OrthodoxWiki - User contributions [en]

User talk:Fr Lev

2010-08-31T03:55:24Z

Richwales: /* Wikipedia article */ new section

== [[Talk:Liturgy of St. Tikhon of Moscow]] ==

I've rolled the Talk page back, as per your request. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 01:56, August 6, 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks! --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 02:04, August 6, 2008 (UTC)

== Edits to Great Schism ==

Fr.

With all due respect, the form of date 1054 A.D. is correct english. I don't understand the edit.

Jaye (Jacifus)

: Following Latin, the more traditional syntax is to place ''AD'' before the number (e.g., AD 1054), though the reverse is now becoming more common. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 22:38, December 4, 2008 (UTC)

The ''Chicago Manual of Style'' indicates that AD should be used without periods and should precede the year. ''Anno Domini'' means "in the year of our Lord," so it would look odd to write "1054 in the year of our Lord." Personally, I would prefer using "CE" instead of "AD." As scholars agree that Christ was born in or around 4 BCE, it seems very odd to have to say that Christ was born "four years Before Christ." --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 01:34, December 5, 2008 (UTC)

==Talk:Sarum Use==
Hello Fr,
I was trying to add some comments to this page, and when i tried to save it removed all existing comments. Tried to undo the revision, and the undo did not save. Not able to restore,,can you please help?? Thanks,
[[User:Angellight 888|Angellight 888]] 20:51, August 26, 2008 (UTC)

==Help on [[misotheism]] article==
Hello Father I was hoping for some help on the misotheism article.
[[User:LoveMonkey|LoveMonkey]] 17:08, August 30, 2008 (UTC)

== Wikipedia article ==

Hi. Thanks so much for contributing yesterday on the Wikipedia talk page for "Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences". I hope we could convince you (and others) to join in further over there, especially in the "discussion" (?) that has been going on regarding the nature of the physical human body. There are really only two editors "working (?) on this article right now, and they're mostly locked in an edit war over the writings of Vladimir Lossky and whether his view (essentially, as I understand it, that our material bodies didn't exist before the fall and won't exist after the resurrection) represents mainstream Orthodox belief or not. I've got a nagging suspicion that this may be a "creative" interpretation of what the Apostle Paul meant when he talked about the resurrection in I Corinthians 15 — but I fear there isn't much hope for a solution on Wikipedia unless we can get more knowledgeable Orthodox (or at least Orthodoxy-knowledgeable) people involved on the article — something that just doesn't seem to be happening so far. [[User:Richwales|Richwales]] 03:55, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Great Schism

2010-08-29T05:33:37Z

Richwales: /* Request for help on a Wikipedia article */ new section

The year link was copied from the filioque article--should that link likewise be removed? --[[User:Magda|magda]] 15:25, 7 Feb 2005 (CST)

:Yep. I don't think we're likely to have enough articles here for a particular year that would justify a year having its own article. (The [[Filioque]] article also needs some serious work.) --[[User:ASDamick|Rdr. Andrew]] 15:34, 7 Feb 2005 (CST)
---------------------------------------
This is a major article. I suspect it will be under development for some time. A couple notes for the moment:
#I remember being taught (in a Roman Catholic University) that the "Great Schism" was when there was one pope in Avignon and another in Rome. This usage is worthy of a mention, for the sake of clarity.
#I'm not sure how deeply we should jump into the details of the debates about, e.g. the Filioque here - these things should be referred to separate pages for all the nitty gritty details. I do think we need to discuss or survey some of the many different ways of constructing the schism. It's not an easy thing to pin down: Charlemage? 1056? 1204? etc. We should discuss different evaluations of what was primary, and so on. I think that kind of perspective would be most useful here, rather than a simple repeat of, e.g., what's in Bishop Kallistos' ''The Orthodox Church''. Other thoughts? [[User:FrJohn|Fr. John]]
---------------------------------------
The idea that I'm going to do with this article is to give a general overview on some of the issues surrounding the G.E.S. So in a sense the structure is the same as Bishop Kallistos' ''The Orthodox Church''. But in the section on when exactly did it occur, I will try to talk about what issues were important. This can also continue into the other sections afterward (the attempts to reconcile and the continuing progress/regress). It's going to be a huge undertaking (in addition to my thesis) but I think it can be done. I'll continue to tweak it here and there as time goes on and I may end up with something different. I hope that clarifies some things. -[[User:Fedya911|Fedya]]

::Sounds good, thanks! [[User:FrJohn|Fr. John]]
---------------------------------------
Peace and goodwill.
I'm a Latin Catholic; I stumbled across this website a while ago and found it interesting in helping answer a couple of the questions I have about the Eastern Orthodox Church. I would just like to comment (as a guest of this forum) on this article. I appreciate the Great Eastern Schism is a complicated event that will take a while to describe properly in a wiki article. As it stands currently however this really is one-sided. I would suggest that the Filioque issue has been really overplayed (for instance, ask an Eastern Rite Catholic what they think of this) in the context of the 1054 schism; in the context of the schism following Florence it obviously becomes important but in a different way than that presented, this needs to be all explained. But what I am worried about is that not a single of the many Eastern-stemming reasons for the split is mentioned - eg, the trial of Pope Formosus, the iconoclastic schism, Monothelitism, the Photian schism (though this is an issue of some tenderness between us I know). All up I can tell you that Westerns have a pretty different view of this history than is presented here.
With the ultimate aim of the reunion of the Eastern and Western Churches in mind I think a truly balanced account of why we are separated, with respect to both parties, is needed to be understood by all first. Making out that it's all our fault is not true and will not help.
Thanks for reading - good luck with it and God grant we may be one Church again, it's about time!
Christ be with you.
Daniel--[[User:Seperatedbrother|Seperatedbrother]] 14:42, December 10, 2008 (UTC)

== Major rewrite needed ==

I'd suggest grabbing the text from [[w:East-West Schism]] and adapting where needed. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 14:30, December 11, 2008 (UTC)

:Agree, although some of that article is contentious. W:user:Lima is causing some trouble there with frequent reverts, re-edits, and non-collaborative single-minded behaviour. [[User:Chrisg|Chrisg]] 14:37, December 11, 2008 (UTC)

::I am not an expert on writing "Encyclopedically" however i am good at reading and understanding and it is my personal opinion that the way this article is WORDED is like it is a "Media response" rather than an encyclopedic/neutral tone ... its almost like the person is offended and needs to tell you why ... An example is the following:

:::''Additionally offensive to the Orthodox" was that the Creed was changed without agreement of the whole Christian Church. The Creed had been agreed upon at an [[Ecumenical Council]] and revised at another, bearing universal authority within the Church.''
:::''For the Pope of Rome to change the Creed unilaterally without reference to an Ecumenical Council was highly offensive to the other four patriarchates and to all the Eastern bishops, as it undermined the collegiality of the episcopacy. It demeaned all the other bishops.''

::"Additionally offensive" ... "highly offensive" ... "undermind" ..."demeaned" - Like Oh My Gosssshh ...really! Perhaps, if this article was stripped of "emotive" adjectives and reduced to BASE FACTS ..then a bottom up approach could be adopted in the writing style rather than this editing war that is starting to prevail between ChrisG and Jay? ... [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 02:14, December 12, 2008 (UTC)

== Neither "formerly" nor "formally" ==

A change was made that said: "AD 1054 is the date formerly given for the split between East and West." If "formerly" is meant, it is wrong in that many still give that date. It it was a typo and "formally" was meant, that is wrong, too, as it wasn't finally accomplished for two centuries. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 01:52, December 12, 2008 (UTC)

==Merge and new base==

The two articles are now merged but need much more editing. For the next 3 weeks I'll be in an area where there is no electricity, phone, or internet, so regrettably will not be able to assist with the continuing edits needed. [[User:Chrisg|Chrisg]] 01:13, December 13, 2008 (UTC)

== The content of Humbert's bull ==
[[User:Jacifus|Jacifus]] [http://orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=User_talk%3AASDamick&diff=78440&oldid=78130 wrote on my talk page]: "I respectfully disagree that the Entire Eastern Church was not excommunicated. The Bull said as much. I refer you to Bishop Kallistos "The Orthodox Church". I consider his account to be carefully researched and accurate."

I must respectfully disagree with this, myself, since Metr. Kallistos's book says no such thing but rather identifies Humbert's bull as being against Patr. Michael Cerularius (p. 67). What happened in 1054 was between two patriarchs (or rather, a papal legate and a patriarch). Even when Patr. Michael issued an anathema in retaliation, it was not against the whole Church of Rome, but only against Humbert.

It took nearly two centuries for the schism really to take full hold. Antioch, for instance, was still in communion with Rome as of 1180, and there was still a Benedictine monastery on Athos as of 1287. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 01:17, December 14, 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure that the Benedictine monastery of Amalfion was commemorating the Pope of Rome until the thirteenth century. Existing literature seems to imply that they were in agreement on all theological points with the other monasteries of Athos. I may be in error. --[[User:JosephSuaiden|JosephSuaiden]] 06:26, December 14, 2008 (UTC)

==Where are the footnotes?==
The text of this article contains footnote references, but it appears that the footnotes don't actually show up at the bottom of the article. I tried poking around in the editing help to see if it gave any clues about what might be wrong, but couldn't find anything. [[User:Steorra|Steorra]] 03:28, December 14, 2008 (UTC)

: Fixed! —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 03:39, December 14, 2008 (UTC)

== Request for help on a Wikipedia article ==

There has been an edit war going on for some time now, involving the Wikipedia article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic%E2%80%93Eastern_Orthodox_theological_differences Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences]. One editor (who appears to have once been active here on OrthodoxWiki) is citing Vladimir Lossky's writings to advance a claim that Orthodoxy teaches the material body did not exist before the fall of man and will not exist after the resurrection. This claim is being disputed by another (non-Orthodox) editor, and I (also non-Orthodox) have been trying (largely without success) to mediate the dispute. I believe this article, and others such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East-West_Schism East–West Schism], are desperately in need of participation from more editors with an Orthodox background. If anyone reading this is also editing Wikipedia, I hope you would consider having a look and seeing what you can contribute. Thanks. [[User:Richwales|Richwales]] 05:33, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Vladimir Lossky

2010-08-29T05:30:47Z

Richwales: /* Request for help on a Wikipedia article */ new section

Hey where are you getting the criticisms from? Who specifically in the theology world has made such comments on Lossky?
[[User:LoveMonkey|LoveMonkey]] 13:18, August 28, 2006 (CDT)

:You'd have to ask Pistevo about that. I didn't find any sources in my (extremely brief) online search. [[User:Gabriela|Gabriela]] 22:50, August 28, 2006 (CDT)
::Ah, I see you've already done so. That's what I get for starting with the older changes without checking out the new developments first! [[User:Gabriela|Gabriela]] 22:52, August 28, 2006 (CDT)

== The 'Mystical Theology' ==

The brief criticism of Vladimir Lossky's 'Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church' on the Discussion page of this article is intriguing. But it is, for me at least, too brief to be understood. Could this critique be expanded? Would doing so help?

Years ago, I found the 'Mystical Theology' an elegant introduction to Orthodox Theology and life. Its footnoted references to Church Fathers from the 4th to the 19th century were especially helpful. These notes made it possible to investigate what lay behind Vladimir Lossky's claims.

The book is characteristically eirenic and therefore restrained in its exposition of some central issues, such as the role of the Mother of God. Perhaps this restraint might be considered a weakness. But Lossky's expression is limpid so that even in his reticence, his meaning is clear.

However, if there is a problem with Lossky's explanation of salvation -- a vital matter -- it would be helpful to know what it is.

Thanks ...
:Even though mine is the name posted as adding the criticisms in, I actually have no idea, having never read Lossky's works. Those who know better are encouraged to change it.
:Also, please remember to put four tilde's (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) after your message. — edited by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 20:33, September 2, 2006 (CDT)

== Removing Criticism ==

Until the author of the criticisms (or someone else) can provide some documentation, it seems prudent to remove the criticism section. [[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]]

== Request for help on a Wikipedia article ==

There has been an edit war going on for some time now, involving the Wikipedia article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic%E2%80%93Eastern_Orthodox_theological_differences Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences]. One editor (who appears to have once been active here on OrthodoxWiki) is citing Vladimir Lossky's writings to advance a claim that Orthodoxy teaches the material body did not exist before the fall of man and will not exist after the resurrection. This claim is being disputed by another (non-Orthodox) editor, and I (also non-Orthodox) have been trying (largely without success) to mediate the dispute. I believe this article, and others such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East-West_Schism East–West Schism], are desperately in need of participation from more editors with an Orthodox background. If anyone reading this is also editing Wikipedia, I hope you would consider having a look and seeing what you can contribute. Thanks. [[User:Richwales|Richwales]] 05:30, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

User:Richwales

2010-08-29T05:28:45Z

Richwales: creating user page with link to my Wikipedia user talk page

I am not an active participant on OrthodoxWiki. If you want to contact me, I recommend you see my Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Richwales user talk page]. [[User:Richwales|Richwales]] 05:28, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Richwales

2010-08-29T04:57:54Z

Richwales: creating talk page with link to my Wikipedia user talk page