Talk:Theological differences between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church

More edit warring by Esoglou

This edit is another indication of Esoglou's on going intent to attack everything and anything in this article. [1] Cody clarified with Esoglou on the talkpage here before I added the passage in content and now Esoglou objects. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Yet another example of Lima/Esolgou edit warring

I reverse this verification failed citation tag that Esoglou added to the article.[2]
These are the reason that Esoglou gives to to try and justify Esoglou's misuse of citation tags to discredit the sentence.

• 1.the book is not by Chadwick;
• 2.and regarding Pope Celestine, the source explicitly says that he gave no names (such as Cassian's))

The Answer to the first question is. The link is to the introduction to the book. The statements validating the sentence are statements made in the books introduction by Owen Chadwick. The link provides the table of contents and anyone can pull up that page and see that the author of the introduction is Owen Chadwick. Esoglou again attacks and editwars makes unfounded allegations in the article and then acts incompetent to cover for his disruptive conduct.

To address the second justification that Esoglou stated. It appears the Esoglou just can not read. The sentence Esolgou added the failed citation tag to and is being sources is: "Western Protestant scholars such as Owen Chadwick stated that Cassian held the view that man can come to God without the intervention of divine grace first." This sentence makes no mention of any Pope, the sentence and source make no mention Celestine or names or explicitly anything. Again THATS ESOGLOU'S SUMMARY TO ESOGLOU ADDING A FAILED CITATION TAG to this article [3] All I can say is PLEASE stop edit warring and using invalid excuses to justify the disruptive behavior.LoveMonkey (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Love, for explaining that the reference is to the introduction to Luibhéad's book, written not by Luibhéad but by Chadwick. I had not adverted to the authorship of the page in question, which you rightly say was by Chadwick. So I was wrong when I said that the statement was unverified.

My remark about Pope Celestine concerned the other "Failed verification" tag, immediately after. Perhaps you can show me that I am wrong about that too. Esoglou (talk) 18:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Poor attempt to draw attention away from your mistake Esoglou. Very poor.LoveMonkey (talk) 19:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

And yet another example of Esoglou edit warring and not collaborating

Esoglou added a citation tag into the article AFTER MAKING modifications to the passage Esoglou was unhappy with. Esoglou did this rather than simply make the modification Esoglou noted in the edit summary.[4] This is disruptive. I have since went in and added the one word Theologian to the sentence.[5]LoveMonkey (talk) 18:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Love, for removing the claim that "the Roman Catholic Church" generally depicts Cassian as semi-Pelagian and for accepting the suggestion that the depiction be attributed instead to Roman Catholic theologians. Esoglou (talk) 18:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me if I doubt your sincerity as you have yet continued to edit war. Funny you could have simply done it to begin with and spared all of us (Richard, Cody and me) the frustration and pages and pages are arguing with you.LoveMonkey (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Hesychasm

I have added an "original research" tag to a source-less part of one section, which is an example of the polemical essay-like content of much of the article. I have added some sourced information to the section, to bring it closer to conformity with Wikipedia editing norms. Esoglou (talk) 11:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Love, for providing a citation. On reflection, I think that the place where I put the tag was not the most suitable. The impression of original research came from the passage as a whole. But having even one citation in it is helpful.

I don't see why you chose to remove the statement by Andreopoulos about the present-day change in attitude in the West, together with the citation of the book in which he said it. I haven't found very helpful your edit summary, "removed OR since source makes such assertion and I WILL CONTINUE TO REMOVE IT", in which you admit that the source actually said what you removed and declare your readiness to edit-war to keep out what it said. Did you mean "makes no such assertion"? I suppose I had better quote the exact words of Andreopoulos. Esoglou (talk) 07:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

So you reverted. No where in the source you posted does it say anything about the Roman Catholic church as a matter of doctrine officially changing it's position on hesychasm. NO WHERE IN IT. It is also not a Roman Catholic source it's an Orthodox one. Also why did you move the link about a Roman Catholic heresy called Quetism that was directly tied to Hesychasm via the Heyschasm article on the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia online to the Orthodox section? Orthodoxy has not called any of the hesychasts officially any such thing so why put it in the Orthodox section? When it was Adrian Fortescue and the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia who make the distinction. Why is the Adrian Fortescue article not removed by the Roman Catholic church if it is not an honest reflection of the long standing opinion of the matter by the Roman Catholic church? Or at least an opinion tolerated? How is it that even you just used the Adrian Fortescue article to source you sentences and then attempt to discard it out of hand in the next sentence of the article.

However, a century later, the Western attitude has changed, with books and articles "show(ing) the spiritual depth of hesychasm and the theological basis of its doctrines".

How can you say you are not being deceptive and unethical in this contribution above? The passage from the Orthodox Christian authors book has this passage.

Fortunately, enough books and articles have appeared in the West in the last few years to expel, at, the perception of an easily dismissible psychological illusion and to show the spiritual depth of hesychasm and the theological basis of its doctrines.

This passage does not say that the Roman Catholic church has taken down Adrian Fortescue article from the web nor does it say that the Roman Catholic church has changed its position nor does it mention an official statement from the Roman Catholic church stating that heyshasm is not perceived any different than what the Roman Catholic encyclopedia says. WHAT IT DOES SAY is that book about hesychasm (not by Roman Catholic sources) have come out in the West making this Roman Catholic stance one with no depth. Andreas Andreopoulos [6] is no such Ecumenist and to take his words and use them to imply that Andreas Andreopoulos is saying that the Roman Catholic no longer supports Adrian Fortescue and that the Roman Catholic church has no opposition to heyshasm is unethical and a distortion of Andreas Andreopoulos' work. You need to provide a Roman Catholic source stating that the Roman Catholic's church position has changed from Adrian Fortescue and HOW it has changed. Esoglou at it again. PLEASE STOP MISUSING ORTHODOX SOURCES AND PUTTING STATEMENTS IN THEIR MOUTHS THAT COULD GET THEM IN TROUBLE, IT IS UNETHICAL. AND IN THE END IT MAKES WIKIPEDIA LOOK LIKE UNRELIABLE AS A VALID SOURCE. AS PEOPLE WHO KNOW BETTER WILL SEE IT AS JUST ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF WIKIPEDIA IS NOT TO BE USED OR TRUSTED.LoveMonkey (talk) 12:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Love, you seem to have an idea that the Roman Catholic Church endorsed Fortescue. Where did you get that idea? Do you imagine that the Catholic Encyclopedia was published not by the Robert Appleton Company of New York but by the Church?

A still unanswered citation tag is attached to your claim in this Wikipedia article that "the Roman Catholic Church has explicitly taught that Hesychasm was a new phenomenon that was specific to the 13th century and a heresy". If the Church's teaching is indeed explicit, it should be easy to cite the Church document in which you claim that the Church has taught it.

The article does not claim that Andreopoulos says that the Church has changed its attitude. It only quotes him as saying that Western theologians, the likes of Fortescue and Liccione (neither of whose diverse opinions is either supported or opposed by the Church), now have an attitude different from that of a century ago. You have no justification for removing - for the second time! - the well-sourced statement about what Andreopoulos says. Or do you? Esoglou (talk) 13:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

What does an citation tag you placed among the other barrage of citations tags you have covered this article with have anything to do with you again misquoting and misusing an Orthodox theologian? You know it has nothing to do with it. You are trying to distract people from your misdeeds. Andreas Andreopoulos' book makes no such statements and you can not will not show where it does. Misquoting living people's works is not acceptable. It is this exact example when one is to be bold- WP:Be Bold LoveMonkey (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Andreopoulos does make the statement attributed to him in the article but which you have twice unjustifiably removed. Doesn't he? Esoglou (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Post it here. Even better name some Roman Catholic theologians whom teach and endorse Heyschasm.LoveMonkey (talk) 18:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

May I take this as a "no objection" to restoring what Andreopoulos demonstrably says? Esoglou (talk) 19:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

How is post it here. The same as "no objection"?LoveMonkey (talk) 19:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

By "here" you mean on the Talk page?! What on earth for? Why not restore to the article what Andreopoulos demonstrably says? You don't deny, do you, that Andreopoulos is a reliable source on this matter? Esoglou (talk) 20:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

"On here" would be where else but the talkpage? What on earth could it mean but that Esoglou? Please tell me where else is here than here? Why on earth would you add such a distortion to the article Esoglou?LoveMonkey (talk) 20:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Unless you give some reason for your deletion from the article of the statement by this verifiable reliable source, it can and should be restored. Have you any reason to give? Esoglou (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

So you reverted. No where in the source you posted does it say anything about the Roman Catholic church as a matter of doctrine officially changing it's position on hesychasm. NO WHERE IN IT. It is also not a Roman Catholic source it's an Orthodox one. Also why did you move the link about a Roman Catholic heresy called Quetism that was directly tied to Hesychasm via the Heyschasm article on the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia online to the Orthodox section? Orthodoxy has not called any of the hesychasts officially any such thing so why put it in the Orthodox section? When it was Adrian Fortescue and the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia who make the distinction. Why is the Adrian Fortescue article not removed by the Roman Catholic church if it is not an honest reflection of the long standing opinion of the matter by the Roman Catholic church? Or at least an opinion tolerated? How is it that even you just used the Adrian Fortescue article to source you sentences and then attempt to discard it out of hand in the next sentence of the article.

However, a century later, the Western attitude has changed, with books and articles "show(ing) the spiritual depth of hesychasm and the theological basis of its doctrines".

How can you say you are not being deceptive and unethical in this contribution above? The passage from the Orthodox Christian authors book has this passage.

Fortunately, enough books and articles have appeared in the West in the last few years to expel, at, the perception of an easily dismissible psychological illusion and to show the spiritual depth of hesychasm and the theological basis of its doctrines.

This passage does not say that the Roman Catholic church has taken down Adrian Fortescue article from the web nor does it say that the Roman Catholic church has changed its position nor does it mention an official statement from the Roman Catholic church stating that heyshasm is not perceived any different than what the Roman Catholic encyclopedia says. WHAT IT DOES SAY is that book about hesychasm (not by Roman Catholic sources) have come out in the West making this Roman Catholic stance one with no depth. Andreas Andreopoulos [7] is no such Ecumenist and to take his words and use them to imply that Andreas Andreopoulos is saying that the Roman Catholic no longer supports Adrian Fortescue and that the Roman Catholic church has no opposition to heyshasm is unethical and a distortion of Andreas Andreopoulos' work. You need to provide a Roman Catholic source stating that the Roman Catholic's church position has changed from Adrian Fortescue and HOW it has changed. Esoglou at it again. PLEASE STOP MISUSING ORTHODOX SOURCES AND PUTTING STATEMENTS IN THEIR MOUTHS THAT COULD GET THEM IN TROUBLE, IT IS UNETHICAL. AND IN THE END IT MAKES WIKIPEDIA LOOK LIKE UNRELIABLE AS A VALID SOURCE. AS PEOPLE WHO KNOW BETTER WILL SEE IT AS JUST ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF WIKIPEDIA IS NOT TO BE USED OR TRUSTED.LoveMonkey (talk) 20:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The passage you deleted is:

However, a century later, the Western attitude has changed, with books and articles "show(ing) the spiritual depth of hesychasm and the theological basis of its doctrines".

Please specify what you find false in that. Andreopoulos only talks about the attitudes of Westerners, not of the Roman Catholic Church. Your remark about it saying nothing about "the Roman Catholic church as a matter of doctrine officially changing it's (sic) position on hesychasm" is irrelevant. It gives no hint whatever of any alleged position of the Roman Catholic Church on hesychasm. So what is your objection to what Andreopoulos says? Esoglou (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

My remark states that Andreopoulos says:

However, a century later, the Western attitude has changed, with books and articles "show(ing) the spiritual depth of hesychasm and the theological basis of its doctrines".

No where does Andreopoulos state the attitude change is within Roman Catholicism. If it was Esoglou could post those Roman Catholic theologians whom part ways with Adrian Fortescue and Siméon Vailhé and teach Hesychasm as valid Roman Catholic dogma. But Esoglou can't do that. Why? Because Andreopoulos doesn't specify Roman Catholic theologians because Andreopoulos wasn't talking about Roman Catholic theologians. Andreopoulos was talking about the spread of Orthodox Christianity in the West. As Andreopoulos was writing as someone FROM THE WEST.LoveMonkey (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Andreopoulos mentions Fortescue in particular. Isn't it quite obvious that he included Roman Catholic among "Westerners"? That he was talking about Roman Catholic theologians? So why exclude what he says? Esoglou (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

No no its not. Why isn't Kallistos Ware, or Andrew Louth or Marcus Plested the Western Theologians Andreopoulos is referring too? Why not Roman Catholic because Kallistos Ware's translation of the Philokia. Andreopoulos statement does not say it therefore it should not be used to source it.LoveMonkey (talk) 21:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you seriously think that Kallistos Ware is a Western theologian? Classifying himself instead as a theologian of the Eastern Orthodox Church, he speaks of "western theologians" as "Roman Catholic and Anglican", something that you ignored in your latest edits, in which you made him call himself and Louth Western theologians!

Andreopoulos is saying that "this distrustful and hostile attitude towards hesychasm ... has, sadly, survived until recently" - and so no longer - "in the West", mentioning as an example Fortescue, not Eastern theologians such as Ware and Louth and Plested. He says: "Hesychasm ... is now studied by Western theologians who are astounded by the profound thought and spirituality of late Byzantium". Do you seriously think that the Western theologians astounded by the profound thought and spirituality of late Byzantium were people like Ware and Louth and Plested, and that there were absolutely no Roman Catholics among them?!

Now may we restore Andreopoulos to the article? Esoglou (talk) 06:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Esoglou posted

Do you seriously think that Kallistos Ware is a Western theologian? Classifying himself instead as a theologian of the Eastern Orthodox Church, he speaks of "western theologians" as "Roman Catholic and Anglican", something that you ignored in your latest edits, in which you made him call himself and Louth Western theologians!

---

Kallistos Ware was born in the West. Kallistos Ware is from the West. Kallistos Ware is a defender of Hesychasm against the distortions of the Roman Catholic church which do much to shame and discredit the Orthodox church. You can twist all you want. Kallistos as a Western person did much to reverse the distortions of the Roman Catholic in Kallistos translating the Philokalia to the main Western language -English-. And from the track record of the Roman Catholic church on that matter if Kallistos had not been connected to Oxford I am sure that he would be disregarded out of hand. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Esoglou posted
He says: "Hesychasm ... is now studied by Western theologians who are astounded by the profound thought and spirituality of late Byzantium". Do you seriously think that the Western theologians astounded by the profound thought and spirituality of late Byzantium were people like Ware and Louth and Plested, and that there were absolutely no Roman Catholics among them?!

---

Again post the Roman Catholic theologians. Again post the Roman Catholic theologians. Again post the Roman Catholic theologians. Again post the Roman Catholic theologians. Again post the Roman Catholic theologians. Nothing is stopping Esoglou from posting the Roman Catholic theologians. Nothing is stopping Esoglou from posting the Roman Catholic theologians. Nothing is stopping Esoglou from posting the Roman Catholic theologians. Nothing is stopping Esoglou from posting the Roman Catholic theologians. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Esoglou posted
Now may we restore Andreopoulos to the article?

---

After Esoglou posts the Roman Catholic theologians. Again post the Roman Catholic theologians. Again post the Roman Catholic theologians. Again post the Roman Catholic theologians. Again post the Roman Catholic theologians. Nothing is stopping Esoglou from posting the Roman Catholic theologians. Nothing is stopping Esoglou from posting the Roman Catholic theologians. Nothing is stopping Esoglou from posting the Roman Catholic theologians. Nothing is stopping Esoglou from posting the Roman Catholic theologians. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Oh an addendum
Esoglou post the Roman Catholic Theologians here on the talkpage first. Esoglou post the Roman Catholic Theologians here on the talkpage first. Esoglou post the Roman Catholic Theologians here on the talkpage first. Esoglou post the Roman Catholic Theologians here on the talkpage first. Esoglou post the Roman Catholic Theologians here on the talkpage first. Esoglou post the Roman Catholic Theologians here on the talkpage first. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Well gee golly Esoglou went ahead and just added his own distortion about this anyway to the article.[8] How is it that I quote the article verbatim and yet you call it absurdity? More edit warring more disruption more dodging and stone walling. If you did not like the edit you could have addressed what you thought was wrong about here on the talkpage instead of dragging the subject (with your edits) into a place of non-relevance. Its not like I won't attempt to collaborate with you and agree as long as the evidence is there Esoglou. You aren't even trying. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Andreas Andreopoulos cites this 1910 article by Fortescue as an example of how Barlaam's distrustful and hostile attitude with regard to hesychasm survived until recently in the West, adding that now "the Western world has started to rediscover what amounts to a lost tradition. Hesychasm, which was never anything close to a scholar's pursuit, is now studied by Western theologians who are astounded by the profound thought and spirituality of late Byzantium" (Andreas Andreopoulos, Metamorphosis: The Transfiguration in Byzantine Theology and Iconography (St Vladimir's Seminary Press 2005, ISBN 0-88141-295-3), pp. 215-216).

Is this what Andreopoulos wrote or is it not? So why not quote this reliable source? There is no need to back him up by quoting some Roman Catholic writer. Esoglou (talk) 16:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I will state again. No where in that passage is the comment that the Roman Catholic church has changed its stance on hesychasm. Andreas is alive and I can find no where Andreas Andreopoulos stating that the Roman Catholic church rejects Adrian Fortescue or Barlaam or Siméon Vailhé or Edward Pace or John Kyparissiotes teachings on the issue. Nothing you just posted says anything close to the Roman Catholic church now teachings hesychasm. The term Western theologians is too vague and I have shown that the term could just as easily mean Western converts to Orthodoxy as it could mean Protestant theologians. If it is a common known fact you can find a Roman Catholic source and you can find more than one. You should be able to do this if the point you are making is valid. If you can source it speaking specifically about and to the Roman Catholic church then it can not be used. If you disagree ask an administrator. PICK A SOURCE THAT STATES CLEARLY THAT THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS A DIFFERENT POSITION. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The Catholic Church has made no pronouncement on hesychasm, has it? So how can you demand a declaration that the Church has changed a non-existent official view on hesychasm? Your impossible demand has nothing to do with what Andreopoulos says about Western theologians, of whom not an inconsiderable number are Roman Catholic, including Fortescue, whom he cites, and also people like Liccione, who have a favourable view of Palamas's teaching, and nowhere can you find a statement that the Roman Catholic Church rejects Liccione. So what reason can you give for deleting Andreopoulos's statement? Esoglou (talk) 17:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The text I have given in italics just above

1. is an accurate account of what Andreopoulos says;
2. its source is reliable;
3. it is highly relevant, in that it indicates what is the present attitude towards hesychasm among Western theologians (not excluding among them any group, such as the Roman Catholics, and on the contrary citing only one, a Roman Catholic, by name), an attitude which, Andreopoulos says, has changed in the hundred years since Fortescue's article was published.

May I now insert that text in the article without seeing it immediately removed? Esoglou (talk) 19:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

You have already reinserted the source in the article for source Fortescue statement. Again the source does not state what you say it states it is too vague.LoveMonkey (talk) 12:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

If by that you mean that the article already cites Andreopoulos, which is true, that seems to be yet another reason for at last permitting the article to quote him without interpretation. Esoglou (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

No the only reason is because Andreopoulos says specifically what esoglou is interpretating him to say. Which Andreopoulos specifically does not.LoveMonkey (talk) 00:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I am only asking that you cease deleting an uninterpreted quotation of what Andreopoulos actually says. It is you who are insisting on a personal interpretation of what he says. Your merely personal opinion is not grounds for acting as sole owner of the article. Esoglou (talk) 06:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

To illustrate how hardheaded and resistant to the obvious point I am making about Hesychasm

I have posted 5 Roman Catholic sources in this conversation whom label Hesychasm as heresy or compare it to a heresy.

• 1. Adrian Fortescue
• 2. Barlaam
• 3. Siméon Vailhé
• 4. Edward Pace
• 5. John Kyparissiotes

Esoglou has provide none, no Roman Catholic sources, nothing and is now arguing that an Orthodox theologian whom uses the term "Western theologians" is really saying Roman Catholic ones. Even though in the same passage Esoglou has posted the Orthodox theologian clearly names the same names I have above. Even though the passage Esoglou posted can be interpreted to mean Western People whom have converted to Orthodox such as Oxford professor Kallistos Ware. When pressed to provide more clear and direct sources (Specifically Roman Catholic ones) to bolster his statement Esoglou has stalled and dodges and edit warred instead of simply providing more sources. This is the same Esoglou whom likes to use citation tags to edit war and also try to discredit sources I have posted even after I have shown that I was in some cases quoting the sources verbatim. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The most recent of these wrote a whole century ago. Andreopoulos brings things up to date. Why not cite him? Esoglou (talk) 17:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. And as for Andreopoulos I will again state it clearly. Andreopoulos is not saying what you are interpreting him to say. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You may be interpreting him (as you have interpreted Ware's statement about "western theologians, Roman Catholic and Anglican" as meaning Eastern Orthodox theologians). I am only quoting Andreopoulos. Is he not saying what he is quoted as saying? Esoglou (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Wrong Esoglou. Andreopoulos is not a Roman Catholic source, nor does Andreopoulos say anything about the Roman Catholic opinion being different than Fortescue or the Roman Catholic encyclopedia online. You can not and have not named Roman Catholic theologians that teach that Hesychasm is accepted, or taught, or endorsed by that Roman Catholic church. You haven't done it. If there are any, what do they say? Why can Esoglou not provide that? And rather than being one person and one person's opinion what is the stance of the Roman Catholic church as a whole? Esoglou can not provided that. Yet Esoglou will not address this. Esoglou would rather distract and draw attention away from that fact that the Catholic Encyclopedia online is up and functioning and in the name of Roman Catholicism is saying what I have posted and yet Esoglou can not offer a counter to this. It is not my responsibility to argue whatever point for the Roman Catholic church. Esoglou has to post sources showing what the Roman Catholic church says that is counter to what I posted and sourced that the Roman Catholic encyclopedia is quoted in saying.LoveMonkey (talk) 12:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The Roman Catholic Church has made no pronouncement on hesychasm, either for or against it. It seems that you haven't rid yourself of the idea that the now public-domain Catholic Encyclopedia was a publication of the Roman Catholic Church and not of a New York publishing house. The fact that Andreopoulos is not a Roman Catholic ought to make him more acceptable to you, not less. And what he says of the change in attitude among Westerners from that exemplified by Fortescue a century ago, is surely relevant. Esoglou (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The Roman Catholic encyclopedia and other sources as well as Roman Catholic theologians haved called hesychasm heresy and attack it as crude auto-suggestion. That is what sources I have and that is what I have added to the article. It seems to me that if the Roman Catholic encyclopedia is so bad and wrong that it would be more correct or proper for the Roman Catholic church to publicly disavow it. Post here on the article talkpage Roman Catholic theologian or Roman Catholic sources that state what you Esoglou are saying. That the Roman Catholic church disavows what *1. Adrian Fortescue *2. Barlaam *3. Siméon Vailhé *4. Edward Pace *5. John Kyparissiotes say about Hesychasm. It is not hard if it is common knowledge. The best you've got so far is Andreopoulos using the vague term "western theologians" while in the same sentence clearly addressing the Roman Catholic church. This is not enough if it is a section called the Roman Catholic whatever it needs to say Roman Catholic and or be a Roman Catholic source. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The Roman Catholic Church has had no need either to disavow or to confirm the views of theologians on hesychasm. They are free to hold and express their personal views on that matter. It has neither approved nor disapproved of the negative views of the writers of the past whom you stress, nor the view of today's Liccione who writes favourably of hesychasm and the theology of Palamas. Liccione is a better indication of present-day opinion than the writings of those who lived a century or several centuries ago. Andreopoulos states that there has been a change of attitude among western theologians on the matter. He speaks not just of a single writer like Liccione but about their generality, while clearly addressing - as you admit - the Roman Catholic Church and saying nothing of non-Catholics. This 2010 article needs the information that Andreopoulos provides more than it needs the information about writers of the now receding past which nobody has prevented you from inserting at length in the article. On what grounds do you arrogate to yourself the right to delete repeatedly and totally the information given by Andreopoulos? Esoglou (talk) 21:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

So esoglou's statement is the Roman Catholic church embraces antinomianism and can take all sides including no side and it's opposition? If the Roman Catholic church doesn't need a stance then why fight over having Andreopoulos stating the Roman Catholic position has change at all? As esoglou just stated to Roman Catholic church it doesn't matter anyway. And Andreopoulos does not mention Liccione. Andreopoulos mentions not the Roman Catholic church nor any Roman Catholic theologians as being for hesychasm AT ALL. So why should he be the lone source to saying that the Roman Catholic church now accepts hesychasm (which Andreopoulos does not anyway)? A lone non Roman Catholic source against 5 Roman Catholic ones.LoveMonkey (talk) 00:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

A lone named contemporary theologian against five selected out-of-date ones - very out-of-date ones, with no mention of any modern theologian. Very well, then, what about a couple of out-of-date Roman Catholic theologians whom Fortescue mentioned as favouring hesychasm at a time when, unlike the present situation, only a small minority of western theologians looked on it in a positive light: Gilbertus Porretanus and John of Varennes? Isn't it obvious that the picture you want the article to present, that Roman Catholics and (in your personal unsourced opinion) the Roman Catholic Church itself simply condemn hesychasm, is unfounded? For an objective presentation we need Andreopoulos's statement of the change that the last century has brought to the attitude of the generality of western theologians. (By the way, that you, who presumably are a supporter of hesychasm, consider that a claim that the Roman Catholic Church has not condemned hesychasm means that it embraces antinomianism is extremely curious. Do you really hold that hesychasm is a form of antinomianism? That is by the way: it has at best only an indirect relationship with the question of your insistent deletion of Andreopoulos's statement.) Esoglou (talk) 06:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Quietism

To LoveMonkey: You have said that quietism is (from the Roman Catholic point of view) is a heresy. Then it doesn't belong to a section on the Roman Catholic view. You don't want it even on the non-RCC part of the section on hesychasm. I will therefore remove it. OK? Esoglou (talk) 14:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I believe what you really want is an indication that Fortescue identified hesychasm and quietism. He did. So I will state that in the article. The trouble was your "See also: Quietism" immediately after "Roman Catholic response" - as if quietism had been a Roman Catholic response to hesychasm! Esoglou (talk) 14:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

This was purely disruptive. Wow yet Esoglou was wrong again. Esoglou acts like he just can't get it and yet the obvious Oh you guessed it was obvious after all.LoveMonkey (talk) 20:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I think this means you agree with my edit. Thanks. Esoglou (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Which edit Esoglou? The one where you moved it from the Roman Catholic response section to the hesychasm one no. The one where I confronted you about and you moved the subject back to the Roman Catholic section. Sure. But this seems hardly the point you seem to be making.LoveMonkey (talk) 12:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

No comment. Esoglou (talk) 16:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Just in case Esoglou missed my main objection to his editwarring under Hesychasm

Post some Roman Catholic theologians whom teach and endorse Heyschasm here on the talkpage so they can be added into the article. Post some Roman Catholic theologians whom teach and endorse Heyschasm here on the talkpage so they can be added into the article. Post some Roman Catholic theologians whom teach and endorse Heyschasm here on the talkpage so they can be added into the article. Post some Roman Catholic theologians whom teach and endorse Heyschasm here on the talkpage so they can be added into the article. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

More edit warring by Esoglou

I corrected a run on sentence as part of WP:Be Bold and Esoglou reverted it as well.[9]LoveMonkey (talk) 19:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

"A dependent clause (also embedded clause, subordinate clause) cannot stand alone as a sentence." Esoglou (talk) 20:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

More disruption and edit warring. Still can fix things on your own, find away to fix the sentence and stop writing run on sentences in the article.LoveMonkey (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Please read Dependent clause. What is in it is what I learned in the elementary school. Esoglou (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

So you learned in Elementary school how to write run on sentences for encyclopedia articles. This is hardly something I would make public knowledge. I mean the public school systems already have a bad reputation. I see no point in sullying it further. Let alone sharing it here. More wasting time.LoveMonkey (talk) 12:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

No comment. Esoglou (talk) 17:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Which version is more correct?

Question

Which of two proposed versions of the subsection Roman Catholic response is better? Esoglou (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Which version is more correct? That of LoveMonkey here, to which he reverted here; or Esoglou's here?

Discussion by involved editors

LoveMonkey says Esoglou's has "too many unsubstantiated claims", but does not specify them. It is difficult to find any unsourced claim in Esoglou's text, unless it be the remark in parenthesis that (Kallistos Ware, who made this remark about "western theologians, both Roman Catholic and Anglican", obviously did not include among them himself and Andrew Louth, who, being Orthodox, are not representative of either Roman Catholicism or Anglicanism.) If an objection is raised against any part of this, that part can easily be sourced, or alternatively it can be omitted, since the parenthetic statement was included only to counter the ridiculous claim that the "western theologians, both Roman Catholic and Anglican" of whom Kallistos Ware wrote included himself and another Orthodox writer. LoveMonkey's version instead suppresses the phrase "Roman Catholic and Anglican" in Kallistos Ware's text. It also says that the Council of Vienne condemned quietism as a heresy, when, as the quoted source says, what it condemned were certain propositions of Beghards and Beguines, not quietism as such. The same source says quietism was "founded" much later than the Council of Vienne, although it had antecedents in the Middle Ages ("medieval quietism") and earlier, going back, in Europe, to the Stoics. Esoglou's version gives a much fuller account of what is in the source (Edward Pace's article), not picking out, as LoveMonkey's version does, just a part in such a way as to give the impression that Pace accused the hesychasts of teaching "that man in the present life can attain such a degree of perfection as to become utterly impeccable; that the 'perfect' have no need to fast or pray, but may freely grant the body whatsoever it craves; that they are not subject to any human authority or bound by the precepts of the Church".

Is there any hope that editors other than the two involved would indicate which version they think is more correct? Esoglou (talk) 16:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Post here the passage from the revert and we can agree (or disagree) line by line. Roman Catholics and Orthodox should have never been divided Esoglou and I see no need to further that division as it is now. I can guarantee that not being forth right about what has been said and the actual remarks by either group will not reconcile anything. Any more then not showing respect for the actual past and as honestly as one can acknowledging it. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I have indicated what I find wrong or deficient in LoveMonkey's version. It would be more helpful if LoveMonkey would talk to the point and explain why he maintains that his changes, indicated in red in the links above, better than mine, which are also in red. Would he at least specify the alleged "unsubstantiated claims" on account of which he reverted the whole of my edit? Esoglou (talk) 17:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Can't even just post it here can you. Can't even collaborate. You know anyone looking here on this talkpage would not want to contribute, if for any reason than the most obvious which is you simple can not collaborate. Look at the volumes of words other editors and myself have has to post here just on the talkpage TO YOU ESOGLOU. No one but YOU ESOGLOU. Pages and pages and pages and pages repeating to YOU ESOGLOU over and over and over again things that are very obvious and that other editors here seem to understand without any great amount complexity. Again Post the passage you find issue or issues with here on the talkpage and I will attempt again to collaborate with you as to work out what would be appropriate wording to allow the passage to provide the information in the article adequately. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment regarding wikiquette

Without seeking to pick one side over the other, I want to say that I'm extremely worried here about how the direction being taken in this article. The article's edit history suggests that LoveMonkey (talk · contribs) is seeking to WP:OWN the page. The exchanges between LoveMonkey and Esoglou (talk · contribs) here on the talk page contain repeated ad hominem remarks which some might see as violations of WP:CIVIL — mostly by LoveMonkey, though a few by Esoglou as well. And I'm led to wonder whether one main reason why past efforts to engage additional editors here have been unsuccessful might be because the tone of "discussion" here has been so argumentative that other people have felt it would be wiser to just stay away.

I would urgently recommend to both LoveMonkey and Esoglou that they refrain from anything even resembling incivility; direct your comments and criticisms to the subject matter, not to each other. If the two of you cannot agree on what a source is saying, please consider the possibility that Catholic and Orthodox understandings of the various key players may simply be irreconcilably g different. It will probably be necessary, in many cases, to settle for explaining the Catholic view of some issue, and then separately explaining the Orthodox view of that issue (or vice versa — maybe take turns on which side goes first so as to keep it balanced). It may be helpful here to go read what ArbCom has had to say about other tangled messes (such as Kosovo), and try to profit from past experiences so as to avoid creating a new ArbCom case on the Great Schism. Richwales (talk · contribs) 20:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Richwales you stated that same thing on the East West schism. Please get an administrator and just stop. Richwales is alarmed again. You appear to me to be an alarmist and are it appears in a constant stated of being alarmed. Everything is either urgent or you worried. Please get someone who will not add gasoline to the fire. There is ample documentation on this articles talkpage that your suggestions have already been tried. Can DGG chide in or someone whose going to do something other then telling me to let Esoglou lock me out of this article too. Which Esoglou would not even have bother with if he hadn't been embolded and validated by Richwales already in the past.LoveMonkey (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

In an effort to get involvement from other outside people (hopefully more experienced than I am on this sort of thing), I've posted a request for assistance at WP:WQA. Richwales (talk · contribs) 21:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

While I would not say that Esoglou is definitely right on the question of content of his edits, I would definitely agree

with Richwales that LoveMonkey tends to exhibit ownership of this page. More importantly, his edits on the Talk Page tend to be combative and lacking in civility. A wikiquette alert is certainly warranted. A more collaborative and collegial atmosphere is needed here. --Richard S (talk) 20:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

In this talkpage history there have been at least two other editors User:RichardShu and Cody7777 on the talkpage here. Esoglou has argued volumes and volumes against additions that me as Editor LoveMonkey and the two other editors have agreed on. This is here in the talkpage archive(s). LoveMonkey (talk) 19:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

With these two I have had pleasant, amicable and productive discussions. An example of such a discussion (an exceptionally long one) with Cody is here. And Richard has given his view of LoveMonkey's attitude two paragraphs above this paragraph. Why is it that a similar LoveMonkey-Esoglou interaction is proving impossible? Not to speak of a LoveMonkey-Richwales interaction. Esoglou (talk) 06:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Not so. Esoglou was called on filling up the talkpage of this article with a his "discussion" a discussion in which Esoglou filled pages up and then still disagree with Cody after Cody provided several sources and Esoglou provided one. It is not a matter being nice as Esoglou is incompetent so has to have it explained to him over and over again that he is misusing and misquoting sources that include Vladimir Lossky, John Romandies.LoveMonkey (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Also for the record Me (LoveMonkey) and Rich have a history and I think Rich is a very good editor and his heart is in the right place as I have said in the past [10]. Esoglou is using incompetence to justify bad behavior and i was speaking to Rich not out of anger but out of frustration. I really just wish my spellchecker would stop correcting the word interpreted as interrupted. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Esoglou going back and editing comments after the conversation has progressed

Esoglou is going back and editing comments after I have responded to them. And not to do spell check but literally adding and modifying the comments.[11]. Please don't do that Esoglou. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Misquoting Quenot

Quenot does not say that the Orthodox teach that Hell is separation from God. Quenot does not say that he agree with the passage that he is quoting from Dante. Quenot does say that Christs resurrection destroyed the separation of God and Man. Esoglou has removed this fact from Quenot's book because it obviously contridiction what Esoglou is trying to make Quenot say by yet again misquoting and misunderstanding and misusing someone's work.LoveMonkey (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The only words of Dante that Quenot quotes are "mute as to light" (in the original Italian, ogni luce muto). The quotation marks indicate this. Don't they? There are no quotation marks in Quenot's text around "Hell is none other than the state of separation from God, a condition into which humanity was plunged for having preferred the creature to the Creator." They are Quenot's own. In all of Dante's works you will not find the non-poetic, though theological, statement: "Hell is none other than the state of separation from God, a condition into which humanity was plunged for having preferred the creature to the Creator." Esoglou (talk) 16:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Does a no longer accessible source cease to be citable in Wikipedia?

A source retrieved in January 2009 is no longer accessible. Lovemonkey has deleted it on that ground. Is that correct? I think that lack of access does not suddenly make the citation invalid. If it was valid before, it is still valid after, provided that the date of retrieval is given. Esoglou (talk) 17:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

See WP:LINKROT for comments / suggestions on this issue. Richwales (talk · contribs) 18:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. It seems that, if I wished, I could insist on keeping the statement and quotation in the article, since the article you kindly directed me to instructs:

Do not delete factual information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published on-line.

However, I prefer not to cause further attrition by insisting on it. The archives mentioned in WP:LINKROT do not contain the source that was previously cited in the article, but another one can be put in its place. I will insert that now. Esoglou (talk) 20:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It's probably worth noting that WP:LINKROT is not a rigidly enforceable policy. However, I believe the community consensus is that the recommendations in WP:LINKROT should be followed unless there is a good reason not to do so in an individual situation. There are established mechanisms (such as {{dead link}}) for flagging sources whose validity might be unclear, without immediately removing them. Exceptions naturally exist (such as when questionable, unverifiable material is included in a biography of a living person), but these are exceptions.

The June 2010 ArbCom case on Transcendental Meditation also contains helpful guidance on verifiability of sources. Except when WP:BLP is involved, content with sourcing problems should be tagged, and a reasonable period of time should be allowed for the problem to be fixed before removing the content. Richwales (talk · contribs) 22:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I posted the {{deadlink}} a couple of months ago on the sentence.LoveMonkey (talk) 13:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion by TFOWR

LoveMonkey, do you think that, on our disagreements about Andreopoulos and about the "Roman Catholic Response" subsection touching on hesychasm, we could agree on "a short neutral text" for posting on project pages, as recommended by TFOWR at Wikiquette alerts? Or do you think that an agreement by which we both undertake to refrain from editing this article would be better, as has also been suggested? I am open to either proposal. Esoglou (talk) 16:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I agreed once to "Or do you think that an agreement by which we both undertake to refrain from editing this article would be better, as has also been suggested?" but I am not going to do that again. As I have yet to see any collaboration on the East_West schism. All that accomplished was stopping me from contributing to that article. This is article is far from complete and far from the potential of what it could be. As for short neutral text that is to subjective and you have proven time and time again that if something is to be interpreted that even with other editors agreeing you will refuse. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Latest reverts

This latest set of reverts by Esoglou stating that the sources do not say what they say. I have removed Esoglou using the article rather then the article talkpage to vent his lack of understanding.[12] This is at least the fourth time that I have initiated at discussion on esoglou attack on contributions into the article here on the talkpage first. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Esoglou put this comment into the article
"Surely the Orthodox Church doesn't teach that it was only after the Fall that God gave human beings flesh? Genesis 2:21 expressly says that God gave flesh at least to the female human being before the Fall?" and
"Failed verification|date=August 2010|Lossky says nothing about flesh being fashioned only after the Fall"

---

Here is what Vladimir Lossky says in the source that I posted via Jean-Claude Larchet's book. Here I will quote Lossky directly.

"Thus in the condition of mortality which is the consequence of the coming of sin, the spiritual nature of the soul maintains a certain link with the disunited elements of the body, a link which it will find again at the moment of the resurrection in order that the parts may be transformed into a 'spiritual body', which is indeed our true body, different from the grossness of those we now have, the "garments of skin' which God made for Adam and Eve after their sin." The mystical theology of the Eastern Church By Vladimir Lossky page 104

[13].LoveMonkey (talk) 13:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious and a bit confused here. I have always understood the "coats of skins" (כָּתְנוֹת עוֹר) mentioned in Genesis 3:21 to refer to clothing which was given to Adam and Eve to wear over the fleshly bodies which they already had (in the Garden of Eden, before the Fall). Is the generally accepted Eastern Orthodox understanding of this passage significantly different? Please remember that I am neither Catholic nor Orthodox, and I'm not in any position to speak with confidence on the theology of either of these traditions. Richwales (talk · contribs) 14:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Bingo. That's the difference I am pointing out. Esoglou is stating that there is no such of an opinion and is edit warring on me for adding it. Esoglou first tried to claim that this distinction was irrelevant and off topic. Look at the edits he did to the addition. Edits without discussion here on the talkpage. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

So, LoveMonkey, do I understand correctly that Eastern Orthodox theology (as exemplified by Lossky) does include a traditional understanding that the coats/garments of skins (χιτῶνας δερματίνους) in Genesis 3:21 either literally were, or were figuratively analogous to, physical / fleshly bodies? And Esoglou, are you saying this is not in fact a view consistent with Orthodox tradition? It would seem to me that if this view is or was widely held in Eastern Orthodoxy, there ought to be more sources available to substantiate it — if for no other reason than to assure ourselves that this really was what Lossky meant and that his words aren't being misunderstood or taken out of context. LoveMonkey, have you been able to find anyone else (other than Lossky) who has talked about this? As for myself, my first impression is that this interpretation is stretching the Genesis text and seems to contradict earlier portions of Genesis — but I'm not familiar with the Orthodox tradition on this point — though I think it's appropriate (especially given the seemingly extraordinary and controversial nature of this claim) that more sources should be brought to bear here. Apologies if you've already done that and I just am not aware of what else you've done. Richwales (talk · contribs) 15:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

From the philokalia (which is still not all together translated to English yet)Flesh (sarx) [14] The Orthodox really are taught the one above about flesh after the fall and when there is ecumenical discussion this distinction is as something common overlook I think. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Please understand that Kallistos Ware has some issues with Greece and some theologians have been critical of him. As such it appears that the fifth volume of the Philokalia that he was supposed to be involved with appears to be on hiatus. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Sarx is the mortal flesh (Rom 7:18) that was given to mankind after his choice to be a god as one whom is self sufficient onto (ontologically) himself (to be a god in the knowledge of good and evil as one whom can choose good or evil as one who is self sufficient i.e. self-ish). A by product of this is mankind unwisely, chose to live off his environment rather than to live off of God directly (God is the tree of life to love God is to live off of the tree of life). Since before the fall man did not really "eat". Since life feeds on life if not off of God, mankind had to now kill in order to maintain existence. The sarx of mortal flesh is this apparatus added to mankind i.e. why would one need to eat if one is immortal? For to need is to be mortal. Orthodoxy defeated the pagan teaching of emanationism (oroborus) as a form of fatalism or determinism. This was a clarification that validated that mankind has freedom of choice or freewill and is separate from the old pagan culture that used fate as a justification for such things as slavery and inequality towards woman, mass murder, starvation etc. etc. Since the change or fall of man from God as is embraced in the East (influenced by Origen) teaches that mankind's fall was mankind choosing to be separate from God and then that choice causing the cosmos to be infused things like randomness (sumbebekos) and death and things like that to be added to our existence making it separated from God or without God directly. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The issue of person as a theological distortion East and West

When the theology of God was worked out in the East the whole of it was done as catholic (in the original Greek sense of the word not the Latin distortion of it) between the charismatics (ascetics) and the clergy in the East. The word to trump and end logical paradoxes that had come to be addressed as supernatural and at the same time rational (this is what metaphysics or ontology used to be about) was not ousia (being) or energeia (uncreated first principle) the word that was used to resolve the conflict between pagan philosophy and the Judeo Christian God is hypostasis. It was the Latins whom used the word person to describe what in Greek is more proper as "individual existence as a reality onto (being) itself." Note how the definition contains reality in it. Not something that comes from a reality but something that contains a reality. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Once the Latins began to see that people where confused and clouded in the mind by their three person of one essence they too became confused, as Augustine is an excellent example of how some in the West tried to work that out with reason. [15] However this is WRONG. Even the development of perseity is inadequate. What the ontology of God is can not ever contain such a concept as filioque. Why? Because to confuse God's being with God's nature and then God's interaction with the material world will cause people to not properly identify God. If will cause a disconnect. Christianity defeated paganism as a philosophy (metaphysics), as a science (emanationism), as a negative and ugly PR war (gnosticism) by showing people -GOD. Not by describing God to them nor by saying "Hey we the clergy and theologians got this let us handle it" but by giving people something called gnosis that was derived theoria. By teaching people something that is rational rather then correct people have lost contact with what that victory was all about. This all boils down to the West getting power from Christianity at the expense of killing it's mysticism. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Please be careful here (both of you!) to emphasize apologetics and downplay polemics as much as you possibly can. The nature of this topic is such that you really can't avoid some "anti-" comments, and there just isn't going to be a single unified restatement of the entire situation that everyone is going to agree with. But everyone needs to try hard to concentrate on what this or that side believes — and where there is a disagreement, seriously consider saying things (with appropriate sources, of course!) like "Orthodox theologians rejected what they perceived as such-and-so belief on the part of Roman Catholics" (or vice versa). LoveMonkey, for you to say that "the Latins became confused" or "Augustine is WRONG" should be a red flag telling you that your manner of description is wrong; instead of doing that, consider saying something like "Eastern scholars disagreed with the efforts of Augustine and other Western theologians to approach the ontology of God via reason" — or even "Eastern scholars objected to what they saw in the West as an attempt to explain the nature of God through reason". I think the two of you are less likely to come to verbal blows if you each concentrate on trying to explain the issues for the rest of us from one perspective or the other — all the time making it plain that this is what you are doing (this is the Eastern view; this is how theologians in the West perceived and reacted to the Eastern view; etc., etc.) — and without trying to explain the other view (let the other editor do that!) or trying to say that the other view is in error (instead, make it clear you are saying that one side considers the other side's position to be in error). Richwales (talk · contribs) 16:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)