Talk:Essence–Energies distinction (Eastern Orthodox theology)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

What the Essence Energies distinction means

It would better to stop with the Ecumenism. It is a bias and a POV. And it is one that makes this article NOT NEUTRAL. The article is being turned into an article about if the teaching is heretical or not rather than what the teaching is. At best that belongs on the Palamas article. AT BEST. And Ecumenism does not equate to Neutral. As Palamas was against unionist and their union with the Roman Catholic church. With the recent changes in the West it is pure speculation (therefore not acceptable) to include what Palamas would have thought. As for the distinction itself it is a real distinction and made in order to protect the parts of the bible and theology that teach what of God man can not be witness too as it would destroy him. God in essence is incomprehensible always at all times during this life after this life. As what is God is truly incomprehensible and in the East to teach other wise is heresy. People here with an agenda are taking this article in an OR direction with a POV that this article should never be allowed to do. As right not this article does not reflect the Official opinion of either the Roman Catholics and or the Official stance of the Eastern Orthodox. As I can think of no official Orthodox book that makes the statements that certain editor have seen fit to add to this article. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I think all information on informed views about the nature of the distinction in God between his essence and his energies is welcome here, but especially information provided in "official Orthodox books", as opposed to books by individual theologians. Esoglou (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Welcome maybe if in their appropriate section as what is now is distorting and not letting the teaching speak as it is. It is about how Esoglou can somehow make Palamas not Palamas. And try and take away the very substance of the teaching in order to conform it to Esoglou's ecumenist agenda. But it is better to force onto people your opinion Esoglou rather than respect people's position and allow them to disagree. As no one in the church really needs to reconcile with the West and there is no great movement in Orthodoxy to do that. Your approach is something that harkens to the 1970s. Esoglou is on an Eastern Orthodox theological article pushing his POV. And using Wikipedia for that agenda. Esoglou does not see his behavior as an attack. Esoglou does not understand the saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Esoglou does not want this article to be about the subject nor the group it represents Esoglou wants the article to be about a minority view or two and to give those views equal weight. When that is against policy. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the real question is whether it is Esoglou that is "making Palamas not Palamas" or if it is 20th century theologians with an ecumenical bent that are doing it. If it is Esoglou, than that is unacceptable OR. However, if it is the latter, then this should be documented in all Palamas-related articles. The general model should be "what Palamas has traditionally been understood to say" followed by 20th century reinterpretations (rehabilitation) of "what Palamas is now understood to say" followed by any "repudiations of the ecumenical effort to reinterpret Palamas". All of this cited to reliable secondary sources and not based upon primary sources or interpretations thereof. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

So let me see if I understand this correctly. If Richard finds a source that is not considered a theology giant in the East but may be a Westernized (trained at a University) person whom claims to be an Eastern Orthodox theologian and that theologian says things that are ridiculousness and can be dis-proven, that theologian belongs in the article? I mean Sergei Bulgakovs theology is labeled a heresy. And he retaliated by taking an extreme ecumenist stance against the Orthodox Church. But now he should have equal weight to other theologians in good standing? As I think that Martin Luther could be then treated in such away as he claims he never left "true" Christianity. There have always been unionists why now should their opinions (which the Eastern Orthodox reject) now be put higher then the works of theologians in good standing? I can say the only reason this is being discussed as any theologian whom teaches outside of the Orthodox dogma but is Ecumenist to say Voodoo would not be used. Which is my point. The only reason these theologians are being used and given undue weight is because they promote a POV that Esoglou endorses. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anybody has referenced Sergei Bulgakov except LoveMonkey so I assume he is just presented as an unacceptable Orthodox theologian and otherwise irrelevant to this discussion.

WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE still apply. However, where there are multiple schools of thought, the key is to locate each source within the relevant school of thought and adequately distinguish among the schools of thought. There does seem to be a "Neo-Orthodox movement" that seeks to counteract Westernizing and re-unifying trends. See the abstract to Daniel Payne's PhD thesis which describes this "Neo-Orthodox movement" (the phrase "Neo-Orthodox" appears to be a neologism coined by Payne). Anyway, the point is that the Russian emigre theologians represent a new rediscovery of Palamas whose interpretation thereof may or may not represent the mainstream of the Orthodox faith today. We would need more sources that comment directly on this. Payne is not a reliable source in this regard.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

A rediscovery for West maybe but not the East and the EO does not use Meyendorff as his work is considered WRONG. I've already sourced that. LoveMonkey (talk) 02:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Three existences of God

A Google search for ("three existences" God) will show that the concept of "three existences of God" is not a commonly used one. I said before that the phrase "three existences of God" set off alarm bells for me. The reason for this is that it sounds a lot like "three manifestations of God" which is a heresy. I'm sure LoveMonkey is much more knowledgeable about Christological heresies than I am.

I believe we are looking at a linguistic issue here. I don't think we can use English terms without reference to the Greek terms which are often used with specific theological meaning. Using English translations of Greek terms can too easily lead to misunderstandings of the theological meaining of the original Greek terms.

One source that I did find was this one one] that does discuss "existence" relative to the three persons of God. My ability to understand the text of the source is hindered by my abject ignorance of Greek. Nonetheless, I think the source lends support to my point. Presenting these concepts in English is a risky proposition. I think it is better to use both the Greek terms and English translations thereof. And, as much as I despise lengthy quotes in the citations, I think we need some direct quotes to help support the assertion of "three existences" as being identical to or different from the "three persons" or "three hypostases".

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Since when is a google search a way to validate or invalidate a foreign speaking and foreign based community and it's theology? Why doesn't Richard go his Eastern Orthodox theology books that may or may not be posted on the web and use them for sources? Since he is knowledgeable enough about the subject to edit on encyclopedia articles about it. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps Google Books provides you with more of the Chrystal book on the First Council of Nicaea than it gives me here. All it gives me is the information that "it" (apparently οὐσία) "came to mean subsistencies also, that is existencies, and in that sense could be used of the Persons of the Trinity, for each Person exists separately as a Person, but unitedly all Three are but one eternal God, and as such have but one existence." So Chrystal actually denies that God has three existences, while saying that there are in God three existencies (whatever this word means, and it is not Greek).

I presume that one editor here dislikes Chrystal's statement that οὐσία had more meanings than one. Esoglou (talk) 19:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Guys, I think we're getting a bit sidetracked here. There will be plenty of time later to debate issues of translation and wording. The most important question is "How do the 'existences of God' relate to the EE distinction?" Any discussion of the "existences of God" (and it really doesn't matter whether we find that phrase misleading, as long as there are sources that use it) should be directly related to the EE distinction. LoveMonkey's source simply mentions that the EE distinction and the distinction between the hypostases are 2 of the 3 "realities" within God. We can, of course, mention that in the article. But that still doesn't explain how an extended discussion of the hypostases/existences is appropriate for this article. Again, I have no problem with LoveMonkey including whatever sourced statements he wants to include, but all of those statements must be directly related to the EE distinction. If they aren't, then they can go into some other article. I still don't see why this article includes a whole section on the "existences of God". --Phatius McBluff (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Esoglou has already done this entire ignoring again. How is that not the cold shoulder and how is that not disrespectful? I have given Lossky as a source and again editors on here are ignoring my answering of their questions, ones I have answered and provided sources for in good faith. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article is being discussed on the NPOV board

[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Noticeboard#Article_Essence.E2.80.93Energies_distinction] LoveMonkey (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

That would be here. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

LoveMonkey's WP:UNDUE complaint regarding Essence-Energies distinction#The Distinctions of God

LoveMonkey added a WP:UNDUE tag to the "distinctions of God" section. In his edit summary, he said, "why is the minority view given primacy? This section is misleading the minority view stated and names given but none for the majority view. Why?" I take it that he is referring specifically to the subsection on the nature of the essence-energies distinction, which has recently gotten a lot of attention from Richard, me, and (to a lesser extent) Esoglou and me.

There certainly may be undue weight concerns regarding the wording of that subsection. However, I fail to understand LoveMonkey's complaint in his edit summary. Let me quote the subsection in full:

According to John Romanides, Palamas considers the distinction between God's essence and his energies to be a "real distinction". Romanides distinguishes this "real distinction" from the Thomistic "virtual distinction" and the Scotist "formal distinction". (Romanides suspects that Barlaam accepted a "formal distinction" between God's essence and his energies.) The terms "real distinction", "virtual distinction", and "formal distinction", as well as the term "purely mental distinction" (associated with Nominalism) are technical terms in dogmatic and natural theology, often used in attempts to describe the distinction between God's essence and his attributes.

Many writers agree that Palamas views the distinction between the divine essence and the divine energies as a "real" distinction. A few scholars argue against describing Palamas's essence-energies distinction as a "real" distinction. For example, David Bentley Hart expresses doubt "that Palamas ever intended to suggest a real distinction between God's essence and energies".

According to Aidan Nichols, Palamas's essence-energies distinction is not a mere "formal" distinction. By a "formal" distinction, Nichols means a distinction merely "demanded by the limited operating capacities of human minds".

G. Philips argues that Palamas's essence-energies distinction is not an "ontological" distinction but, rather, analogous to a "formal distinction" in the Scotist sense of the term.

According to A.N. Williams's study of Palamas, which is more recent than Bentley's and Philips's, in two passages (only) Palamas explicitly says God's energies are "as constitutively and ontologically distinct from the essence as are the three Hypostases", and in one place he makes explicit his view, repeatedly implied elsewhere, that the essence and the energies are not the same; but Williams contends that not even in these passages did Palamas intend to argue for an "ontological or fully real distinction", and that the interpretation of his teaching by certain polemical modern disciples of his is false.

By "majority", I take it, LoveMonkey means the view that the EE distinction is a "real" distinction. Contrary to LoveMonkey's claim that the subsection gives no names for the majority view, it gives the name of at least one scholar (Romanides) who calls the EE distinction "real". In addition, it gives the name of one scholar (Nichols) who appears to argue against a position that attributes less reality to the EE distinction. It also mentions that only "a few" scholars argue against describing the EE distinction as "real". Thus, I see no grounds for LM's assertion that the subsection provides no names whatsoever in support of the majority view.

I think Richard Esoglou is actually more willing to compromise with LoveMonkey's position here than I am. If I remember correctly, Richard Esoglou has expressed concern that the terms "ontological distinction", "fully real distinction", etc. are actually all synonymous with "real distinction", and that all writers who apply the term "real" to the EE distinction mean it in the same way. If that is the case, then the article's current organization is clearly unacceptable: the claims by Williams, Philips, and Hart should all be condensed into a single claim, i.e. "A few scholars deny the majority view that the EE distinction is a real distinction." To leave them as separate claims would be undue weight.

However, I have a problem with such a move. In discussions above, I have pointed out that we have no way of proving the following claims:

• that all authors who describe the EE distinction as "real" mean the same thing by the adjective "real"
• that every single writer who describes the EE distinction as "real" means something that is incompatible with the claims of every single writer who describes the EE distinction with a different adjective (e.g. "formal", "not fully real", "not ontological")
• that this problem is exacerbated by the fact that some of the authors are clearly using theological terms in different ways (e.g. Nichols uses the term "formal", but he doesn't appear to be using it in the same way that Scotists use it)

That doesn't mean that we can't point out that a lot of writers apply the adjective "real" to the EE distinction. We can, and the subsection currently does so. It simply means that we can't condense all of the "minority" positions (i.e. Williams, Philips, and Hart) into a single position of opposition to Romanides and the rest of the "majority"; to do so would be an original synthesis. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 20:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I wrote "Richard" up there ("I think Richard is actually more willing to compromise with LoveMonkey's position here than I am") where I should have put "Esoglou". --Phatius McBluff (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

So Phatius thinks that people like David Bentley have a high standing in the Orthodox Church? That David Bentley is say a higher authority in the Orthodox church than a Metropolitan? Like say Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos) of Nafpaktos? So lets start simple. Is David Bentley a Professor of theology at a University? Do you even know? Is Bentley a Philosophy professor too? Is Bentley one of either of these at a Greek University? Is then David Bentley clergy? Is David Bentley then high clergy? Like say a Bishop or Metropolitan? That doesn't seem hard. So why is David Bentley's opinion (which is not endorsed by say Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos) of Nafpaktos (like Lossky is) been given a very critical place in an article about a dogmatic theological teaching that is over 500 years old? Why is David Bentley more important and being depicted as on par with Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos) of Nafpaktos? Both men are living but Bentley is not and will never be considered anything even close to Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos) of Nafpaktos. But for the record what does Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos) of Nafpaktos say that jives with your opinion? Why are you setting such a criteria? If what I am saying is true that would be to give undue weight to Bentley over Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos) of Nafpaktos. BTW what does Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos) of Nafpaktos say about Palamas in general also would the same not be true for John Meyendorff? Since Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos) of Nafpaktos writings on Palamas would actually be without controversy and should be for all intents and purposes considered scholarly and authoritative.[1] LoveMonkey (talk) 20:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand how the link that you just provided is relevant to the issue. The page that it links to doesn't mention the expression "real distinction". Indeed, it doesn't seem to focus on the essence-energies distinction at all. Could you explain its relevance? --Phatius McBluff (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

OK so the link I provided that is an Overview from the book "St. Gregory Palamas as a Hagiorite" by Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos) of Nafpaktos [2] you don't understand how that book might have bearing on Palamas' teaching of the Essence Energies distinction? Have you read it? Have read what Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos) of Nafpaktos teaches of the Essence Energies distinctions? Heres a passage from the book.

"In the face of this great danger St. Gregory Palamas developed the fundamental teaching of the Church concerning the great mystery of the indivisible distinction between the essence and energy of God. We must underline that this is not the teaching of St. Gregory Palamas alone, but of the Orthodox Church, and therefore this theology cannot be called Palamism. Many fathers have referred to the distinction between essence and energy. We find it in the Bible, in the first Apostolic Fathers, in the Cappadocian Fathers, and especially in Basil the Great and that great dogmatic theologian of the Church, St. John of Damascus. St. Gregory Palamas, with his outstanding theological ability, developed further this already existing teaching and put forward its practical consequences and dimensions.

It is very characteristic that this distinction began to be noted in discussions about the Holy Spirit. The Calabrian philosopher Barlaam maintained that we could not know just what the Holy Spirit is, especially His procession and His being sent by the Son. In the face of the danger of agnosticism St. Gregory Palamas taught that the actual procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father is a different thing from His being sent by the Son. Thus while we do not know the essence of the Holy Spirit, we do know His energy.

All spiritual life is a result and fruit of the energy of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the saint taught, we cannot participate in God's essence, but we can know and participate in His energies. As the great dogmatic theologian St. John of Damascus teaches, we can see His three unions: union in essence, of the Persons of the Holy Trinity; union in substance, in the Person of Christ between the divine and human natures; and union in energy, between God and man.

In this way St. Gregory preserves the true teaching of the Church. If in the time of Athanasios the Great, men doubted the divinity of Christ, in St. Gregory's time they had doubts about God's energies. They said that His energies are created. Therefore in the dismissal hymn of the saint we sing: "Illuminator of Orthodoxy, supporter and teacher of the Church, spiritual beauty of the monastics, irrefutable champion of the theologians..."

You have not notice that the Metropolitan is mentioned at the end of the article? What does that link say about Palamas? I answered your questions in good faith now answer mine. LoveMonkey (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

LoveMonkey, there are unfortunately several discussions going on simultaneously. As regards your complaint about Bentley Hart, please see my comment below about the structure of the article and how we could revise it to possibly address some of your concerns. Now, here's my concern with the quote that you provided above. Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos) of Nafpaktos wrote "we can see His three unions: union in essence, of the Persons of the Holy Trinity; union in substance, in the Person of Christ between the divine and human natures; and union in energy, between God and man." This is great stuff.

1. Union of the three Persons (hypostasis) in one essence (ousia). That is pure Orthodox and Catholic doctrine. Even the Protestants don't disagree.
2. Union in substance, in the Person of Christ between the divine and human natures. Once again, pure Orthodox and Catholic doctrine and the Protestants are still on board.
3. Union in energy, between God and man. Well, this is a little foreign to the Western ear but, as has been discussed, Western theologians are starting to consider that it might not be as heretical as previous generations had thought it to be.

Here's my problem - Where are the "existences of God" mentioned? Where are the "realities of God" mentioned?

We need a quote that ties the words "existences" to the "essence-energies distinction" and another one (possibly the same one, possibly a different one) that ties "realities" to the "essence-energies distinction".

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Still ignoring, I will not source it for a third time do a search of this talkpage for "page 51" for anyone actually looking for it, enough of your sarcasm and asking me over and over again to source the same thing Ive already sourced. LoveMonkey (talk) 02:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I begin to wonder if the problem is that you don't have the book at the moment. After all, you have provided many, many quotes in your numerous citations to many Wikipedia articles and it seems that it would be trivial for you to either link to the diff where you provided the quote 2 years ago or to just open the book to page 51 and bang out a paragraph or two to answer the question. If you don't have the book at the moment, then your reluctance to provide a quote is perfectly understandable. If you do have the book and just don't want to provide the quote, well... that seems rather obstreperous to me. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 02:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Search Richard theres even a link to the page on google books. LoveMonkey (talk) 02:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

We should consider whether the structure of the article is being followed

We should consider at least five categories of opinion about the EE-distinction.

1. What Palamas said and what the mainstream of EO theologians have said in interpreting what Palamas said. (This could arguably be two categories but I suspect the two can be commingled without creating any difficulties.)
2. What Western theologians (mostly Catholic but perhaps some Anglican and Protestant ones as well) have said prior to the 20th century
3. What Meyendorff said as an Orthodox theologian rehabilitating Palamas to the West
4. What Western theologians in the 20th century have said (mostly Catholic ones)
5. What EO theologians have said about what the Western theologians have said

Orthodox theologians such as Romanides and Lossky fit into categories 1 & 5. Commentators such as Fortescue and Lossky fall into category 2.

It seems that LoveMonkey is objecting to the introduction of David Bentley Hart, Nichols, Philips and Williams at that particular point in the article. He thinks that the article should present the original doctrine absent any outside commentary that either criticizes or re-interprets it.

I think that we could reasonably structure the article that way. In fact, the current article outline suggests that we are going to cover the "Eastern Orthodox" view first (section 2) and then the Roman Catholic perspective next (section 3). In fact, the placement of section 2.3 ("Orthodox criticism of Western theology") in the middle of section 2 seems out of place. It comes before section 2.4 ("Distinctions of God") and section 2.5 ("In the life of the believer"). It's also puzzling why section 4 ("Russian and Byzantine philosophy") is a separate section altogether.

In brief, the article seems very disjointed and I think a reorganization could help the flow of logic and ideas and also address LoveMonkey's heartburn about criticism of EO doctrine in the middle of the presentation of that doctrine.

I propose that we reorganize this article along the lines of the 5 categories presented at the beginning of this section and discuss each category in the sequence presented here.

Comments?

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

NB: Arguably there is another category that parallels category 4 (call it 4.5 The rediscovery of Palamas by Russian emigre theologians such as Lossky and Romanides starting in the 1940s). I kind of commingled them with category 1 but we should be careful that we not assume that everything they write about Palamas is necessarily the same as the traditional EO doctrine. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

thats almost pure opinion Palamas was not forgotten. Thats what one now calls spin or anecdotal as if Yannaras never mentioned Palamas [3]. LoveMonkey (talk) 02:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Fine... we needn't get caught up in that particular point.

The critical issue is that there are multiple perspectives on Palamas and we should present them in roughly chronological order. According to Daniel Payne, the Russian emigre theologians "rediscovered" Palamas in the 1940s (i.e. before Meyendorff's doctoral thesis in 1959). Of course, Romanides' critique of Meyendorff comes after the doctoral thesis. I know it's much cleaner to present ideas as cut-and-dried, black-and-white "this is right", "that is wrong". Unfortunately, academia is not so neat as that. Whatever you, a student of Romanides think of Meyendorff, the fact remains that his thesis represents a critical watershed in Western theology. If you want to assert that the entire Eastern Orthodox theological community rejected Meyendorff's view of Palamas, you have to present more than Romanides saying Meyendorff has his head up his proverbial. You have to present a secondary source that says that Romanides' opinion represents the majority view of the EO theological community. Otherwise, it just looks like Meyendorff vs. Romanides with no indication as to which is the majority view.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 05:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

What does that mean? So what if there is multiple opinions does that make it WP:Notable? Obvious not. Romanides is not the only theologian critical of Meyendorff.

1. [4]
2. [5]

His work just isn't used anymore in the East. Kallistos Ware's translation of Palamas as is contained in the fourth volume of the Philokalia is however. I will again reiterate that there are better sources (like the Metropolitan mentioned above whose work is without such controversy). Since you don't know and refuse to know. I have repeatedly attempted to explain to you and you appear to be ignoring what is being presented to you. As Meyendoriff is very likely to not be taught a GOA seminary where as obviously Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos) would. The paper from Payne is not a hallmark paper it is almost just one more of many that really does not need to be the primary source for this theological teaching. As it is more about the people and the various movements in dispora. BUT the fourth volume of the Philokalia is the theology. As it is a Western slander to even call the teachings "PALAMISM". As the label is an invention by Roman Catholics. [6] And the Orthodox consider people whom say such things Papists. Thats because Palamas did not really do anything but cognitized the teaching that was already there. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

LoveMonkey, I will start by commenting that my opinions are about Palamite theology in general and may or may not apply to the EE-distinction in particular. I have not read closely enough to know exactly where Romanides et al think Meyendorff went off the rails but I acknowledge that they do.

Second, whether what you say about Meyendorff not being likely to be taught at a GOA seminary is simply your opinion unless you can back it up with a secondary source. This is one of the problems about sourcing at Wikipedia... you cannot prove a majority opinion by loading up citations to lots of sources. You must find one that explicitly says "all X reject Y" or "most X reject Y". (P.S. Jugie didn't oppose Meyendorff; he died 5 years before Meyendorff defended his doctoral thesis; besides Jugie was a Western scholar so what point are you trying to make anyway?)

Third, the foregoing point notwithstanding, it doesn't matter whether you establish that Meyendorff is rejected by EO theologians. He is still notable. NPOV requires that he be presented, especially since he is NOT rejected by the West so he is only FRINGE vis-a-vis the East. If you want to argue that the West misunderstands Palamas because of Meyendorff, you can do that with citations to Romanides et al. But you cannot use those citations to argue that Meyendorff should not be mentioned at all because it is clear that Meyendorff is not only notable, he is eminently notable.

Fourth, you may think that this article is about the Eastern view of the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of the EE-distinction. I think it should be about all views of the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of the EE-distinction. That is what NPOV requires.

Finally, I do think that mixing non-EO and EO views of the doctrine together in the same section tends to lead the reader to develop a muddled view of what the EO view of the doctrine is. I think it is preferable to separate the various views in roughly chronological order as I have already proposed.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

No, Meyendorff is not notable and most definitely not notable within the confines of basing most of this article on him. Now if you want to use him in the Roman Catholic sections or make a comment or two on him thats fine. However he is not valid or more clearly he is not used to teach the Essence Energy distinction in the church that holds it as dogma. If you do use him that would be Undue Weight. And then that becomes POV pushing. Why? Because it is not by WP policy logic that you used him but your own POV. Please also note: This theology is the theology of Eastern Orthodox church why then would half or more of the article be taken up by what the Roman Catholic or Western theologians' opinion of it is when the teaching itself has English text that can be used to reflect the actual teachings from the Church that holds it as dogma. So we have here where an article that was supposed to at least give an overview of the theological teaching is now more concerned with what people think of the teaching rather than the actual teaching in and of itself. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we are only disagreeing as to how much space to give to Meyendorff and others who have alternate perspectives. Consider the article on Papal infallibility. In that article, there is, justifiably, a substantive treatment of the doctrine from the RCC perspective followed by a very long section describing the opposition to the doctrine. I think the debate regarding the EO's contempt for Meyendorff is encyclopedic.

I agree with you that the mainstream Eastern Orthodox view of the EE-distinction should be presented without niggling re-interpretations of the doctrine. However, at some point, the views of Meyendorff as well as those outside the EOC should be presented. This is NPOV at its core. There is no problem in presenting EOC sources that blast Meyendorff for completely misunderstanding Palamas but you can't pretend he never existed or that his work has no relevance to the topic. This is not the Orthodox Wiki. (Disclaimer: I don't know what the Orthodox Wiki's policies are regarding NPOV.)

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

NPOV does not and can not be used to justify other policy vio. There is no need to mention every Roman Catholic or Protestant theologian whom has written about the teaching. There is not justification for trying to take the position. As under the The nature of the essence-energies distinction header for example. There is no justification to include theologian whom Palamas has in his own works labeled hereticial as Palamas taught that there was no accepting the filioque for example. People whom already part ways with Palamas on this critical issue should not be given primacy in an article on his theology. People whom are not in communion with Palamas' community do not belong along side people whom are part of his community and hold his teachings as dogma. THATS UNDUE WEIGHT and POV PUSHING. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh please... your argument would make sense if we were talking about one of the many doctoral theses that get published every year but do we really need to get into an argument about the importance of Meyendorff? His doctoral thesis had to be defended in front of the entire Faculty of Theology at the Sorbonne. It provoked debate in the journal Istina for decades. Perhaps you haven't seen the assertions that Meyendorff represents a critical turning point in the West's understanding (rehabilitation) of Palamas. It may be that Meyendorff misunderstands Palamas and the West is wrong for accepting his misunderstanding but the fact of the matter is that's what happened (and I can document all this but I really wish you wouldn't make me do it). The East wouldn't spend so much time and effort attacking Meyendorff if he was a nobody. The problem is that he is considered one of the great theologians and the East must tear him down lest the West assume that he is right. Romanides is considered a great theologian. Why would someone of his stature bother attacking a nobody? Meyendorff gets so much attention from the East precisely because he is considered dangerous. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Those are Western as again that would not be something that a priest in Greece would do to get his PHD. And he would not use Meyendorff. And knock off the sarcasm (i.e. "Oh Please"). You are being selective again in what you chose to see and what you chose to ignore. Go tell the Metropolitan how wrong he is for his arguments let alone the Bishop of Photiki [7] Seems Richard likes to be sarcastic and ignore Bishops of the church whose theology is the subject of articles he is working on. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

One of the problems here is that you seem to be focusing on this as a "East vs. West" dichotomy. My proposed outline suggests that there is the (1) original doctrine, (2) the West's rejection of it (3) Meyendorff's re-interpretation of Palamas for the West (4) the East's rejection of Meyendorff. (If you accept Daniel Payne's view, there is also the "rediscovery of Palamas by Russian emigre theologians in the 1940s which would fall between #2 and #3).

My view is that what's going on is that the 20th century presented new challenges to Orthodox theology in the form of new contact with the West. Much of Orthodoxy was under relative isolation (under Islamic rule or within the Russian empire) until the 20th century. Faced with a growing Westernization of Orthodox theology, a group of Orthodox theologians wished to bring Orthodoxy back to its Patristic roots (cf. Florovsky's "Neo-Patristic Synthesis"). Meyendorff is part of the Westernizing school and Romanides, Lossky and Yannaras are part of the anti-Westernizing school. If you want to argue that the anti-Westernizing school is dominant, I don't object except that I'd like to see sourcing to support it. However, you still can't ignore Meyendorff since he seems to be the primary target of the anti-Westernizing school.

Meyendorff's work must be presented. Where exactly you want to do that is a second order problem.

Whether you want to label Meyendorff as West instead of East is kind of irrelevant. I'm sure you can present sources that consider him "alien to Orthodox theology". The point is that all four of those things happened and deserve to be discussed.

How exactly you want to label the sections that discuss them is a second order problem.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I am focusing on "in communion" and not "in communion" and the church that held the councils and other churches that have a history of calling Palamas and the church that hold the essence and energy distinction as dogma -heretics, as these other groups that have a documented history of war and killing and murder and political repression and supporting Unionists financially whom when they could not get their way engage in civil war and killing and murder. That is history. You this as you want to see it. I am trying to give the perspective of people from the community whom have authority in that community. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm taking a break

This is just to let LoveMonkey, Richard, the Esoglou know that I'll be taking a break from this article and related ones for a while. My personal life is going to be getting a lot busier now. Plus, I really don't see how to constructively contribute anymore, since disagreement seems to have escalated into intractable conflict. I've said all I have to contribute. If anyone wants to know what my main views about the article currently are, please see my long comment on the NPOV notice board.

This doesn't mean that I won't be checking on this article and related ones. I may even throw in my two cents on occasion. Just don't expect me to comment or edit frequently, or to respond promptly to messages. In closing, I'll say that Richard's proposed basic structure for the article looks like a good idea. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Orthodox criticism of Western theology

The section on "Orthodox criticism of Western theology" is currently under "In the Life of the Believer" in the section titled "Distinctions of God". This is almost certainly an error. I think it should be a level 2 section (i.e. "==" with a single digit section number) that comes after "Roman Catholic perspectives" but I can see arguments for keeping where it is and just promoting it to level 2. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The section is not part of the theology. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Whatever theology it is not part of, I agree that its positioning needs to be improved. It seems to be much less part of "the life of the believer" than part of a dispute among theologians. I accept either of Richard's proposals. I see that LoveMonkey has now improved the positioning. I am glad of that.

Whatever about its positioning, this is a highly uninformative section. All it really says is this: Eastern Orthodox theologians have criticized Western for not agreeing that the distinction between the essence and the energies of God is a real distinction.

An equally (un)informative section could be added, under the title "Western criticism of Eastern theology", to say: "Western theologians have criticized Eastern theology for its alleged incompatibility with the simplicity of God. Introducing a real distinction between God's essence and his energies, and regarding the latter as something other than actus (although Eastern theology sees actus as the Latin for energeia),[8] it posits a multiplicity in God, which might even be considered polytheism."

Note that I am not proposing the insertion of such a section. I give it only as a reflected image of the section headed "Orthodox criticism of Western theology".

May I be permitted to give another example here, one that I trust no one will this time imagine I am proposing for insertion in the article. In creatures, there is clearly a real distinction between their essence and their energies. But one view of the distinction between the essence and the energies of God is that it is somewhat like the distinction between the current President of the United States and Michelle Obama's husband. The distinction between the current President of the United States and Michelle Obama's husband is not a real distinction between two individuals. So what kind of distinction is it? Some would call it a virtual distinction: it is not by virtue of being Michelle's husband that he governs the United States, not is it by virtue of being President that he has relations with his wife. Others would call it a merely conceptual distinction. Maybe others would call it a formal distinction. Others still would call it a modal distinction. Esoglou (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

An Obvious and reoccurring problem with recent editors contributions to the article

It appears that the article here is being treated as an article about Palamas and about what Palamas taught when Palamas himself was only the person whom put the theology to a general overview and then got that validated by church council. For people to say that one can not say, for example a quote from St Gregory of Nyssa on the teachings of the distinction is a POV. It is a POV of this theology promoted and fabricated by Western theologians it is completely inappropriate and not how the distinction is held as dogma and taught by Eastern Orthodox theologians. This is why something as misguided as saying that Palamas was "rediscovered" or "found" by various theologians can be said, and are misinformed and not actually correct as the distinction is and was already a core tenet of Eastern Orthodox theology before and after Palamas and it is short sighted and misinformed to depict the theology as new and from Palamas and to treat it as such and focus exclusively on Palamas. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

A Google search for "Russian emigre theologians Orthodox" yields results that suggest that this is a notable group (i.e. not just a figment of Daniel Payne's imagination). How exactly to characterize their contribution to Orthodox theology is probably beyond the scope of this article. That discussion more properly belongs at Talk:History of Eastern Orthodox Christian theology. I have seen at least one source that claims that one of their goals was to combat the growing Westernization of Orthodox theology. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, so when Romanides called the slavophile movement racist what was he talking about Richard? LoveMonkey (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I honestly don't know the answer to that question. To the best of my memory I haven't run across the word "slavophile" in this (or any other) context. Perhaps you could educate me. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

OK... I've now seen the term in some stuff that I've been looking at. I haven't fully figured out what it is yet except that "Florovsky and Lossky reacted against the Slavophile movement to identify a specifically Russian approach to theology. They advocated instead a return to the Greek fathers."[9] --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 08:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Economy of God

The section is badly written as it reads like a religious tract rather than encyclopedic text. I don't have time to rewrite it as it is already quite late at night here. Here is a good presentation of the key points. When time permits, I will try to paraphrase this for the article. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 09:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Esoglou, have you looked at Ralph Del Colle's book "Christ and the Spirit: Spirit-christology in trinitarian perspective". This is what the Google Books summary says:

This is a study of Spirit-Christology--a contemporary theological model of the relationship between Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. Del Colle measures this christological model against trinitarian theology and tests its viability. He investigates in particular the development of a Roman Catholic Spirit-Christology, which has arisen from within the modern neo-scholastic theological tradition. Contrary to other interpreters, Del Colle argues that an incarnational christology and a Spirit-Christology are not conflicting but complementary and that this is recognized by the older and deeper tradition. In conclusion, he seeks to demonstrate the productivity of the Spirit-Christological model in reference to three major areas of concern for contemporary systematic theology: cultural pluralism and diversity, emancipation and social praxis, and inter-religious dialogue.

Look particularly the section titled "Palamite Distinctions" on pp. 14-16. Unfortunately, very little of the book is available via Google Books preview. It does seem like it would be a useful resource for this article. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Byzantine and Russian philosophy

I'm still wondering what this section is doing at the end of the article. It seems like an afterthought apropos of nothing. I'm not saying the text should be deleted, just that it should be better integrated into the flow of the article. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Well there you are again. So you on one hand like Meyendorff and endorse his slavophilism. While on the other hand outright attack his philosophical pedigree. Go read the N. O. Lossky article first. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The burden of proof of verifiability (and relevance) lies on an editor who wants to insert or keep material. No supporting citation has yet been included in the section. Shall we simply delete it? Esoglou (talk) 20:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Esoglou beat me to it. That's what I was going to say. We need to put this in the mouth of a reliable source or else it reads like OR. We also need to link it to the topic of the article and integrate it with the flow of ideas. Let's give it a day or so. I would not like to instigate an edit war without giving LoveMonkey a chance to source the section and provide text linking it to the rest of the article. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Here comes the citation abuser to point out their abuse. It is also policy that one have understanding of the topic one contributes substance to. Esoglou just can't say of he has read Palamas or what Palamas Esoglou has read. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced is unsourced. Source the text and explain why it relates to the article. There is no policy that says a reader has to have read Palamas or any other source in order to understand an article. Just spell it out for the reader (and for poor ignorant us as well). --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

If LoveMonkey knows of anything in Palamas - whether included or not in the little I have read of his writings, which take up two whole volumes (150-151) of Migne's Patrologia Graeca - that supports this section, he should put it in. Otherwise, the section can be deleted - of course, after he has been given time to produce the required citation. Esoglou (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

If Esoglou would actually read people's works from the Orthodox church and quite attacking them he might understand what the Mystical in response to Western rationalism in slavophilism was the Essence Energy distinction. And yes N. O. Lossky wrote on that in the intro to his book the History of Russian Philosophy. Do either of you know anything about this subject? Anything from an Eastern perspective? Anything? LoveMonkey (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Forget the polemics and provide the Lossky quote already. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

So again Richard and Esoglou don't have to know or read anything. Thats someone else job. Its better for them to use Google and search for someone's opinion or interpretation of the theology rather than what the theology actually says for itself. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, if you consider WP:RS, it is preferred to use secondary sources. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Whatever evidence one or more editors may personally possess, the section remains with no explicit citation to prove that it concerns the distinction between essence and energies in God or that it is not original research. Esoglou (talk) 16:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It would seem to people whom understand (as best as they can) the Energy and Essence distinction that what you two DO NOT understand is this distinction is about substance theory also and how all things have metaphysical characteristics (i.e. their essence) the character of things that can not be validated by logic and in the attempt to do so triggers the fallacy of infinite regression. Paganism dealt with this by the instigation of Hesiod's arche which lead to the manifestation of something called philosophy. However reason can not account for uncreated things and in the process of this makes gnosticism in that anything that is irrational is "evil". This is what the gnostics did they replaced the truly mystical with metaphysics.

But thats a Berdyaev discussion for another day. The distinction gives the clear and ultimate validation that hypostasis and sentience have primacy. As it makes the statement of metaphysics that Hypostasis is the highest categorization and that Ousia is not first (as is the case of paganism, for Palamas substance does not have primacy). Palamas makes this so in saying that Hypostasis (the particular) is closer to the infinite in validation than the general, then the general. This is theosis. What we can know is the denial of belief (epistemological) what is know is through faith. And faith can very easily do and function without ""reason". As substance is not reasonable and if it takes reason to "know" or validate the existence of something (philosophy's response to sophism as being) then non-substantive things can not exit.

So things that are not reasonable or can not be deconstructed or reasoned are now taught as "illusions" in science and this component in matter should not have primacy in science. For the EO Energy does not and can not stand by itself. Energy can not stand alone. Energy is always the property of something else. To say otherwise is atheism. What that else is then will show that it can be linked to something other until one reaches at place where there is no other this is Orthodox gnosiology. [10] This does not make matter an illusion nor a manifestation of irrationality. No, it makes the uncreated in matter "super or supra" rational. --hyper-- (this is the very heart and soul of Christianity according to the EO and no it is more ontological than the cheap imitation existentialism only stupid people who have to think through their degrees say that French existentialism and not Dostoevsky has something to do with EO theology) As the substance of things can not be known through reason and can only be known instead through noesis or the noetic (intuitively) this is gnosis. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The point here is not whether you understand what we fail to understand. The point is whether the reader ultimately understands or fails to understand. Your presentation of Byzantine and Russian philosophy at the end of the article seems like an afterthought apropos of nothing. If you intend to discuss the philosophical underpinnings to the EE-distinction, then by all means do that. However, these underpinnings need to be presented as part of an integrated discussion not as a separate section that suggests that it is somehow at the same level as the sections on the EO perspective and the RCC perspective.

I actually think the philosophical precursors of the theological concept (i.e. Plato and Aristotle) should be discussed first and then the theological development of these ideas should be discussed next. I have also proposed moving the current article to Essence-Energies distinction (Eastern Orthodox) and redoing this article so that it covers the entire topic from Plato/Aristotle through Pseudo-Dionysius and Aquinas and then on to Palamas, finishing with Meyendorff, Romanides et al. What is your opinion of that proposal?

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

P.S. It also needs to be cited to a reliable source. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

NO they have to be separate. As philosophy is not the same thing as theology it is not so in the East. They are sharply distinguished as the goal of Orthodox Christian theology is reconciliation to everything with God (theosis) and philosophy is reconciliation of everything to reason or logic. This is why there is Orthodox gnosiology. This meaning that there is no such thing as the God particle. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Restoration of unsourced text

Since Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought nor a means of promoting opinion pieces, on what grounds has this unsourced text been restored after having been deleted after due warning? Esoglou (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I concur with the objection to restoring the text. It's bad enough that it's out of place in its current location but the lack of sourcing makes it read like OR and SOAPboxing. Let's please not edit war over this. LoveMonkey, please either provide citations to reliable sources or comment out the text until you are able to do so. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I have asked a third party to source it[11] as they helped me create the original article Byzantine philosophy that the passage is based on. If they do not source it (since people are acting horribly on this article and I wouldn't blame them) I will source it, so stop acting like it is stating something controversial or offensive as what it states is only general to begin with and your edit warring is completely over the top and unbecoming of the project. You accuse me of poor behavior while absolving yourselves of engaging in edit warring. Also since you both are so active why not read the Byzantine Philosophy article and source it yourselves, MORE SANDBAGGING. LoveMonkey (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Esoglou's reorganization of the article

I'm perplexed by the movement of the "Roman Catholic perspectives" section to come before the "Eastern Orthodox perspectives" section. Since the EE-distinction is largely thought of as an EO doctrine, shouldn't the EO perspective come first? And, yes, I understand that there is good reason to believe that the EE-distinction is not an innovation of Palamas but rather sourced from the Church Fathers. Nonetheless, since the general identification is with the EOC, shouldn't its perspective be presented first? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

What is thought of as an EO doctrine is not the distinction, but the qualification of the distinction as real in the case of God. All sides talk about the distinction. They differ about its nature in the case of God. In Catholic manuals of dogmatic theology there are pages and pages about the distinction between God's essence and God's attributes. The Pohle book is an example. The Thomist perspective predominates generally, but in Franciscan institutes the Scotist view is preferred. The manuals also treat the Nominalist view and the view that the distinction is a real distinction, but generally argue against those views. (Of course, there is no dispute about the admitted fact that the essence-energies distinction is, in the case of creatures such as you and me, a real distinction.)

I would myself write a section on the Eastern Orthodox view that in God the distinction is a real distinction, for insertion after the general section on the nature of the distinction in the case of God, but you know very well that LoveMonkey couldn't endure such action by me. Could someone else write a section on the view that in God the distinction is real? All we have at present is a wide-ranging excursus on the transcendence and immanence of God from an Eastern Orthodox viewpoint, with only one mention of the real distinction between God's essence and his energies ("If we deny the real distinction between essence and energy ..."). There is also a comment that Palamas's ultimate perspective preserves the reality of God's self-revelation and the divine economy of creation and salvation, but no account of what is Palamas's view of the distinction in God, other than that he is generally believed - and, I have no doubt, by LoveMonkey too - to have held that in God it is a real distinction.

On second thoughts, the article does mention first the view that the distinction is, in God, a real distinction and attributes that view to the Eastern Orthodox Church. That is what the very first two sentences in the article say. The other two sentences in the initial paragraph associate with Palamas the doctrine that in God it is a real distinction. The first of the two does not state unambiguously that this is what Palamas actually taught, but the second does so implicitly. Esoglou (talk) 08:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The risk in checking one's watchlist one last time before signing off for the night is that one might actually find a comment provocative enough to tempt one to respond, thus reducing the amount of sleep that one will get that night. This is what has just happened but I think it worthwhile to respond so as not to lose another 24-hour cycle. (I'm still waiting for LoveMonkey to explode in rage over the butchering of this article.)

I am specifically concerned about the second section titled "Roman Catholic perspectives on the distinction". Much of that section talks about 20th century perspectives (Fortescue in the early 20th century and the others in the latter half of the century). I think that it's just wacko to put the latest perspectives first and before presenting the EO perspective.

Now, I recognize that the previous article structure was based on the premise that the EE-distinction was an EO doctrine that the West initially rejected and only recently has become ambivalent about. This premise is true but it only presents part of the picture and I now think that this is an impoverished view of the history of this doctrine.

I want to propose a richer, fuller view that will require a revamping of the article structure to present it.

I have read in a couple of sources now that Palamas did not consider himself an innovator but rather one who was building on the foundation of the Church Fathers. Now, it's clear that plenty of people did view Palamas as an innovator and a heretic including the intellectuals in the Eastern Church. I think it is Jugie who says Palamas met with resistance because the Eastern Church was archly conservative and resisted innovation of any kind. (Jugie says that Palamism only prevailed by the use of brute force.)

So... we need to start with the Church Fathers and show the roots of the EE-distinction and the monastic origins of Hesychasm and other Palamite doctrines. Thus, we would have sections titled something like "Patristic views" and "Monastic origins of Hesychasm".

We would need to cover somewhere the writings of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite. I confess I don't know much about the specifics of the linkage of Pseudo-Dionysius to Palamism but it's clear that he is critical to both Barlaam and Palamas. It's interesting to note that both of them based their arguments on different aspects of his writings.

But the key point here is that the concept of essence and energies is not new with Palamas. The ideas are purportedly mentioned in the Patristic writings (I admit I don't know exactly where and I leave that for the theology wonks to provide).

Next, we move to Barlaam and Palamas and present their views. We must be careful not to malign Barlaam. There's a poignant and ironic letter in which Barlaam complains to Palamas that he has so distorted Barlaam that future generations will undoubtedly think that Barlaam valued the philosophers over the Church Fathers. Well, we know that Barlaam's prediction was prophetic because that is exactly the charge that you will find in Wikipedia articles today. (There's a lot of dodgy writing in the articles related to the Hesychast controversy that needs to be fixed.)

Next, we can discuss how Palamism became the doctrine (dogma?) of the EOC and the RCC came to despise it (perhaps due to not understanding it).

Finally, we come to the 20th century and the rediscovery of Palamas by Russian emigre theologians and the rehabilitation of Palamas to the West by Meyendorff.

Now, it's true that this outline is well-suited for the article on Palamism but I submit that it is also appropriate for this article.

It's time (past time) for me to go to bed so I will leave this for you to chew on. Perhaps you will leave some pearls of wisdom for me to read when I awake.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 09:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you want the article to have an exposition of the different views, Thomist, Scotist, Nominalist, Realist (in the form rightly or wrongly attributed to Gilbert of Poitiers) held, even before Palamas was born, in the West about the distinction between the essence of God and the attributes of God? As for Western reaction to the Palamist teaching (generally understood to have been a realist interpretation of the distinction in God), I don't know who was the first Latin to comment on it. We know of several Greek-speakers who straightway took sides for or against Palamas, but we have no idea how long it was before any Latin whosoever reacted to it in writing or from what date one can speak of a Western consensus on the matter.

People were aware of the distinction between essence/οὐσία/essentia/substantia and activities/ἐνεργίαι/operationes from as soon as they had in their languages separate words for the two ideas. Even after they first began to apply these words to God, thus also applying the distinction to God, centuries may have passed before they began to ask about the nature of the distinction in the case of God. I think philosophical consideration of the metaphysical question of the relation between the essence of God and his active attributes was more likely to be raised for the first time in the West than in the East, and we know that in the West it had certainly been raised even before 13th-century Thomas Aquinas, who said that the distinction was a virtual distinction. A century after Aquinas, controversy arose not as an independent question but because, to support his view in another controversy, Palamas claimed (so it seems) that even in God the distinction is a real distinction. Esoglou (talk) 11:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems that we have two articles here. We could use this title (Essence-Energies distinction) cover the entire history of the idea from it's earliest known expressions, presumably in the Greek philosophers followed by the Church Fathers (Greek and/or Latin). I confess only a very superficial knowledge here. We can then eventually get to Aquinas and Palamas, etc. Before doing revamping the this article to follow that outline, we could move the current article to Essence-Energies distinction (Eastern Orthodox) and thus provide a place to focus solely on the EO doctrine as formulated by Palamas and later discussed by Meyendorff, Romanides et al. There would be, as before, some discussion in that article of the West's rejection and later ambivalence regarding the doctrine. However, that discussion would be relatively brief as it could refer the reader to the the fuller treatment under this title (Essence-Energies distinction).

NB: This is not to say that LoveMonkey would own the article under the title Essence-Energies distinction (Eastern Orthodox). Recent experience has shown that he needs help in writing an article up to Wikipedia's standards of English grammar, organization and sourcing. However, I think he will be much happier with an article that focuses on the EO doctrine.

NB: This proposal doesn't change my opinion that LoveMonkey has started to stuff into the topic "Essence-Energies distinction' material that is arguably part of a larger topic such as God in Eastern Orthodox Christianity or Conception of God in Eastern Orthodox Christianity. However, I would like to hear LoveMonkey's opinion on this before making any bold moves in this direction.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The article is not about the essence-energies distinction in general, but only about the essence-energies distinction in God. There is an essence-energies distinction even, for instance, in you. The title should correspond to what the article is really about.

If LoveMonkey wants to have an Essence-energies distinction (Eastern Orthodox) article, or whatever other name he may wish to give it, I have of course no objection, and as long as he does not use it to make declarations about what is the Catholic teaching on the matter, I, for one, will not touch it, whether he uses it to speak of the difference between essence and energies in general or only in God.

There are of course statements by some of the Fathers that energies and essence are not the same, that they are different, that there is a distinction between them. Nobody, perhaps not even some Nominalist, claims that there is no difference between essence and energies, even in God. The very fact that the energies are plural and the essence singular indicates that there is some difference between them. However, I doubt if you will find in the Fathers any statement that, in God, the difference or distinction is real, or that it is virtual, or that it is formal, or that it is merely conceptual. Nonetheless, I have no objection whatever to listing quotations from the Fathers that speak of this admitted distinction, in spite of the fact that they will probably add nothing to the discussion about the nature of the difference. Esoglou (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

A quick comment because I need to leave for a few hours. Any direct quotes of the Fathers would be use of primary sources. What would be most valuable would be citations to secondary sources (e.g. Meyendorff or Romanides or other books on theology) that show how Barlaam and Palamas cited the Fathers. Yes, contrary to widely held belief Barlaam did not cite only the pagan philosophers. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I had that very thought in mind. I forgot that, for the Eastern Orthodox, Palamas is one of the Fathers, whom I presume we could quote for his ideas - a possible objection to that thought. With, as I said, that thought in mind, I considered that secondary sources interpreting the Fathers could be seen as reading into the texts their own ideas, which should be given in their chronology, not that of the Fathers. That is why I spoke of a mere "listing" of quotations that speak of the difference between God's essence and energies (I presume that none of them denied that there is a distinction), with no claims to state objectively what they mean. How Palamas and Barlaam cited the Fathers should, I think, be dealt with in discussing Palamas and Barlaam, not in an earlier section. But perhaps I have a wrong idea of how you envisage the earlier section. Esoglou (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we agree in principle. How that principle plays out in the actual text is probably something we can defer to the specific time. As long as we collegially agree that requests for citation are not always challenging the assertion but sometimes just suggestions for improving the reference, I'm sure we'll be OK. I think we need to first sort out the question of whether we can move the current article text to Essence-Energies distinction (Eastern Orthodox theology) or something like that. Then, we can get to work on the vision that you and I have for a broadened scope under this title. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

A more global perspective

This will muddy things up a bit and I apologize for that. The mess is not of my making but ignoring it won't make it go away.

Somewhere along the line, we should consider that we are discussing the nature of God and specifically the nature of man's relationship to him. Thus, this article needs to be placed in a more global context. (in the sense of integrating it into the Wikipedia article universe) That is, we need to consider that there are articles titled: Conceptions of God, God in Abrahamic religions, God in Christianity, Attributes of God. There is also Grace (Christianity) and Christian soteriology to consider. For example, God in Christianity focuses on Trinitarianism and Christology which is good but is it complete? That article has no discussion of the EE-distinction or any of the other components of Palamism. Similarly, Attributes of God has a long list of attributes of God. In general, that article is very light on content and, more to the point, makes no mention of the "attributes of God" in the sense that Esoglou is using the term immediately above. When time permits, some effort needs to be made to flesh out and rationalize all these descriptions of "God in Christianity".

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)