps, add "objective, ontological, not merely logical, mental, conceptual"?) distinction. The reality, it appears, is that on the one side you have "the great majority", "the general opinion", and on the other side you have just "a few", indeed "very few". Esoglou (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

And as regards the contents of the commented-out source, I think much the same information, again - and much more so - with explicit reference to Palamas is found here. Romanides uses the same terms: "real distinction", "virtual distinction" Scotist "formal distinction". Romanides's text is found here also. Esoglou (talk) 19:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I made an edit to try to address some of your concerns. I dispute the idea that we can simply equate "real" with "objective, ontological". From the article as it currently stands, it should be obvious that there exists no uniform terminology among the sources we are citing. For example, Aidan Nichols equates a "formal" distinction with "something demanded by the limited operating capacities of human minds". By this, he seems to mean a distinction drawn in the mind but not objectively there. Yet this is not how Scotus (also cited in the article) defines a formal distinction. Given the obvious divergence of terminology, I think we should simply attribute to each source the exact adjectives it applies to the EE distinction (whether it be "real", "objective", or "ontological"). If some of the sources do in fact apply the terms "objective" and "ontological" to the EE distinction, then you can of course note that. (I did not bother to look through all the sources to check. I just know which ones use the term "real".)

I will now try my hand at reintroducing the "hidden" paragraph in a way that both of us find acceptable. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 19:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I should have mentioned that Romanides, if I remember right, speaks only of energies, not of "attributes". And, again if I remember right, the commented-out source starts by saying that a distinction must be either "real" or "logical". If a distinction is called mental or conceptual, in which of those two categories would you put it? And if a distinction is described as ontological, in which of those two categories would you put it?

I lost my work on this and had to start again. So I forgot to write out once more my comment on "formal distinction". In spite of what the Wikipedia article on "formal distinction" says, the correct Scotist terminology is not "formal distinction". It is "objective formal distinction", distinctio formalis ex natura rei. A "formal distinction", distinctio formalis is only a conceptual distinction. And that is what Nichols is talking about. (Unless, of course, I am mistaken.) Esoglou (talk) 20:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, see this source, which defines a formal distinction as more than a conceptual distinction. If, by "the commented-out source", you mean Pohle (which I have just re-added in a way that I hope both of us will accept), then that source actually says that a distinction can be things other than "real" and "logical". Anyway, I wouldn't try to hard to use Pohle's framework to categorize all of the adjectives that we are noting. Pohle is only one source, and not the most neutral one at that. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 20:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again. Unfortunately, for computers situated where I am Google Books gives "No Preview" for the source you give, and so is of no help to me. In any case, Philips does not speak of a "formal distinction" but of a "formalis-ex-natura-rei distinction", so we should either use that exact expression or the equivalent "objective formal distinction". Pohle is certainly not neutral. All the more reason for giving Romanides as another source for the information. Would Romanides be suitable as the chief source on the matter? As I said, he speaks only of "energies", not of "attributes". I must look up Pohle, to see if my memory of its initial division into only two classes is mistaken. Esoglou (talk) 20:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see the part of Pohle you're talking about. On p. 153, he does say that (in his opinion), every distinction must be either real or merely logical. However, on the very same page, he admits that this position rules out the Scotist formal distinction. (Admittedly, it's unclear to me how the Scotist formal distinction differs from a merely logical distinction, but whatever.)

Let's use the exact phrase for Philips. Romanides is also a good add. It isn't a problem that he speaks of "energies" instead of "attributes", since this is after all an article about the divine energies. Just make sure to add him somewhere other than the paragraph with Pohle in it (since Pohle does use the term "attributes", and we don't want to create an original synthesis of Pohle and Romanides). --Phatius McBluff (talk) 20:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I was hoping you would do it. Well, if you won't, as perhaps you are indicating, I suppose I had better try. But maybe not immediately.

While we are on the topic of the section "The Distinctions of God" (irregular capitalization for a section heading), you will agree that it is obvious that in an article on "Essence-Energies distinction", the topic of "The nature of the essence-energies distinction" should be discussed, but do you understand why there is also discussion in this article of the topics "The existences of God", "The realities of God", "Economy of God"? To say the least, their connection with the topic of the article is not obvious. Esoglou (talk) 21:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

There goes Esoglou again asking to be given what he should already know as the outline is loosely based on V Lossky. As for the realities of God ask Cody I am tired of confirming for Esoglou [27] what Esoglou should already know before Esoglou ever touches any of these Orthodox theological articles. As Esoglou appears to be ignorant and should be banned from this article as the Triads as defined by Palamas is...

"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas,[28]

Why is it that people have to suffer this editor's disruptive behavior? ESOGLOU HAS NEVER READ PALAMAS OBVIOUSLY!! LoveMonkey (talk) 02:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

LoveMonkey, please calm down. You may feel that others lack an understanding of the area under discussion (I haven't read Palamas myself, aside from a new tidbits). However, confrontational, overly emotional comments like your last one are counterproductive. If all of the article were properly sourced, and it clearly explained, in terms everyone could understand, why "The existences of God", "The realities of God", "Economy of God", etc. are relevant to the EE distinction, then Esoglou wouldn't have raised the question that he raised. Instead of fighting, let's focus on improving the article.

BTW, Esoglou, I think your edit to add Romanides was good, although I did do some slight rewording. Sorry if my last comment made it seem as if I was dumping the whole task on you; I was short on time at the time, and I wanted to emphasize that you should feel welcome to make the edits yourself. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 04:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again. I am sorry if I gave the impression that I was complaining about some fault of yours. I was only expressing my own fault of laziness. I think your further edits were a definite improvement. That is what I expected of your retouching of what I wrote.

Regarding the matter that I raised above as an almost by-the-way question, I think it deserves to be addressed directly, rather than by proposing here, instead of on the appropriate noticeboard, that an editor should be banned. So I am starting a separate section on that matter.

Phatius McBluff please claim down and stop reading things into my posting. Phatius McBluff please assume good faith and also please answer my question. I answered yours, did you not see what I have already posted out not? I clarified in good faith please respond. i.e. has Esoglou read Palamas. I'll even settle on Esoglou having read other Eastern Orthodox theologians works on Palamas. If so which ones? That is completely a reasonable question. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Section 2.4

Subsections "2.4.2 The existences of God", "2.4.3 The realities of God", and "2.4.4 Economy of God"

1. should either be removed as off-topic, or
2. their supposed relevance to the topic of this article, "Essence-Energies distinction" (in God), should be explicitly indicated. Esoglou (talk) 08:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Here again Esoglou threatens to get me banned after I point out the distinctions are from Palamas and how Esoglou has shown Esoglou is ignorant of the subject and continues to be distruptive. So what does Esoglou do? Esoglou ignores that the header are based on Palamas (even after provided a source) and states they should be removed if not sourced. How is it that this is good for the project that someone doing these things and saying these things is good for any article here on Wikipedia. Esoglou is literially running off Orthodox editors who have read Palamas so Esoglou can edit the article without criticism. Esoglou should not even be on this article. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I can understand Esoglou's desire to ban LoveMonkey but I would not support such a drastic measure. However annoying his contentiousness may be, LoveMonkey has provided a very valuable contribution to a number Wikipedia articles. He just needs to be smacked with a trout from time to time to keep him in line and a certain amount of tolerance is required. I would counsel that the best course of action is to ignore the histrionics and focus on the substantive part of the discussion. "Talking" about banning an editor is inflammatory. If you're going to propose it then get on with it and do it. Otherwise, don't discuss it or threaten it as it just fuels a fire that needs to be starved, not fed. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to beat a dead horse here (Richard is certainly right that we should let interpersonal disputes drop and focus on substantive issues). However, I don't think Esoglou intended to imply that LoveMonkey be banned. If you read what Esoglou actually wrote in the section above, it was, "Regarding the matter that I raised above as an almost by-the-way question, I think it deserves to be addressed directly, rather than by proposing here, instead of on the appropriate noticeboard, that an editor should be banned." The "by-the-way question" referred to here is Esoglou's question regarding the sections "2.4.2 The existences of God", "2.4.3 The realities of God", and "2.4.4 Economy of God". When Esoglou raised this question in the section above, LoveMonkey said that Esoglou should be banned from this article because of his lack of understanding: "Esoglou appears to be ignorant and should be banned from this article." (This was obviously not a serious proposal; it was quite obviously hyperbole. No one's going to ban an editor because of the editor's lack of understanding.) Thus, Esoglou's reference to "proposing [...] that an editor should be banned" appears to be a reference to LoveMonkey's hyperbolic "proposal" that Esoglou be banned. Ultimately, Esoglou doesn't appear to have suggested that LoveMonkey be banned, and no one, neither Esoglou or LoveMonkey, appears to have been seriously arguing that anyone be banned.

At any rate, Richard is right that talking about banning an editor is inflammatory. Either go ahead and propose a ban, or don't talk about it at all, even for the sake of hyperbole. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 17:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, good grief, and I thought it was just theological writings that I had trouble parsing. If I'm going to need a gloss to understand Talk Page discussions, it is time for me to decamp. In general, let's tone down the hyperbole and maintain a civil attitude in our discussions. Bury the hatchet for the New Year. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for not having been clearer. Not even once did I suggest that LoveMonkey should be banned. It was not I who wrote: "As (name of editor) appears to be ignorant and should be banned from this article", after already saying much the same thing many times before. It would be good if the substance of this proposal could be discussed. Delete? Or explain relevance? Esoglou (talk) 18:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused... what does "Delete? Or explain relevance?" refer to? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry again for not being clearer. I meant that we should discuss, as proposed at the start of this section of the Talk page, whether to delete three subsections of the article whose relevance to the relationship between God's Essence and Energies is, to say the least, insufficiently clear, or whether they should be edited to enable the reader to see what relevance they have to the Divine Essence-Energies relationship. Esoglou (talk) 18:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for being dense this morning. Could you provide the title of the section on this Talk Page that you are referring to? There's so much dreck at the start of the Talk Page that I'm not sure which part of it you are referring to. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The section headed "Section 2.4" in the Talk page (referring to Section 2.4 of the article). Esoglou (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah... OK... I must have been distracted this morning. I got it now. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

So, I think that Esoglou is kind of getting at the same issue that I was trying to get at earlier on this Talk Page when I wrote the section title "I'm confused". I get the "essence-energies distinction" and I get that there is some ambiguity as to whether "energies" and "attributes" are equivalent though it seems they kind of are. The problem that I see is when we get to the words "existences" and "realities" which are new to me. If we say that "existences" are equivalent to "hypostases", then I can deal with that because I'm used to the idea that there are three persons or hypostases. I just had never heard the word "existence" used to designate one of the persons of the Trinity and, to a Western ear (though admittedly not a very well educated one), this seems to set off alarm bells (for me, at least).

Similarly, I have never heard the concept of the "three realities of God". I have a hard time mapping all this to what I already understand about the nature of God. I think it would be good to have LoveMonkey show us exactly how the sources link all this to the essence-energies distinction. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

1. Read the link I posted in response to Esoglou showing he has no idea what the whole of Palamas' teaching represent.
2. Why can nobody just go spend the money and read Palamas?
3. I have already showed why the Greek of the EO don't use the Baron, so I and other EO use the fourth volume of the Philokalia instead thats the link I posted already.
4. We are just going to continue with having to debate people's assumptions and I don't have nor should I have to give up the time to explain the subject. You should know about it before you edit on it.
5. Esoglou is so completely wrong and the amount of time people have to spend finding sources and arguing is not worth it. If Esoglou stopped editing on this article almost all of this bickering would go away. READ THE THEOLOGY its that simple. Why are you here other wise? As anyone whom has read it will use the quote I posted. WHY ARE YOU IGNORING THE QUOTE AND THE LINK I ALREADY POSTED? As for the comment on Lossky and hypostasis I answered Richard that question almost 2 years ago. [29] try page 51 as Lossky calls hypostasis an existence of an individual substance. This whole thing is the basis of Being with God [30] LoveMonkey (talk) 04:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

LoveMonkey, no one is denying that Palamas's theology contains concepts such as "the existences of God", etc. The question is what those concepts are doing in an article specifically devoted to the EE distinction. Consider the section on "the existences of God":

God as infinite and hyper-being (as existent) is called the Father (hypostasis) as origin of all things created and uncreated. God's hands that created the finite or material world are the uncreated existences (hypostases) of God named the Son (God incarnate Jesus Christ) and God immaterial and in Spirit (called the Holy Spirit). Since all of the existences of God as well as all things derive from the Father. What is uncreated as well as created also too, comes from God the Father (hypostasis). The God as uncreated in ousia is infinite and is therefore beyond (not limited to) being or existence. The ousia of God is uncreated and is a quality shared as common between the existences of God. This in Eastern Christianity is called hyper-being, above being (hyperousia).

This section describes the divine hypostases/existences. Thus, it would be perfectly appropriate for an article on the Trinity. However, it doesn't explain how the divine hypostases relate to the EE distinction. If it's going to be in an article on the EE distinction, then it should explain its relevance to the EE distinction. This relevance may be perfectly clear to someone who has read a lot of Palamas. However, we must assume that the people reading Wikipedia have not read a lot of Palamas. Thus, the section should clearly explain, in terms that anyone can understand, what the relation is between the divine hypostases and the EE distinction.

Moreover, it should be devoted only to the relation between the hypostases and the EE distinction. After all, this is an article on the EE distinction. Information about the hypostases that doesn't involve the EE distinction belong in a different article. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 05:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

What does the quote that I posted from Palamas say above in response to Esoglou? LoveMonkey (talk) 13:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you talking about this link that you provided? You posted this link in response to Esoglou's question about the "existences of God". Perhaps I'm just being dense, but I can't figure out how this blog post relates to the existences/hypostases of God. It uses the word "existence" only once, and not in relation to the divine hypostases. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I am talking about the link posted after the words:

"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas,[31]

So you don't see that statement and or the link after it? LoveMonkey (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Pity that Google Books doesn't let us see something of the context. As it stands, the short quotation seems to suggest that not only the energies are really distinct from the essence, but even the three Hypostases are really distinct from the essence, and really distinct from the energies. Since, I presume, all agree that the three Persons of the Trinity are really distinct from one another, some, perhaps wrongly, would accuse this of making God a composite of no less than five elements. In the West, theologians say there is no real distinction in God other than that between the three Hypostases/Persons (a relation of opposition to one another), and that none of the Persons is really distinct from the Essence. What in fact does the citation say about the Essence-Energies distinction (the topic of this article) other than that (at least, so it seems) the distinction between God's essence and energy is of the same character and as real as the distinction between these and the three Persons of the Trinity? Esoglou (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

More Forensics and speculation without having read Palamas. Again Esoglou what Palamas or Eastern Orthodox theologians work on Palamas have you read? Or is this just Esoglou using google to search for quotes on the subject? Since what you say above is addressed by Palamas and if you had read him you'd know that. But this is about a set of editors speculating without knowing the subject, isn't it? LoveMonkey (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Regrettably, Palamas is not an editor of Wikipedia. It is up to those who are editors of Wikipedia to provide this encyclopedia with information. Esoglou (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Regrettably Esoglou ignores the points again. LoveMonkey (talk) 20

14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)