OrthodoxWiki - User contributions [en]

Talk:John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon

2008-05-15T15:28:31Z

Cebactokpatop: /* Italia Ortodossa */

*[[Talk:John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon/Archive 1|Archive 1]] - from article creation (2007) to end of March 2008.
*[[Talk:John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon/Archive 2|Archive 2]] - from April 1 to May 9, 2008.

== Consensus straw poll ==

Who here believes that it can be clearly shown that the Mainstream Chalcedonian churches (the explicit bias of OrthodoxWiki) regard Metr. John as heterodox (i.e., a heretic)? —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 21:11, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

* You can place my vote firmly '''against''' such an idea. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 21:11, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

* You can place my vote firmly '''against''' such an idea. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 21:31, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

* I must also resolutely vote '''against''' a notion so ridiculous. [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 21:37, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

* So far '''against''' that, IMHO, the question borders on being rhetorical (albeit a necessary question, given the circumstances). — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 21:58, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

:Friends, I'm not sure this is really necessary. It is often said that the Church is not a democracy. For our purposes (re: bias), I suspect it is enough to ask questions such as "Has such a person or such ideas been formally condemned by a local or ecumenical synod?"
:Many theologians are (every theologian is?) controversial. The intensity of debate shows, in my mind, the deep sense of responsibility people have in the engagement and can be a useful tool for diagnosing the larger patterns of tension within the Orthodox world. OrthodoxWiki certainly should not (except perhaps in extreme circumstances) label any Orthodox bishop "heterodox" or a "heretic," but neither do we need to defend his theology against all critics. I would like to continue to push simply toward "objective" statements rather than evaluative statements -- the who, what, where, when, and why which befits an encyclopedic undertaking. — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk])

Oh, Father, how we have tried! The point has been made ''ad nauseum'' that no synod has sugested, much less concluded, that Metropolitan John's teaching is heterodox. Since creating the article, I've tried to edit it with encylopedic neutrality. The trouble has been one person's irresistible urge to villify the Metropolitan, and to twist sources that are praising the Metropolitan (such as Leithart and Papanikolaou) into negative criticism. The choir appreciates the sermon, but I think only one chorister is flat! --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 23:52, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

: The Church is of course not a democracy, but I do think that straw polls are useful in terms of trying to analyze and establish consensus on OrthodoxWiki articles. I don't think anyone here is arguing that this article should be utterly free from mention of criticism, but I do think there's generally a consensus that the way one editor has been going about adding it has been 1) unacceptable in its approach to collaboration (i.e., essentially none), 2) reflecting a basic lack of understanding of Orthodox theology and terminology, and 3) reflecting a lack of willingness to respect the official OrthodoxWiki bias. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 00:01, May 10, 2008 (UTC)

If I may add a point here: '''Just as the Church is not a democracy, neither is OrthodoxWiki an anarchy.''' Cebactokpatop is destroying the environment necessary for constructive and collaborative editing through his rude, ignorant and disruptive editing. I am shocked that a blind eye has been turned to the gravely insulting remarks Cebactokpatop has made to clergy contributing on OrthodoxWiki. He is an editor who has been repeatedly warned, yet shows absolutely no change in behaviour. Having a collaborative environment is not only about permitting a variety of viewpoints; it is also about protecting that environment from abuse. At present, Cebactokpatop has single-handedly destroyed the collaborative environment of OrthodoxWiki (at least as far as the John Zizioulas article is concerned): constructive edits are blocked and reverted, whilst the talk-page is filled up with incivil discourse, peppered with Cebactokpatop's beligerent theological illiteracy.
Cebactokpatop has made it clear that he is not interested (or capable?) of constructive editing here. As such, there is only one way to restore the collaborative environment necessary for OrthodoxWiki to flourish, and that is to ban Cebactokpatop. [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 00:19, May 10, 2008 (UTC)

:Just to respond to a small point in that message - I don't think I would be terribly out of line by putting forward that a blind eye hasn't been turned to insulting remarks, whether against clergy or otherwise, particularly since at least half of those remarks have been made towards various sysops. — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 03:11, May 10, 2008 (UTC)

::Well, Cebactokpatop is a thug, and the sysops should be putting a stop to his thuggery, instead of continuing to allow him to disrupt constructive editing on OrthodoxWiki. [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 14:39, May 10, 2008 (UTC)

== Italia Ortodossa ==

In a link to an article in the Italian journal being cited as a source of criticism, we find the following claim: "This explains why orthodox people cannot help defining western Christianity as 'Arian'." This does not represent mainstream Orthodox criticism of the West. There are many things to say about deficiencies in Western theology, but this wholesale condemnation of the West as "Arian" is an expression of a fringe belief. The same article claims, "The same concept of 'Church - Eucharist' is also found in the Russian theologian Afanasieff, but it is typically western." This betrays an almost complete ignorance of the history of Western ecclesiology, which in fact has ''not'' focused on the Eucharist. Moreover, the style of the magazine is polemical and vicious. An example from the same article: "we must state that Zizioulas’ s theological style and argumentation can be proven deceitful, as he often stands too far from the truth/" Calling the Metropolitan deceitful is not criticism, academic or otherwise. It is libelous. As such, it has no place in this encyclopedia article. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 17:04, May 13, 2008 (UTC)

:I've addressed part of this in an archived part of this talk page: it is impossible to describe the West as being 'Arian' - the filioque clause alone forbids it! As unsound as it may be for other reasons, it does ensure that arianism is entirely rejected. — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 21:14, May 13, 2008 (UTC)

: I've reverted the re-addition of the link—as noted multiple times elsewhere, it's essentially just polemical screed. It doesn't qualify by our research standard for controversial issues, i.e., it is not a "reliable, third-party source." —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 12:45, May 15, 2008 (UTC)

:: Just because you do not share opinions expressed in the article of that magazine, it does not justify your unauthorized removal of that valid academic criticism. Orthodox criticism of the West is not always expressed in such an openly manner, as in the subject article, but, one who knows the state of the faith in the West would agree with the magazine. Fact that Westerners have difficulties with so common Orthodox confession of The Faith: "Christ our God", and most of the time replace it with "Christ our Lord" speaks for itself. Besides, the magazine editorial staff live in the West, surrounded by the Western Christianity, and are on that basis fully eligible to provide their stance on the matter. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 12:49, May 15, 2008 (UTC)

::: It has nothing to do with whether we agree with the contents of the link or not—it's that the link is essentially unreliable polemic. If it were a reasoned, reliable source, then it might warrant inclusion, no matter what opinions it expressed. There are many such links and sources cited on OrthodoxWiki—content with which we may disagree but is of the requisite '''quality''' and '''notability''' as to be included.

::: I am somewhat amazed at the argument you present here for the ''Italia Ortodossa'' depiction of Western Christianity as "Arian," namely that they live in the West! Living in the West does not make one educated in Western theology. In any event, the overwhelming majority of Western Christians I know have no problem whatsoever with the phrase "Christ our God" and believe in it wholeheartedly. I have lived my whole life in Western culture and in the company of Western Christians (with the exception of 5 years on Guam). That doesn't make me an expert, either, of course, but I think it should be enough to debunk the notion that the West is entirely Arian. In fact, only a tiny minority could be said to be Arian, e.g., Jehovah's Witnesses.

::: It's precisely that sort of unwarranted and quite frankly ignorant assertion which shows that ''Italia Ortodossa'' is an unreliable source. Please do not keep reverting the article in defiance of pretty much all the other editors' clear consensus. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 13:01, May 15, 2008 (UTC)

:::: Details about "theological education" of the editorial staff of that magazine was provided earlier, and you have no grounds for removal on that basis. It is your private disagreement with the article that is putting you on this unjustified quest. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 13:08, May 15, 2008 (UTC)

::::: One could have a dozen Ph.D.s and twice as many D.D.s, but it doesn't mean that what one writes is worthy of being quoted in an encyclopedia. I know of no serious, reliable theologian, East or West, who contends that Western Christianity is Arian. Confirmations of Jesus Christ as God are replete in their Creeds and doctrinal statements.

::::: This really is going nowhere. The consensus on this matter is clear—the link should not be included. (By the way, one could just as easily say that it is your own agreement with the contents of the link which has, in the face of overwhelming opposition from sysops and other longstanding editors, across multiple wikis, set you on a quest to discredit Metr. John!)

::::: I'm protecting the article once again. All changes for the time being will have to be discussed here on the Talk page, consensus determined, and then added in by a sysop. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 13:12, May 15, 2008 (UTC)

:::::: '''You are abusing your sysop's powers. We have seen that before. Nothing new. And even worse, you are going to do it again, and again, until revoked from your account.'''

:::::: What consensus you are talking about? We do not have consensus on the magazine. If you think that you and other followers of JZ can "vote" (as you already did) and call that "consensus", you are badly mistaken. That is not consensus. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 13:22, May 15, 2008 (UTC)

::::::: Consensus is not equal to unanimity. Should one editor (i.e., you) be allowed to dominate an article even in the face of nearly universal opposition, despite being shown repeatedly how your edits and behavior on the wiki do not conform to established standards? You've been shown again and again how your attempts to discredit Metr. John in this article are ill-founded and baseless, yet instead of working to provide reliable, third-party sources, you repeatedly restore a link to a badly written, undocumented screed which makes such ridiculous assertions as claiming that all of Western Christianity is Arian.

::::::: No one is claiming that we all must agree with what Metr. John writes or that this article should include no mention of criticism of his works. Rather, what is being called for is that inclusion of criticism be done in the correct manner—reflecting the correct balance of how he is actually regarded in the mainstream Orthodox world and where criticism is mentioned, that it be cited from appropriately reliable, third-party sources.

::::::: Yet you will revert or otherwise change any edit which does not agree with your basic assumption that a bishop who has never even been formally accused of heresy (much less declared one) is in fact a heretic. On top of all that, I have seldom encountered a more persistently uncivil editor as yourself, willing to level all sorts of accusations against anyone who does not facilitate your quest. Having your editing privileges restored by [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] does not make any edit you make worthy of retention in the wiki.

::::::: The article has been protected to prevent an edit war—this affects all users, whether they agree with you or not. It is standard practice to protect an article when it is being subject to an edit war. You are of course free to accuse me of abuse of my sysop privileges if you like. As always, I leave that to [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] to determine. I will note that I am not the first sysop to protect this article because of an edit war which you incited, which is why I strongly suspect that, even if I were not exercising my duties as a sysop, one of the other sysops would. In the meantime, the article is protected as before. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 13:40, May 15, 2008 (UTC)

:::::::: You are forgetting that it is Fr. John who has put the article up, and I was preventing your unauthorized edits only. Thus, your whole story above is in deep err, and further portrays your inability to successfully act as sysop. Your lacking of skills to properly assess the situation can't be more obvious. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 13:49, May 15, 2008 (UTC)

::::::::: Oh, it can always be more obvious! :) I make no special claim to wisdom or skill, but it is standard procedure to protect an article subject to an edit war. Anyway, Fr. John did not "put the article up." He's simply attempting to mediate its contents, though he's also made it clear that his ability to dedicate time to doing so is limited. That a particular portion was included in an edit he made does not mean that he wrote that portion or approves of everything in it. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 13:53, May 15, 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::: Even '''IF''' he does not approve everything in it, he allows it in the article, out of his understanding of the validity of other opinions, while you obviously do NOT. You created edit war and you "protected" article from that edit war. How do we call this? [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 14:20, May 15, 2008 (UTC)

Here's the actual sequence of events for those observing:
#The link was much discussed and generally disapproved of, except by you.
#Fr. Lev posted a more detailed criticism of the link's inclusion.
#Pistevo agreed with it.
#Fr. Lev removed the link and the text surrounding it.
#You reverted Fr. Lev's edit, restoring the link, claiming that it was approved of by Fr. John.
#I reverted your reversion, returning to the version as edited by Fr. Lev.
#You again reverted the edit, restoring the link, claiming that it was approved of by Fr. John.
#I returned the article to the state as edited by Fr. Lev and attempted to convince you not to revert it again.
#You again reverted the edit, restoring the link, claiming that it was approved of by Fr. John (totaling 3 reverts in about 31 minutes).
#I again returned the article to the state as edited by Fr. Lev and then protected it, noting why on this talk page and noting that all changes would need to be discussed and brought to a consensus first.
#You accuse me of abusing my powers as a sysop and everyone who disagrees with you of being a "follower" of Metr. John.

So, that's how I would characterize what occurred and what is essentially recorded in all the relevant logs. I'm not going to bother attempting to argue with you further, since I'm well past the point of being convinced that it's futile. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 15:22, May 15, 2008 (UTC)

: '''You are misleading the readers again. Nothing new from your side. What you numbered above is your biased private opinion, and nothing more than that.''' [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 15:28, May 15, 2008 (UTC)

Talk:John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon

2008-05-15T14:20:55Z

Cebactokpatop: /* Italia Ortodossa */

*[[Talk:John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon/Archive 1|Archive 1]] - from article creation (2007) to end of March 2008.
*[[Talk:John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon/Archive 2|Archive 2]] - from April 1 to May 9, 2008.

== Consensus straw poll ==

Who here believes that it can be clearly shown that the Mainstream Chalcedonian churches (the explicit bias of OrthodoxWiki) regard Metr. John as heterodox (i.e., a heretic)? —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 21:11, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

* You can place my vote firmly '''against''' such an idea. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 21:11, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

* You can place my vote firmly '''against''' such an idea. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 21:31, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

* I must also resolutely vote '''against''' a notion so ridiculous. [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 21:37, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

* So far '''against''' that, IMHO, the question borders on being rhetorical (albeit a necessary question, given the circumstances). — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 21:58, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

:Friends, I'm not sure this is really necessary. It is often said that the Church is not a democracy. For our purposes (re: bias), I suspect it is enough to ask questions such as "Has such a person or such ideas been formally condemned by a local or ecumenical synod?"
:Many theologians are (every theologian is?) controversial. The intensity of debate shows, in my mind, the deep sense of responsibility people have in the engagement and can be a useful tool for diagnosing the larger patterns of tension within the Orthodox world. OrthodoxWiki certainly should not (except perhaps in extreme circumstances) label any Orthodox bishop "heterodox" or a "heretic," but neither do we need to defend his theology against all critics. I would like to continue to push simply toward "objective" statements rather than evaluative statements -- the who, what, where, when, and why which befits an encyclopedic undertaking. — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk])

Oh, Father, how we have tried! The point has been made ''ad nauseum'' that no synod has sugested, much less concluded, that Metropolitan John's teaching is heterodox. Since creating the article, I've tried to edit it with encylopedic neutrality. The trouble has been one person's irresistible urge to villify the Metropolitan, and to twist sources that are praising the Metropolitan (such as Leithart and Papanikolaou) into negative criticism. The choir appreciates the sermon, but I think only one chorister is flat! --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 23:52, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

: The Church is of course not a democracy, but I do think that straw polls are useful in terms of trying to analyze and establish consensus on OrthodoxWiki articles. I don't think anyone here is arguing that this article should be utterly free from mention of criticism, but I do think there's generally a consensus that the way one editor has been going about adding it has been 1) unacceptable in its approach to collaboration (i.e., essentially none), 2) reflecting a basic lack of understanding of Orthodox theology and terminology, and 3) reflecting a lack of willingness to respect the official OrthodoxWiki bias. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 00:01, May 10, 2008 (UTC)

If I may add a point here: '''Just as the Church is not a democracy, neither is OrthodoxWiki an anarchy.''' Cebactokpatop is destroying the environment necessary for constructive and collaborative editing through his rude, ignorant and disruptive editing. I am shocked that a blind eye has been turned to the gravely insulting remarks Cebactokpatop has made to clergy contributing on OrthodoxWiki. He is an editor who has been repeatedly warned, yet shows absolutely no change in behaviour. Having a collaborative environment is not only about permitting a variety of viewpoints; it is also about protecting that environment from abuse. At present, Cebactokpatop has single-handedly destroyed the collaborative environment of OrthodoxWiki (at least as far as the John Zizioulas article is concerned): constructive edits are blocked and reverted, whilst the talk-page is filled up with incivil discourse, peppered with Cebactokpatop's beligerent theological illiteracy.
Cebactokpatop has made it clear that he is not interested (or capable?) of constructive editing here. As such, there is only one way to restore the collaborative environment necessary for OrthodoxWiki to flourish, and that is to ban Cebactokpatop. [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 00:19, May 10, 2008 (UTC)

:Just to respond to a small point in that message - I don't think I would be terribly out of line by putting forward that a blind eye hasn't been turned to insulting remarks, whether against clergy or otherwise, particularly since at least half of those remarks have been made towards various sysops. — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 03:11, May 10, 2008 (UTC)

::Well, Cebactokpatop is a thug, and the sysops should be putting a stop to his thuggery, instead of continuing to allow him to disrupt constructive editing on OrthodoxWiki. [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 14:39, May 10, 2008 (UTC)

== Italia Ortodossa ==

In a link to an article in the Italian journal being cited as a source of criticism, we find the following claim: "This explains why orthodox people cannot help defining western Christianity as 'Arian'." This does not represent mainstream Orthodox criticism of the West. There are many things to say about deficiencies in Western theology, but this wholesale condemnation of the West as "Arian" is an expression of a fringe belief. The same article claims, "The same concept of 'Church - Eucharist' is also found in the Russian theologian Afanasieff, but it is typically western." This betrays an almost complete ignorance of the history of Western ecclesiology, which in fact has ''not'' focused on the Eucharist. Moreover, the style of the magazine is polemical and vicious. An example from the same article: "we must state that Zizioulas’ s theological style and argumentation can be proven deceitful, as he often stands too far from the truth/" Calling the Metropolitan deceitful is not criticism, academic or otherwise. It is libelous. As such, it has no place in this encyclopedia article. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 17:04, May 13, 2008 (UTC)

:I've addressed part of this in an archived part of this talk page: it is impossible to describe the West as being 'Arian' - the filioque clause alone forbids it! As unsound as it may be for other reasons, it does ensure that arianism is entirely rejected. — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 21:14, May 13, 2008 (UTC)

: I've reverted the re-addition of the link—as noted multiple times elsewhere, it's essentially just polemical screed. It doesn't qualify by our research standard for controversial issues, i.e., it is not a "reliable, third-party source." —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 12:45, May 15, 2008 (UTC)

:: Just because you do not share opinions expressed in the article of that magazine, it does not justify your unauthorized removal of that valid academic criticism. Orthodox criticism of the West is not always expressed in such an openly manner, as in the subject article, but, one who knows the state of the faith in the West would agree with the magazine. Fact that Westerners have difficulties with so common Orthodox confession of The Faith: "Christ our God", and most of the time replace it with "Christ our Lord" speaks for itself. Besides, the magazine editorial staff live in the West, surrounded by the Western Christianity, and are on that basis fully eligible to provide their stance on the matter. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 12:49, May 15, 2008 (UTC)

::: It has nothing to do with whether we agree with the contents of the link or not—it's that the link is essentially unreliable polemic. If it were a reasoned, reliable source, then it might warrant inclusion, no matter what opinions it expressed. There are many such links and sources cited on OrthodoxWiki—content with which we may disagree but is of the requisite '''quality''' and '''notability''' as to be included.

::: I am somewhat amazed at the argument you present here for the ''Italia Ortodossa'' depiction of Western Christianity as "Arian," namely that they live in the West! Living in the West does not make one educated in Western theology. In any event, the overwhelming majority of Western Christians I know have no problem whatsoever with the phrase "Christ our God" and believe in it wholeheartedly. I have lived my whole life in Western culture and in the company of Western Christians (with the exception of 5 years on Guam). That doesn't make me an expert, either, of course, but I think it should be enough to debunk the notion that the West is entirely Arian. In fact, only a tiny minority could be said to be Arian, e.g., Jehovah's Witnesses.

::: It's precisely that sort of unwarranted and quite frankly ignorant assertion which shows that ''Italia Ortodossa'' is an unreliable source. Please do not keep reverting the article in defiance of pretty much all the other editors' clear consensus. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 13:01, May 15, 2008 (UTC)

:::: Details about "theological education" of the editorial staff of that magazine was provided earlier, and you have no grounds for removal on that basis. It is your private disagreement with the article that is putting you on this unjustified quest. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 13:08, May 15, 2008 (UTC)

::::: One could have a dozen Ph.D.s and twice as many D.D.s, but it doesn't mean that what one writes is worthy of being quoted in an encyclopedia. I know of no serious, reliable theologian, East or West, who contends that Western Christianity is Arian. Confirmations of Jesus Christ as God are replete in their Creeds and doctrinal statements.

::::: This really is going nowhere. The consensus on this matter is clear—the link should not be included. (By the way, one could just as easily say that it is your own agreement with the contents of the link which has, in the face of overwhelming opposition from sysops and other longstanding editors, across multiple wikis, set you on a quest to discredit Metr. John!)

::::: I'm protecting the article once again. All changes for the time being will have to be discussed here on the Talk page, consensus determined, and then added in by a sysop. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 13:12, May 15, 2008 (UTC)

:::::: '''You are abusing your sysop's powers. We have seen that before. Nothing new. And even worse, you are going to do it again, and again, until revoked from your account.'''

:::::: What consensus you are talking about? We do not have consensus on the magazine. If you think that you and other followers of JZ can "vote" (as you already did) and call that "consensus", you are badly mistaken. That is not consensus. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 13:22, May 15, 2008 (UTC)

::::::: Consensus is not equal to unanimity. Should one editor (i.e., you) be allowed to dominate an article even in the face of nearly universal opposition, despite being shown repeatedly how your edits and behavior on the wiki do not conform to established standards? You've been shown again and again how your attempts to discredit Metr. John in this article are ill-founded and baseless, yet instead of working to provide reliable, third-party sources, you repeatedly restore a link to a badly written, undocumented screed which makes such ridiculous assertions as claiming that all of Western Christianity is Arian.

::::::: No one is claiming that we all must agree with what Metr. John writes or that this article should include no mention of criticism of his works. Rather, what is being called for is that inclusion of criticism be done in the correct manner—reflecting the correct balance of how he is actually regarded in the mainstream Orthodox world and where criticism is mentioned, that it be cited from appropriately reliable, third-party sources.

::::::: Yet you will revert or otherwise change any edit which does not agree with your basic assumption that a bishop who has never even been formally accused of heresy (much less declared one) is in fact a heretic. On top of all that, I have seldom encountered a more persistently uncivil editor as yourself, willing to level all sorts of accusations against anyone who does not facilitate your quest. Having your editing privileges restored by [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] does not make any edit you make worthy of retention in the wiki.

::::::: The article has been protected to prevent an edit war—this affects all users, whether they agree with you or not. It is standard practice to protect an article when it is being subject to an edit war. You are of course free to accuse me of abuse of my sysop privileges if you like. As always, I leave that to [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] to determine. I will note that I am not the first sysop to protect this article because of an edit war which you incited, which is why I strongly suspect that, even if I were not exercising my duties as a sysop, one of the other sysops would. In the meantime, the article is protected as before. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 13:40, May 15, 2008 (UTC)

:::::::: You are forgetting that it is Fr. John who has put the article up, and I was preventing your unauthorized edits only. Thus, your whole story above is in deep err, and further portrays your inability to successfully act as sysop. Your lacking of skills to properly assess the situation can't be more obvious. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 13:49, May 15, 2008 (UTC)

::::::::: Oh, it can always be more obvious! :) I make no special claim to wisdom or skill, but it is standard procedure to protect an article subject to an edit war. Anyway, Fr. John did not "put the article up." He's simply attempting to mediate its contents, though he's also made it clear that his ability to dedicate time to doing so is limited. That a particular portion was included in an edit he made does not mean that he wrote that portion or approves of everything in it. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 13:53, May 15, 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::: Even '''IF''' he does not approve everything in it, he allows it in the article, out of his understanding of the validity of other opinions, while you obviously do NOT. You created edit war and you "protected" article from that edit war. How do we call this? [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 14:20, May 15, 2008 (UTC)

Talk:John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon

2008-05-15T13:49:41Z

Cebactokpatop: /* Italia Ortodossa */

*[[Talk:John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon/Archive 1|Archive 1]] - from article creation (2007) to end of March 2008.
*[[Talk:John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon/Archive 2|Archive 2]] - from April 1 to May 9, 2008.

== Consensus straw poll ==

Who here believes that it can be clearly shown that the Mainstream Chalcedonian churches (the explicit bias of OrthodoxWiki) regard Metr. John as heterodox (i.e., a heretic)? —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 21:11, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

* You can place my vote firmly '''against''' such an idea. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 21:11, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

* You can place my vote firmly '''against''' such an idea. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 21:31, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

* I must also resolutely vote '''against''' a notion so ridiculous. [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 21:37, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

* So far '''against''' that, IMHO, the question borders on being rhetorical (albeit a necessary question, given the circumstances). — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 21:58, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

:Friends, I'm not sure this is really necessary. It is often said that the Church is not a democracy. For our purposes (re: bias), I suspect it is enough to ask questions such as "Has such a person or such ideas been formally condemned by a local or ecumenical synod?"
:Many theologians are (every theologian is?) controversial. The intensity of debate shows, in my mind, the deep sense of responsibility people have in the engagement and can be a useful tool for diagnosing the larger patterns of tension within the Orthodox world. OrthodoxWiki certainly should not (except perhaps in extreme circumstances) label any Orthodox bishop "heterodox" or a "heretic," but neither do we need to defend his theology against all critics. I would like to continue to push simply toward "objective" statements rather than evaluative statements -- the who, what, where, when, and why which befits an encyclopedic undertaking. — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk])

Oh, Father, how we have tried! The point has been made ''ad nauseum'' that no synod has sugested, much less concluded, that Metropolitan John's teaching is heterodox. Since creating the article, I've tried to edit it with encylopedic neutrality. The trouble has been one person's irresistible urge to villify the Metropolitan, and to twist sources that are praising the Metropolitan (such as Leithart and Papanikolaou) into negative criticism. The choir appreciates the sermon, but I think only one chorister is flat! --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 23:52, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

: The Church is of course not a democracy, but I do think that straw polls are useful in terms of trying to analyze and establish consensus on OrthodoxWiki articles. I don't think anyone here is arguing that this article should be utterly free from mention of criticism, but I do think there's generally a consensus that the way one editor has been going about adding it has been 1) unacceptable in its approach to collaboration (i.e., essentially none), 2) reflecting a basic lack of understanding of Orthodox theology and terminology, and 3) reflecting a lack of willingness to respect the official OrthodoxWiki bias. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 00:01, May 10, 2008 (UTC)

If I may add a point here: '''Just as the Church is not a democracy, neither is OrthodoxWiki an anarchy.''' Cebactokpatop is destroying the environment necessary for constructive and collaborative editing through his rude, ignorant and disruptive editing. I am shocked that a blind eye has been turned to the gravely insulting remarks Cebactokpatop has made to clergy contributing on OrthodoxWiki. He is an editor who has been repeatedly warned, yet shows absolutely no change in behaviour. Having a collaborative environment is not only about permitting a variety of viewpoints; it is also about protecting that environment from abuse. At present, Cebactokpatop has single-handedly destroyed the collaborative environment of OrthodoxWiki (at least as far as the John Zizioulas article is concerned): constructive edits are blocked and reverted, whilst the talk-page is filled up with incivil discourse, peppered with Cebactokpatop's beligerent theological illiteracy.
Cebactokpatop has made it clear that he is not interested (or capable?) of constructive editing here. As such, there is only one way to restore the collaborative environment necessary for OrthodoxWiki to flourish, and that is to ban Cebactokpatop. [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 00:19, May 10, 2008 (UTC)

:Just to respond to a small point in that message - I don't think I would be terribly out of line by putting forward that a blind eye hasn't been turned to insulting remarks, whether against clergy or otherwise, particularly since at least half of those remarks have been made towards various sysops. — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 03:11, May 10, 2008 (UTC)

::Well, Cebactokpatop is a thug, and the sysops should be putting a stop to his thuggery, instead of continuing to allow him to disrupt constructive editing on OrthodoxWiki. [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 14:39, May 10, 2008 (UTC)

== Italia Ortodossa ==

In a link to an article in the Italian journal being cited as a source of criticism, we find the following claim: "This explains why orthodox people cannot help defining western Christianity as 'Arian'." This does not represent mainstream Orthodox criticism of the West. There are many things to say about deficiencies in Western theology, but this wholesale condemnation of the West as "Arian" is an expression of a fringe belief. The same article claims, "The same concept of 'Church - Eucharist' is also found in the Russian theologian Afanasieff, but it is typically western." This betrays an almost complete ignorance of the history of Western ecclesiology, which in fact has ''not'' focused on the Eucharist. Moreover, the style of the magazine is polemical and vicious. An example from the same article: "we must state that Zizioulas’ s theological style and argumentation can be proven deceitful, as he often stands too far from the truth/" Calling the Metropolitan deceitful is not criticism, academic or otherwise. It is libelous. As such, it has no place in this encyclopedia article. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 17:04, May 13, 2008 (UTC)

:I've addressed part of this in an archived part of this talk page: it is impossible to describe the West as being 'Arian' - the filioque clause alone forbids it! As unsound as it may be for other reasons, it does ensure that arianism is entirely rejected. — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 21:14, May 13, 2008 (UTC)

: I've reverted the re-addition of the link—as noted multiple times elsewhere, it's essentially just polemical screed. It doesn't qualify by our research standard for controversial issues, i.e., it is not a "reliable, third-party source." —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 12:45, May 15, 2008 (UTC)

:: Just because you do not share opinions expressed in the article of that magazine, it does not justify your unauthorized removal of that valid academic criticism. Orthodox criticism of the West is not always expressed in such an openly manner, as in the subject article, but, one who knows the state of the faith in the West would agree with the magazine. Fact that Westerners have difficulties with so common Orthodox confession of The Faith: "Christ our God", and most of the time replace it with "Christ our Lord" speaks for itself. Besides, the magazine editorial staff live in the West, surrounded by the Western Christianity, and are on that basis fully eligible to provide their stance on the matter. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 12:49, May 15, 2008 (UTC)

::: It has nothing to do with whether we agree with the contents of the link or not—it's that the link is essentially unreliable polemic. If it were a reasoned, reliable source, then it might warrant inclusion, no matter what opinions it expressed. There are many such links and sources cited on OrthodoxWiki—content with which we may disagree but is of the requisite '''quality''' and '''notability''' as to be included.

::: I am somewhat amazed at the argument you present here for the ''Italia Ortodossa'' depiction of Western Christianity as "Arian," namely that they live in the West! Living in the West does not make one educated in Western theology. In any event, the overwhelming majority of Western Christians I know have no problem whatsoever with the phrase "Christ our God" and believe in it wholeheartedly. I have lived my whole life in Western culture and in the company of Western Christians (with the exception of 5 years on Guam). That doesn't make me an expert, either, of course, but I think it should be enough to debunk the notion that the West is entirely Arian. In fact, only a tiny minority could be said to be Arian, e.g., Jehovah's Witnesses.

::: It's precisely that sort of unwarranted and quite frankly ignorant assertion which shows that ''Italia Ortodossa'' is an unreliable source. Please do not keep reverting the article in defiance of pretty much all the other editors' clear consensus. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 13:01, May 15, 2008 (UTC)

:::: Details about "theological education" of the editorial staff of that magazine was provided earlier, and you have no grounds for removal on that basis. It is your private disagreement with the article that is putting you on this unjustified quest. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 13:08, May 15, 2008 (UTC)

::::: One could have a dozen Ph.D.s and twice as many D.D.s, but it doesn't mean that what one writes is worthy of being quoted in an encyclopedia. I know of no serious, reliable theologian, East or West, who contends that Western Christianity is Arian. Confirmations of Jesus Christ as God are replete in their Creeds and doctrinal statements.

::::: This really is going nowhere. The consensus on this matter is clear—the link should not be included. (By the way, one could just as easily say that it is your own agreement with the contents of the link which has, in the face of overwhelming opposition from sysops and other longstanding editors, across multiple wikis, set you on a quest to discredit Metr. John!)

::::: I'm protecting the article once again. All changes for the time being will have to be discussed here on the Talk page, consensus determined, and then added in by a sysop. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 13:12, May 15, 2008 (UTC)

:::::: '''You are abusing your sysop's powers. We have seen that before. Nothing new. And even worse, you are going to do it again, and again, until revoked from your account.'''

:::::: What consensus you are talking about? We do not have consensus on the magazine. If you think that you and other followers of JZ can "vote" (as you already did) and call that "consensus", you are badly mistaken. That is not consensus. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 13:22, May 15, 2008 (UTC)

::::::: Consensus is not equal to unanimity. Should one editor (i.e., you) be allowed to dominate an article even in the face of nearly universal opposition, despite being shown repeatedly how your edits and behavior on the wiki do not conform to established standards? You've been shown again and again how your attempts to discredit Metr. John in this article are ill-founded and baseless, yet instead of working to provide reliable, third-party sources, you repeatedly restore a link to a badly written, undocumented screed which makes such ridiculous assertions as claiming that all of Western Christianity is Arian.

::::::: No one is claiming that we all must agree with what Metr. John writes or that this article should include no mention of criticism of his works. Rather, what is being called for is that inclusion of criticism be done in the correct manner—reflecting the correct balance of how he is actually regarded in the mainstream Orthodox world and where criticism is mentioned, that it be cited from appropriately reliable, third-party sources.

::::::: Yet you will revert or otherwise change any edit which does not agree with your basic assumption that a bishop who has never even been formally accused of heresy (much less declared one) is in fact a heretic. On top of all that, I have seldom encountered a more persistently uncivil editor as yourself, willing to level all sorts of accusations against anyone who does not facilitate your quest. Having your editing privileges restored by [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] does not make any edit you make worthy of retention in the wiki.

::::::: The article has been protected to prevent an edit war—this affects all users, whether they agree with you or not. It is standard practice to protect an article when it is being subject to an edit war. You are of course free to accuse me of abuse of my sysop privileges if you like. As always, I leave that to [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] to determine. I will note that I am not the first sysop to protect this article because of an edit war which you incited. In the meantime, the article is protected as before. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 13:40, May 15, 2008 (UTC)

:::::::: You are forgetting that it is Fr. John who has put the article up, and I was preventing your unauthorized edits only. Thus, your whole story above is in deep err, and further portrays your inability to successfully act as sysop. Your lacking of skills to properly assess the situation can't be more obvious. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 13:49, May 15, 2008 (UTC)

User talk:FrJohn

2008-05-15T13:34:42Z

Cebactokpatop: /* Recurring abuse of the sysop powers by Fr. Andrew */ new section

<div id="shortcut" style="border: 1px solid #CC9; margin: 0em 1em 0em 1em; text-align: center; padding:5px; clear: both; background-color:#F1F1DE">
''Welcome to my discussion page. Please post new messages to the bottom of the page and use headings when starting new discussion topics. Please also sign and date your entries by inserting '''<nowiki>- ~~~~</nowiki>''' at the end. Thank you. [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:{{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}|action=edit&section=new}} Start a new discussion topic.]''
----
''[[/archived discussion 1]] (through 09-07-2005)'' 
''[[/archived discussion 2]] (through 11-20-2005)'' 
''[[/archived discussion 3]] (through 05-24-2006)'' 
''[[/archived discussion 4]] (through 04-13-2007)''
</div>

__TOC__

== Orthodoxwiki in Greek ==

Father bless. I have to apologise for my English and I'll like to ask you what i have to do to create the greek version of the Orthodoxwiki?
Your blesses and I hope for the success of the progect--[[User:Adolapts|Adolapts]] 04:34, May 8, 2007 (PDT)

== Romanian documents about ECOF==

Le Patriarcat Roumain
Le département des relations ecclésiastiques extérieures
Roumanie

423/3.III.1993

A son Excellence l’évêque Germain de St Denis
Paris France

VOTRE EXCELLENCE

Nous portons à votre connaissance que le saint Synode de l’Eglise Roumaine, dans sa session de travail du 23 janvier 1993, a de nouveau examiné la situation de Votre Excellence et de l’Evêché Orthodoxe Catholique de France,

Comme Vous savez, en 1972, ce diocèse Français, à la demande instante de ses représentants, a été reçu par le patriarcat Roumain sous sa juridiction, afin de lui offrir, par économie ecclésiastique, la communion canonique de même que la possibilité de s’intégrer dans l’ensemble de l’Orthodoxie et de progresser spirituellement.

Peu de temps après avoir été reçu sous notre juridiction et après le sacre épiscopal de Votre excellence, au sein du diocèse et dans Votre activité commencèrent à se manifester. diverses erreurs d’ordre dogmatique, liturgique et de discipline canonique, ainsi que des enseignements et des pratiques contraires à l’orthodoxie universelle, qui ne firent que se multiplier avec le temps continuant à présent encore et étant maintes fois portées à notre connaissance.

Au long de toutes ces années, le Saint synode, dans l’Esprit de la charité chrétienne et de la tolérance à l’égard de votre excellence et du clergé et des fidèles de l’Evêché Orthodoxe Catholique de France, a fait de considérables efforts pour vous aider à faire remédier les erreurs et à redresser la vie religieuse de ce diocèse, afin que vous puissiez entrer dans la communion de l’orthodoxie universelle.

Par conséquent vous avez été maintes fois invité par le patriarcat Roumain de participer, accompagné par vos collaborateurs, à des discussions dans le cadre de diverses commissions synodales. Chaque fois ont été dressés des protocoles et vous avez signé des engagements et des déclarations (1974,1976, 1978,1979, 1982, 1985, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990), stipulant que vous allez vous intégrer dans l’orthodoxie universelle. Vous les avez cependant chaque fois ignorés et transgressés sciemment, faisant preuve de désobéissance et d ‘insoumission.

Etant donné que vous n’avez pas respecté les susdits protocoles, les déclarations et vos propres engagements de vous intégrer effectivement et sincèrement avec le diocèse dans l’orthodoxie universelle ;

Compte tenu de l’attitude permanente de désobéissance et de la transgression délibérée de vos propres engagements quant à l’observation et de la doctrine et de la pratique de la vie religieuse orthodoxe,

Le saint synode de l’Eglise Orthodoxe Roumaine a décidé de retirer définitivement la juridiction canonique de l’Eglise orthodoxe roumaine à Votre excellence et à l’Evêché Orthodoxe catholique de France. Par conséquent, l’exercice de toute fonction épiscopale vous est désormais défendu. Toute correspondance reçue de Votre part à ce sujet ne sera plus prise en considération.

Il a été également décidé que les prêtres ou les communautés du respectif diocèse qui souhaiteraient maintenir les liens canoniques avec L’Orthodoxie universelle puissent s’adresser à cet effet aux juridictions canoniques orthodoxes locales.

Les susdites décisions seront communiquées aussi au conseil diocésain de l’Evêché Orthodoxe Catholique de France, aux prêtres appartenant à ce diocèse, au Comité Inter-épiscopal orthodoxe de Paris et aux Eglises Orthodoxes sœurs.
Avec le regret que le patriarcat roumain ait été contraint de prendre de telles mesures disciplinaires, nous prions le Seigneur de vous accorder son aide et sa lumière et de vous protéger dans la grâce miséricordieuse ;

Président du saint Synode
+ Théoctiste
Patriarche de l’Eglise orthodoxe Roumaine

Secrétaire du Saint synode,
+ Evêque Nifon Ploiesteanul
Vicaire patriarcal

PATRIARHIA ROMANA
CANCELARIA SFANTULUI SINOD
SECTORUL PENTRU RELATII EXTERNE BISERICESTI

AVIS D’EXPERTISE CANONIQUE

No 9 /3 Janvier 2001

Après une suite d’erreurs de l’ex-évêque Germain de Saint Denis, le Saint Synode de l’Eglise orthodoxe Roumaine a été obligé de prendre la. décision disciplinaire de lui interdire l’exercice de toutes fonctions épiscopales. Cette décision no. 423 / 1993, ci-après annexée, a été communiquée aux intéressés par une lettre du 3 mars 1993, ci-incluse.

Pour expliciter cette décision du Saint Synode nous précisons que “retirer définitivement la juridiction canonique” et ‘l’exercice de route fonction épiscopale vous est désormais défendu” signifient du point de vue canonique que l’ex-évêque Germain est exclu de l’épiscopat (c’est à dire la déposition), et est réduit â l’état laïc et ainsi n’a plus le droit de célébrer la Sainte Liturgie, ni aucun office religieux, ni de effectuer des ordinations et dispenser les Saints Sacrements, ni de conduire une communauté cultuelle orthodoxe. Par suite il n’est reçu par aucune autre juridiction Orthodoxe.

Contrairement à la décision du Saint Synode de l’Eglise orthodoxe Roumaine, l’ex-évêque Germain, aggrave sa situation ecclésiale en poursuivant l’exercice des fonctions épiscopales, et ainsi tombe sous l’incidence des canons l’excluant de l’Eglise. Tout acte de culte et d’autorité excercé par un évêque après sa déposition sont nuls de fait et de droit (28eme règle apostolique et no. 4 du concile d’Antioche 74ème règle apostolique 9 et 17 du IV concile oecuménique et no. 15 du concile d’ Antioche). Les ordinations pourront être soumises par économie à l’examen de l’autorité canonique.

En continuant ses errements et passant au delà de toutes règles canoniques l’ex-évêque Germain, M. Gilles BERTRAND-HARDY, en se mariant est tombé définitivement de son état épiscopal et conformément aux Saints Canons la sanction appliquée par le Saint Synode pourrait être l’anathème, (no. 6 du VI concile oecuménique, no. I Néocésarée et no 12 et 48 du VI concile oecuménique).

En conclusion, par application des Saints Canons cités qui sont valabLes dans toutes les Eglises orthodoxes, l’ex-évêque Germain, M. Gilles BERTRAND-HARDY non seulement aperdu sa qualité d'évêque mais de plus encourt l’exclusion de l’Eglise orthodoxe,

Le secrétariat du Saint Synode de l’Eglise orthodoxe Roumaine

Evêque Ambrosie Sinaitul Vicaire administratif
P. Constantin Parvu
Vicaire Patriarcal

'''I hope you wont,like fr Lev, considers Romanian Orthodox Church like a liar, dictatorial church having made no canonical trial to B Germain before deposing him.
And all canonical dioceses in France: liar too ???'''

== ECOF ==
Binecuvinteaze parinte,

I think it is quite important to inform readers about the situation as it is. And, in France, all the canonical Orthodoxy considers ECOF being non-canonical, and bishop Germain deposed. You can ask every diocese, the A.E.O.F, St Serge Institute...
When a laity come to join a canonical diocese, what happens ? If he was a member of ECOF after 1993, he receive anointment of Myrron, the sacrament of Confirmation or "Chrismation" as in baptisma. And then only he can receive holy gifts.
If it is a member of ECOF clergy after 1993, he is examinated by a canonical commission, and if there is no problems, is ordained by a canonical bishop.
That clearly means that for Orthodox Church in France (canonical one), ECOF is non-canonical and its sacraments after 1993 have no value.

It does not mean that situation is fair, that Germain and ECOF were wrong, but that's the situation, as it is.

Most, to say the truth, nearly all french orthodoxs were formed and instructed by ECOF, french traductions were done by ECOF, and still of a very high quality. Contribution of ECOF to French Orthodoxy is enormous and well known. There are ex-members of ECOF in all dioceses of canonical churches established in France, most french priests come from ECOF. French orthodoxs still grateful to ECOF, its foundators like bishop Jean, Maxime Kovalevsky (his litugical chant is still used for instance in Romanian Deanery)and all the work done.
Bishop Marc (Alric), vicar of Metropolitan Joseph, was a member of ECOF!
So, every body knows the true story of ECOF, and the subject stills touchy and painful to many french orthodoxs.
That 's why we cannot, to my opinion, let false or incomplete informations about its canonical status written.
People who want to join ECOF must know the truth, and choose to embrase the situation of canonical isolation, the western rite, difficulties about M.Germain must be accepted and so on. They can choose to fight this situation, by considering like fr Lev ECOF is right.

Forgive me and pray for me,

Glikerie of Neamt.

== content on wikipedia ==

Fr John - template added. Which page is being lifted to wikipedia? — edited by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 17:29, May 17, 2007 (PDT)

Fr John you are considered host of this wiki. Please could you point out who is '''host''' on el.OrthodoxWiki? --[[User:Kalogeropoulos|Kalogeropoulos]] 03:59, May 25, 2007 (PDT)

== el.orthodoxwiki ==

Dear FrJohn, thank you for promoting me in sysop status. You 've done it exactly at the moment I was ready to ask for it, for a short period, in order to translate some messages of the system. Please feel free to take it back when basic job is done and other more qualified persons arrive. In due time I should propose [[:el:User:kostisl]] appointed for sysop -if he wishes, starts and continues editing articles. He has already done excellent work on Orthodoxy in greek wikipedia, and he is the proper person I think for this kind of job, as it concerns special terminology about theology and orthodoxy.

I'm working on a systematic excavation -the first of the Aegean University- in Kymisala area, in Rhodes Island of Dodecanese, Aegean Sea. Please feel free to ask detailed informations when you need it for your friends. I 've met OrthodoxWiki long ago, searching links about Innocent of Alaska and Alascan Diocese in order to use them on Patrology Project (electronic publication of Patrology's texts) of the University. I came back because of a link in greek wikipedia, and I'll try to help as much as I can. I 've found it a splendid idea for Orthodoxy all around the world and here maybe is the proper place to thank all who are working toward this purpose. I must confess that I am not exactly the religious type, who is able to conform to a dogma. I prefer the mystical type of approaching Christ, that's why I consider other users fitter than me. I wish you the best--[[User:Kalogeropoulos|Kalogeropoulos]] 09:01, May 25, 2007 (PDT)

== Deleted photos ==

Please restore the photos you deleted. I am not doing it over again!! I took the photos myself! They are not from other sources. http://orthodoxwiki.org/Orthodoxy_in_Hawaii {{unsigned|Nectarios}}

== Could you do me a favor? ==

Could you please restore the article of Archbishop Anthony of San Francisco? I had received permission to post it from the author of the article, Fr. Peter. I should have made that clear....sorry.
--[[User:Nectarios|Nectarios]] 12:19, May 31, 2007 (PDT)

:Hi Nectarios, I've restored the article and its images, both under our default copyright terms. If this is incorrect - if the author of the article or source of the image though they were giving a one-time permission for use on this site rather than a licensing under CC/GFDL, PLEASE let me know. Thanks! — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk])

== el.orthodox.wiki ==

Thank you for good words. Actually my interest at the moment is directed towards translating context, and localising system's messages. MediaWiki has not yet adopted all this work done in greek wikipedia, so we have to do it over and over again in every fresh wiki. I think that sooner or later this wiki will keep on going and what matters, as far as I'm concerned, is to offer a solid ground, upon which everybody is going to work without special difficalties. Something you could discuss for us with server administrator is timezone differences, if there is some way to solve this problem. I wish you the best--[[User:Kalogeropoulos|Kalogeropoulos]] 13:08, May 31, 2007 (PDT)

el.orthodox.wiki is lost. Did you have any kind of changes in the database?--[[User:Kalogeropoulos|Kalogeropoulos]] 09:23, June 4, 2007 (PDT)

There were some more problems but now I think it's allright. Thanks and best wishes--[[User:Kalogeropoulos|Kalogeropoulos]] 12:59, June 4, 2007 (PDT)

'''[[el:User:Kalogeropoulos/Notebook|Notebook for non Greek speaking sysops and users]]''': You can find informations about functional pages, templates concerning OrthodoxWiki's context, translations completed or in progress, a kind of informal embassy. Pls feel free to add comments or suggestions. Considering OrthodoxWiki's POV a most sensitive matter, we are in need of an independent greek speaking reader-watcher. I wish you the best -:).

== Thanks ==

Father Bless. I must thank you for the honor of upgraded my account to sysop status. I hope that I'll be worthy of your trust.--[[User:Adolap|Adolap]] 07:37, June 9, 2007 (PDT)

== Moderation ==

Father John,

Your Blessings!

Would you mind removing all posts from the discussion section and keep a watch on the Orthodoxy in the Philippines page, please? The reason is that I feel that the posts have degenerated into personal attacks, gossip, and slander and that these posts are upsetting certain hierarchs.

Marcus

== Orthodoxy in the Philippines ==

Dear Father John,

Would you mind deleting the entries on the discussion page and monitoring it a little more? The discussions about Antioch and Constantinople I believe are not appropriate for Orthodox wikipedia. Things should be kept on a scholarly and dispassionate level and the two persons, Filipino and Marcus, should not be discussing the issues mentioned because it is bound to upset a few bishops.

Dimitri

== Vandalism on the site ==

June 18, 2007, 9:20am PST

Good grief I don't envy what you're doing right now. Thank you for adjusting pages. Also note that the vandalism extended to the main page.

I wanted to contact you to tell you it was happening, but there doesn't seem to be a link to contact sysops. (So I posted to the orthodoxy board on LiveJournal...and was immediately--and appropriately--chastised for directing people to pornographic images!)

On the one hand, awareness of how to contact you and your ilk would be helpful. On the other hand, you're clearly on the case quickly.

Thank you.

ADDENDUM: Sincerely, Jeff ([[User:Jeffholton|Jeffholton]])

=== About vandalism ===

Coud you do something about recent vandalism. I believe that all users such as WarDemon is same person. It seams that he is changing his IP Adresses constantly.--[[User:Ddpbf|Ddpbf]] 09:42, June 18, 2007 (PDT)

:Hi guys -- Jeff, could you sign your posts with <nowiki>~~~</nowiki>? That helps me know who I'm talking to - thanks.
:Ok, now to business. I'm working on it. It's definitely the same person. It looks like this kid is on a dynamic IP connection (like DSL) through Verizon in New York. I'm on the phone with Verizon now. In terms of contact info, my email (and other information about how to contact me) is posted on my user page. I'm easy to find. I'll keep you guys updated if find out more info. — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk])

:P.S. No need to mark these things with the deletion template, especially when there are a group of people now watching the recent changes page. Thanks to everyone for their work. — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk])

:I don't want to post the details publicly, but this should be resolved soon. — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk])

== OrthodoxWiki in Macedonian ==

Father John, I would like to start OrthodoxWiki in Macedonian language.
Could you help me? [[User:Iacovibus|Iacovibus]] 04:55, July 16, 2007 (PDT)

==Sysop status==

Thanking you for your confidence so far, I should kindly ask removal of sysop status. --[[User:Kalogeropoulos|Kalogeropoulos]] 08:14, September 4, 2007 (PDT)

== Hello ==

Fr. John, bless! Just wanted to drop a note to say a very belated Hello. I had the pleasure of visiting your parish the last Sunday in August, when I was in town for the RailsEdge conference. I'm a web developer by trade, and have worked off and on on wikipedia since 2001 or so. I'll try to spend a little time here as well. "Anything worth doing is worth doing well" eh? [[User:Theophan|Rdr. Theophan]] 08:05, September 22, 2007 (PDT)

==Holy Cross Articles==

Dear Fr. John,
your blessing.

I read your communication with Pres. Magda, about the Holy Cross articles. I am the professor who required the students to post articles on the orthowiki. My name is Timothy Patitsas, and i teach Ethics here in Brookline.

I would appreciate your advice on how to improve the work that my students ultimately post on the orthowiki, as the results last spring (the first time I have attempted this), were not up to the standards I had hoped. Should I have them submit hard copies to me first, and then pick only those which are the best to be posted?

Sincerely,
Timothy Patitsas
[[User:Seoul|Seoul]] 19:22, November 2, 2007 (PDT)

==OrthodoxWiki in Spanish==
Dear FrJohn,

I am writing because I want to express my congratulations for your idea of creating a Spanish version of OrthodoxWiki. Although let me tell you I am a little amazed about the existence of OrthodoxWiki in a language spoken in countries that hardly have orthodox believers. However I think OrthodoxWiki may give useful information about the Orthodox Church, an important branch of Christianity that is almost unknown in Spain and Latin America.

I am not an orthodox Christian, but I am interested in this church. For that I hope to contribute with new articles in Spanish and English for OrthodoxWiki.

The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you!

--[[User:juanmanuelarcia|'''Juanmanuelarcia''']] 14:02, November 18, 2007 (UTC)

==OrthodoxWiki in Russian and Drevo==
Father John, hello! In Russian, we have russian huge orthodox wiki called [http://drevo.pravbeseda.org drevo]. What do you think about posting an article by me, both to the drevo and here (orthodoxwiki)? Which licence must I use? [[User:Зануда|Зануда]] 04:05, November 24, 2007 (PST)

:Hello Зануда!, This would be wonderful. I think, when we were launching [http://ru.orthodoxwiki.org ru.orthodoxwiki.org], I looked for other Russian-language wikis and found two or three, but was not able to figure out what licenses they were using. (Not reading Russian did not help!) I suppose that copyright law is not as developed (at least in the public consciousness) in Russia? It seems that our own Russian wiki is not doing very well -- it does not have much support or content. I would be very happy to join efforts with a wiki project in Russian, provided that our licenses were compatible.
:OrthodoxWiki licenses content by default under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license (see http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/ -- unfortunately they haven't made this available in Russian yet, but there is a description of the "porting" process at http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Worldwide_Overview) as well as a [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html GNU Free Doc License] (just like Wikipedia). We allow use under either license for maximum flexibility and compatibility.
:All that said, you would be very welcome to post an article both here, under our default license, and there, under whatever license you choose. As the creator of the content, you may choose to license it in various ways. Thank you for your interest in OrthodoxWiki! — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk]) 10:53, November 24, 2007 (PST)

== Licenses ==

Dear Father,

I'm confused about whether we can import images which are currently under a CC license. Specifically, [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Patriarch_of_Constantinople_throne.jpg this image] for the [[cathedra]] article. The external links on the [[OrthodoxWiki:Copyrights]] page indicate we have as part of our dual-license the 2.5 version of the CC; should that link be updated? Also, if, when we hammer things out for a particular license or site (such as we have done with Wikipedia), perhaps we could put a "May I use information/image from X?" list which stipulates the various requirements per each source (or kind of source) for importing materials. If so, what page and/or category would be a good place for that? (We might also want to make clear what sources are not acceptable.)

In Christ,
magda

:Magda, Good to hear from you and its a good question. We've allowed all kinds of licensed material here in the past SO LONG AS the one who posts it has the right to post it here. For example, CC content allows third party distribution, as long as the terms of the license are made clear and proper attribution is made (so the Image page should contain the appropriate license template as well as cite the source). Regular copyrighted content has been allowed if posted by the author or someone with explicit permission -- however, I'd like to see us move away from that and just use "open" content -- content which may be freely redistributed (CC licenses included). I know all of this is confusing for many (most?) people, so an overview page would definitely be helpful. If you'd be interesting in working on this, I think that'd be great, and I could check things over to clarify any issues... — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk]) 22:41, November 27, 2007 (PST)

== Orthodoxwiki in Russian ==

Father bless. In advance I ask the application for my bad English. I user Orthodoxwiki in Russian. To my deepest regret the sysop of Russian-speaking version Orthodoxwiki does not appear any more on a site. Thereof it is impossible to execute change of Main Page and other protected sections. In this connection I would like to ask for you to allocate me with powers of the sysop as I can be useful to the project. My operational experience with various Wiki-encyclopedias makes more than 3 years. Besides I have enough free time and knowledge on a theme. I shall be glad to any answer.--[[User:Nikita|Nikita]] 10:10, December 28, 2007 (PST)

== FYI on multi-account ==

It looks rather like [[User:Westernritecritic|Westernritecritic]] and [[User:Ephremsyrianos|Ephremsyrianos]] are the same person. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] 19:59, January 27, 2008 (PST)

== Uploading and commons ==

Yo! When I uploaded [[:Image:Quick_to_Hear.jpg]] and included <nowiki>{{damickcopy}}</nowiki>, it didn't do all the inclusions correctly, e.g., putting the image in the right category and linking my username.

Thanks for what you do! —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:41, February 12, 2008 (PST)

:Hi Fr. Andrew, yep -- inclusions can be a little tricky across multiple sites. You should make sure the template exists on commons and that the link there points to your user page here, I think. — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk])

== HOCNA Metropolis of the Portland and the West ==

Metropolitan Moses is Bishop of Portland, not Seatle. The address for the Metropolis os Portland and the West is http://orthodoxmetropolisportland.org/
Thanks

== Internet community ==

[[List of Orthodox Internet communities]] has a link to http://www.orthodoxcircle.org/. Please check whether this is a login page for the same site or it's another one: http://portal.orthodoxcircle.com/ . If it's a different site, add it to the list. :) -- [[User:Alternativo|alternativo]] 11:14, March 2, 2008 (PST)

== Complaint about sysop Pistevo ==

In an ongoing dispute over the article related to m. John Zizioulas, subject sysop sided with one side in the dispute, instead of providing independent service, helping two sides to resolve issues. I understand that sysops are man with their own opinions, preferences, inclinations, etc. However, they should not mix that with the role they play on OrthodoxWiki. If they use their privileges to promote and endorse their private agendas, they are abusing them. If one is not capable to separate the two, one is not suitable for sysop function. Incapable sysops make more harm than good. I would like to appeal to you to come and mediate the dispute, at the same time revoking sysop privileges user Pistevo has. Thank you.

[[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 12:04, March 7, 2008 (PST)

== Western versus Orthodox information ==

Your Blessing Father John, thank you for your prompt reply. I understood your point and it is definately an issue that I am not qualified to discuss in depth because I dont have a degree in Theology and so do not know all about the writing relationships between the west and the east ... but I do agree with you that Orthodox Tradition is vital and as a simple person you can understand why I raised the question in the first place (I hope). [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 21:42, April 3, 2008 (PDT)

== French ==

I'm all excited about the various languages. Unfortunately, I don't actually ''know'' any of them, but with the help of the internet (how I wish google translate had Romanian!), I can perform simple matching tasks! —[[User:Magda|magda]] ([[User_talk:Magda|talk]]) 17:22, April 10, 2008 (UTC)

:This technology is just going to get better and better. Maybe Romanian will come soon! — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk])

== OrthodoxSource ==

Dear Father, I am getting an error when I try to log into OrthodoxSource:

:Your Internet Protocol address is listed on a blacklist of addresses involved in malicious or illegal activity. See the listing below for more details on specific blacklists and removal procedures.
:Your technical support key is: 4120-845b-1366-73cd

On the [http://www.ioerror.us/bb2-support-key?key=4120-845b-1366-73cd link] hinting that I might be able to "fix it [my]self," it says that "Bad Behavior" was involved. I haven't run into this before, and was hoping you could help. —[[User:Magda|magda]] ([[User_talk:Magda|talk]]) 00:32, April 11, 2008 (UTC)

:Sounds like you're busted, Magda! I've disabled the extension for now, but if you send me your IP privately I can whitelist you if I enable it again. Thanks for your work. — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk]) 01:09, April 11, 2008 (UTC)

Just thought I'd call your attention to [[OrthodoxWiki:Trapeza#St._Vlad.27s_pages this]]. I still get the same error message when trying it again today. —[[User:Magda|magda]] ([[User_talk:Magda|talk]]) 20:22, April 11, 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm pestering you, but I'm interested in getting an update for the [[OrthodoxWiki:Localization#Appendix_B:_Active_Localizations|Active Localizations]] list. —[[User:Magda|magda]] ([[User_talk:Magda|talk]]) 04:00, April 12, 2008 (UTC)

:No pestering! It's good bug-fixin. I've fixed the SVS page issue. Let me look at the localization page a little bit later. — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk]) 06:21, April 12, 2008 (UTC)

==Christ is Risen!==
[[Paschal greeting|Christ is Risen!]] - pls put this on the Main_Page. :-) --[[User:Inistea|Inistea]] 22:26, April 28, 2008 (UTC)

== the Geelong Monastery ==

Hi father, I apologise for modifying the article since I know you were responding to the requests of the Abbess but it felt like it was an "advertisement" rather than an encyclopedic article so I (didnt add any content) just sort of shuffled things around a little to make it look a little bit more like an article rather than a personal advertisment of the monastery. Hope I did an ok job ...plus the history of the icon has its own article so I added a link rather than have the information double-up since if any further information is added on the icon its modified once rather than having to hunt all articles talking about the "original" icon. [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 07:30, May 7, 2008 (UTC)

:Many thanks, Vasiliki - I was worried about this too. — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk]) 09:00, May 7, 2008 (UTC)

== Zizioulas page ==

Father, I have tried -- in good faith -- to edit the Leithart paragaph to make it both grammatical and more accurate. It could be read as you saying that certain Orthodox think, "Thus to differ from Lossky is to differ from Orthodoxy." But our noisy editor take you to be stating that you believe Lossky = Orthodoxy to be true, reverted my edit, and threatened me with your intervention. Perhaps you could visit the talk page and let us know your thoughts. Thanks! --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 18:38, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

== Recurring abuse of the sysop powers by Fr. Andrew ==

Fr. John, I am regret to inform you about the new incidents of the sysop's abuses, as well as the new unauthorized edits of the John Zizioulas' article. I have spoken earlier about the Fr. Andrew's incompatibility with the role of the sysop, and that is ongoing problem that won't disappear. Also, if I may suggest to you... to put the article under your sole editing privileges. Thank you. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 13:34, May 15, 2008 (UTC)

Talk:John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon

2008-05-15T13:22:49Z

Cebactokpatop: /* Italia Ortodossa */

*[[Talk:John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon/Archive 1|Archive 1]] - from article creation (2007) to end of March 2008.
*[[Talk:John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon/Archive 2|Archive 2]] - from April 1 to May 9, 2008.

== Consensus straw poll ==

Who here believes that it can be clearly shown that the Mainstream Chalcedonian churches (the explicit bias of OrthodoxWiki) regard Metr. John as heterodox (i.e., a heretic)? —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 21:11, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

* You can place my vote firmly '''against''' such an idea. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 21:11, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

* You can place my vote firmly '''against''' such an idea. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 21:31, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

* I must also resolutely vote '''against''' a notion so ridiculous. [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 21:37, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

* So far '''against''' that, IMHO, the question borders on being rhetorical (albeit a necessary question, given the circumstances). — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 21:58, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

:Friends, I'm not sure this is really necessary. It is often said that the Church is not a democracy. For our purposes (re: bias), I suspect it is enough to ask questions such as "Has such a person or such ideas been formally condemned by a local or ecumenical synod?"
:Many theologians are (every theologian is?) controversial. The intensity of debate shows, in my mind, the deep sense of responsibility people have in the engagement and can be a useful tool for diagnosing the larger patterns of tension within the Orthodox world. OrthodoxWiki certainly should not (except perhaps in extreme circumstances) label any Orthodox bishop "heterodox" or a "heretic," but neither do we need to defend his theology against all critics. I would like to continue to push simply toward "objective" statements rather than evaluative statements -- the who, what, where, when, and why which befits an encyclopedic undertaking. — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk])

Oh, Father, how we have tried! The point has been made ''ad nauseum'' that no synod has sugested, much less concluded, that Metropolitan John's teaching is heterodox. Since creating the article, I've tried to edit it with encylopedic neutrality. The trouble has been one person's irresistible urge to villify the Metropolitan, and to twist sources that are praising the Metropolitan (such as Leithart and Papanikolaou) into negative criticism. The choir appreciates the sermon, but I think only one chorister is flat! --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 23:52, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

: The Church is of course not a democracy, but I do think that straw polls are useful in terms of trying to analyze and establish consensus on OrthodoxWiki articles. I don't think anyone here is arguing that this article should be utterly free from mention of criticism, but I do think there's generally a consensus that the way one editor has been going about adding it has been 1) unacceptable in its approach to collaboration (i.e., essentially none), 2) reflecting a basic lack of understanding of Orthodox theology and terminology, and 3) reflecting a lack of willingness to respect the official OrthodoxWiki bias. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 00:01, May 10, 2008 (UTC)

If I may add a point here: '''Just as the Church is not a democracy, neither is OrthodoxWiki an anarchy.''' Cebactokpatop is destroying the environment necessary for constructive and collaborative editing through his rude, ignorant and disruptive editing. I am shocked that a blind eye has been turned to the gravely insulting remarks Cebactokpatop has made to clergy contributing on OrthodoxWiki. He is an editor who has been repeatedly warned, yet shows absolutely no change in behaviour. Having a collaborative environment is not only about permitting a variety of viewpoints; it is also about protecting that environment from abuse. At present, Cebactokpatop has single-handedly destroyed the collaborative environment of OrthodoxWiki (at least as far as the John Zizioulas article is concerned): constructive edits are blocked and reverted, whilst the talk-page is filled up with incivil discourse, peppered with Cebactokpatop's beligerent theological illiteracy.
Cebactokpatop has made it clear that he is not interested (or capable?) of constructive editing here. As such, there is only one way to restore the collaborative environment necessary for OrthodoxWiki to flourish, and that is to ban Cebactokpatop. [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 00:19, May 10, 2008 (UTC)

:Just to respond to a small point in that message - I don't think I would be terribly out of line by putting forward that a blind eye hasn't been turned to insulting remarks, whether against clergy or otherwise, particularly since at least half of those remarks have been made towards various sysops. — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 03:11, May 10, 2008 (UTC)

::Well, Cebactokpatop is a thug, and the sysops should be putting a stop to his thuggery, instead of continuing to allow him to disrupt constructive editing on OrthodoxWiki. [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 14:39, May 10, 2008 (UTC)

== Italia Ortodossa ==

In a link to an article in the Italian journal being cited as a source of criticism, we find the following claim: "This explains why orthodox people cannot help defining western Christianity as 'Arian'." This does not represent mainstream Orthodox criticism of the West. There are many things to say about deficiencies in Western theology, but this wholesale condemnation of the West as "Arian" is an expression of a fringe belief. The same article claims, "The same concept of 'Church - Eucharist' is also found in the Russian theologian Afanasieff, but it is typically western." This betrays an almost complete ignorance of the history of Western ecclesiology, which in fact has ''not'' focused on the Eucharist. Moreover, the style of the magazine is polemical and vicious. An example from the same article: "we must state that Zizioulas’ s theological style and argumentation can be proven deceitful, as he often stands too far from the truth/" Calling the Metropolitan deceitful is not criticism, academic or otherwise. It is libelous. As such, it has no place in this encyclopedia article. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 17:04, May 13, 2008 (UTC)

:I've addressed part of this in an archived part of this talk page: it is impossible to describe the West as being 'Arian' - the filioque clause alone forbids it! As unsound as it may be for other reasons, it does ensure that arianism is entirely rejected. — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 21:14, May 13, 2008 (UTC)

: I've reverted the re-addition of the link—as noted multiple times elsewhere, it's essentially just polemical screed. It doesn't qualify by our research standard for controversial issues, i.e., it is not a "reliable, third-party source." —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 12:45, May 15, 2008 (UTC)

:: Just because you do not share opinions expressed in the article of that magazine, it does not justify your unauthorized removal of that valid academic criticism. Orthodox criticism of the West is not always expressed in such an openly manner, as in the subject article, but, one who knows the state of the faith in the West would agree with the magazine. Fact that Westerners have difficulties with so common Orthodox confession of The Faith: "Christ our God", and most of the time replace it with "Christ our Lord" speaks for itself. Besides, the magazine editorial staff live in the West, surrounded by the Western Christianity, and are on that basis fully eligible to provide their stance on the matter. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 12:49, May 15, 2008 (UTC)

::: It has nothing to do with whether we agree with the contents of the link or not—it's that the link is essentially unreliable polemic. If it were a reasoned, reliable source, then it might warrant inclusion, no matter what opinions it expressed. There are many such links and sources cited on OrthodoxWiki—content with which we may disagree but is of the requisite '''quality''' and '''notability''' as to be included.

::: I am somewhat amazed at the argument you present here for the ''Italia Ortodossa'' depiction of Western Christianity as "Arian," namely that they live in the West! Living in the West does not make one educated in Western theology. In any event, the overwhelming majority of Western Christians I know have no problem whatsoever with the phrase "Christ our God" and believe in it wholeheartedly. I have lived my whole life in Western culture and in the company of Western Christians (with the exception of 5 years on Guam). That doesn't make me an expert, either, of course, but I think it should be enough to debunk the notion that the West is entirely Arian. In fact, only a tiny minority could be said to be Arian, e.g., Jehovah's Witnesses.

::: It's precisely that sort of unwarranted and quite frankly ignorant assertion which shows that ''Italia Ortodossa'' is an unreliable source. Please do not keep reverting the article in defiance of pretty much all the other editors' clear consensus. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 13:01, May 15, 2008 (UTC)

:::: Details about "theological education" of the editorial staff of that magazine was provided earlier, and you have no grounds for removal on that basis. It is your private disagreement with the article that is putting you on this unjustified quest. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 13:08, May 15, 2008 (UTC)

::::: One could have a dozen Ph.D.s and twice as many D.D.s, but it doesn't mean that what one writes is worthy of being quoted in an encyclopedia. I know of no serious, reliable theologian, East or West, who contends that Western Christianity is Arian. Confirmations of Jesus Christ as God are replete in their Creeds and doctrinal statements.

::::: This really is going nowhere. The consensus on this matter is clear—the link should not be included. (By the way, one could just as easily say that it is your own agreement with the contents of the link which has, in the face of overwhelming opposition from sysops and other longstanding editors, across multiple wikis, set you on a quest to discredit Metr. John!)

::::: I'm protecting the article once again. All changes for the time being will have to be discussed here on the Talk page, consensus determined, and then added in by a sysop. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 13:12, May 15, 2008 (UTC)

:::::: '''You are abusing your sysop's powers. We have seen that before. Nothing new. And even worse, you are going to do it again, and again, until revoked from your account.'''

:::::: What consensus you are talking about? We do not have consensus on the magazine. If you think that you and other followers of JZ can "vote" (as you already did) and call that "consensus", you are badly mistaken. That is not consensus. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 13:22, May 15, 2008 (UTC)

John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon

2008-05-15T13:08:51Z

Cebactokpatop: Undo revision 66194 by ASDamick (Talk) Restoring last approved version by Fr. John.

[[Image:Zizioulas1.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon]]
His Excellency the Most Reverend '''John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon''' (b. 1931) is a modern [[theologian]] and [[titular bishop|titular]] [[Metropolitan]] of Pergamon, under the [[Ecumenical Patriarchate]] of Constantinople.

==Life==
The future metropolitan was born [[January 10]], 1931. He began his studies at the University of Thessaloniki but took his first theology degree from the University of Athens in 1955. He studied patristics under Father Georges Florovsky at Harvard Divinity School, receiving his M.T.S. in 1956, and his doctorate in theology from the University of Athens in 1965. He was professor of theology for 14 years at the University of Glasgow and the University of Edinburgh, and has been a visiting professor at the University of Geneva, Gregorian University, and King's College, London. He was consecrated as a bishop on [[June 22]], 1986 and named Metropolitan of Pergamon.

==Theology and significance==
Metropolitan John is one of the most important Christian theologians alive today, influencing theologians in the Roman Catholic and Protestant communions as well in the Orthodox Church. Some have suggested that his 1985 book, ''Being as Communion'', is perhaps the most significant theological book of the late 20th century.

The principle themes in Metropolitan John’s theology are freedom and otherness, both human and divine. Grounding his work in the Cappadocian Fathers and St Maximus Confessor in particular, he articulates a relational ontology in which neither unity nor plurality have priority. His ''Being as Communion'' (1985) addressed the theme from the importance of communion for unity, while his later ''Communion and Otherness'' (2007) is a complementary analysis of the importance of otherness for communion. He thus takes up the ancient philosophical problem of reconciling the One and the Many, which he examines with respect to divinity (the three Persons of the Trinity and the ''monarchia'' of the Father), humanity (theological anthropology), and the Church (ecclesiology). The philosophical implications of the book extend to the human and social sciences. A further theme of the two studies is the eschatological ontology he derives from St Maximus the Confessor, in which the truly real is that which is real at the ''eschaton''. This is the subject of a new book by the Metropolitan to be released in summer 2008, ''Remembering the Future: An Eschatological Ontology''.

His first book was his doctoral dissertation in 1965, only recently published in English as ''Eucharist, Bishop, Church: The Unity of the Church in the Divine Eucharist and the Bishop During the First Three Centuries'' (2001). It was an early and significant contribution to the development of ‘eucharistic ecclesiology’, associated with [[Nicholas Afanasiev]], that focused on the essential role of the bishop as the presider of the Church’s Divine Liturgy.

Metropolitan John has become a key figure in major ecumenical dialogues between the Orthodox Church and other Christian traditions, and in 2006 succeeded Archbishop [[Stylianos (Harkianakis) of Australia|Stylianos of Australia]] as president of the Commission of Orthodox in the Dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church. Metropolitan John is also well-known for his work on the environment, particularly for his lecture series, ‘Preserving God’s Creation.’

==Books==
*''L'Être ecclésial'' (Paris: Labor et Fides, 1981). ISBN 978-2830901801.
*''E Ktise os eucharistia'' (Athens: Akritas, 1992). ISBN 978-9607006981. This would be rendered in English as ''Creation as Eucharist''.
*''Being and Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church'' (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimirs Seminary Press, 1997). ISBN 978-0881410297.
*''Eucharist, Bishop, Church: The Unity of the Church in the Divine Eucharist and the Bishop During the First Three Centuries'' (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross, 2001). ISBN 978-1885652515.
*''Ellenismos kai Christianismos: H Synantese ton duo Kosmon'' (Athens: ApostolikeDiakonia, 2003). This would be renderd in English as ''Hellenism and Christianity: The Meeting of Two Worlds''.
*''Communion & Otherness: Further Studies in Personhood and the Church'' (London: T & T Clark, 2007). ISBN 978-0567031488.
*''Remembering the Future: An Eschatological Ontology'' (London: T&T Clark, 2008). ISBN 978-0567032355.
*''Lectures in Christian Dogmatics'' (London: T&T Clark, 2009). ISBN 978-0567033154.

==Studies==
*Fox, Patricia A. ''God as Communion: John Zizioulas, Elizabeth Johnson, and the Retrieval of the Symbol of the Triune God'' (Michael Glazer, 2001). ISBN 978-0814650820.
*Knight, Douglas, ed. ''The Theology of John Zizioulas: Personhood and the Church'' (Ashgate, 2007). ISBN 978-0754654308.
*McPartlan, Paul. ''The Eucharist Makes the Church: Henri du Lubac and John Zizioulas in Dialogue''. Eastern Christian Publications, 2006. ISBN 978-1892278616.
*Papanikolaou, Aristotle. ''Being with God: Trinity, Apophaticism, and Divine-Human Communion'' (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2006). ISBN 978-0268038304.

==Criticisms==
Like many theologians, particularly those involved in theological dialogues, Metropolitan John has undergone criticism for his theological works, particularly in the areas of the patristic roots of his theology of personhood, and his ecclesiology and perspective on ecumenical relations.

===Theology of Personhood===
*Lucian Turcescu argues in ''[http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1468-0025.00202 Person versus Individual and Other Modern Misreadings of Gregory of Nyssa]'' that there are differences between patristic theology and the theology of John Zizioulas. Specifically, Turcescu argues that "Zizioulas is ... in error when he contends that the Cappadocians did not understand a person as an individual or when he credits them with having had the same concerns we moderns have when combating individualism today."2
:*These criticisms have been answered by Aristotle Papanikolaou in the same journal 3 and by Metropolitan John himself.4

* Rodoljub Lazic, in his book, ''Innovatory Theology of Metropolitan Zizioulas'' ([http://www.pravoslavlje.net/texts/InovatorskoBogoslovlje.html In Serbian], ATOS - Missionary Center, Belgrade 2002), explains why he believes the work of Zizioulas differs from traditional Orthodoxy and argues that there is a connection between Zizioulas' [[Ecumenism|ecumenical]] orientation and his theology.

* In [http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/her_saints.aspx a letter], Archbishop [http://www.synodinresistance.org/Administration_en/ChrysostomosEtna.html Chrysostomos of Etna] states that Fr [[John Meyendorff]] and Metr. John (Zizioulas) were Westernized theologians, in contrast with Fr [[Georges Florovsky]] (a teacher of Metr. John's).

* Denial of the representation of the Orthodoxy by John Zizioulas can be found in the article published by the editorial staff of the magazine [http://www.italiaortodossa.it Italia Ortodossa], a magazine of Orthodox faithful in Italy: [http://digilander.libero.it/ortodossia/Zizioulas.htm Is the Theologian Ioannis Zizioulas proclaiming Orthodoxy?]

* Peter J. Leithart's article, [http://www.leithart.com/archives/002006.php ''Divine Energies and Orthodox Soteriology''], indicates differences between [[Vladimir Lossky]] and Metropolitan John in understanding the [[divine energies]]. While this is not a point of criticism for Leithart, certain Orthodox, who see the work of [[Vladimir Lossky|Prof. Lossky]] as the normative, contemporary synthesis of patristic theology, read the difference as criticism. That is, they believe that to differ from [[Vladimir Lossky|Lossky]], is to differ from patristic theology.{{fact}}

===Ecclesiology and Ecumenical Relations===
*Rodoljub Lazić's booklet, "Innovatory Theology of Metropolitan Zizioulas" ([http://www.pravoslavlje.net/index.php?title=%D0%9D%D0%BE%D0%B2%28%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%81%D0%BA%29%D0%BE_%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%99%D0%B5_%D0%9C%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B0_%D0%97%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%98%D1%83%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%B0 in Serbian]), argues that the Metropolitan's work differs from "traditional" Orthodoxy and that there is a connection between the Metropolitan's [[Ecumenism|ecumenical]] orientation and his theology.
:*However, a former student and supporter of Metropolitan John is [[Ignatije (Midic) of Pozarevac and Branicevo|Bishop Ignjatije Midić]], Bishop of Branicevo and professor in dogmatics and ethics at the Serbian-Orthodox Theological Faculty in Belgrade.

* In an [http://www.greekorthodox.org.au/downloads/files/english/vema/2006/10bVEMA06E.doc interview with Maria Antoniadou], Archbishop [[Stylianos (Harkianakis) of Australia|Stylianos of Australia]] criticizes John Zizioulas for his stance on [[Uniatism]], questioning his status as a systematic theologian.6

* Hieromonk Patapios, in his article, [http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/review_toc.aspx ''A Traditionalist Critique of The Orthodox Church''], criticized ecumenistic [http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/methierotheos_baptism.aspx Baptismal theology] as espoused by Metr. John.

*The 1971 article, ''[http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/mono_2.aspx Concerning the Approaching Orthodox – Monophysite Union]'', gives Metr. John as an example of a "muddled theologian" in his views on Severus of Antioch.

*Some are concerned by his reliance of non-Orthodox sources on his thought in both areas, pointing out the influence of French Catholic theologians [[w:Henri de Lubac|Henri de Lubac]] and [[w:Yves Congar|Yves Congar]], as well as [[w:Martin Buber|Martin Buber]] and [[w:John Macmurray|John Macmurray]]. 3

== Notes ==
1 ''Modern Theology'' 18:4, October 2002, 527-539.

2 ''Ibid'', p.537.

3 "Is John Zizioulas an Existentialist in Disguise? Response to Lucian Turcescu," ''Modern Theology'' 20:4, October 2004, pp. 601-607).

4 In ''Communion and Otherness'', pp. 171-177.

5 ATOS Missionary Center, Belgrade, 2002.

6 In an [http://www.greekorthodox.org.au/downloads/files/english/vema/2006/10bVEMA06E.doc interview with Maria Antoniadou].

==External links==
*[http://www.google.com/notebook/public/12711690312044536402/BDQpBQwoQsNvyxpsi List of Works by John of Pergamon]
*[http://orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/resources/hierarchs/constantinople/currenta.htm#john_metr_pergamon His Eminence John, Metropolitan of Pergamon] from the Orthodox Research Institute
*[http://www.oodegr.com/english/dogmatiki1/perieh.htm Dogmatics notes] - "These are the notes that were taken from the lessons of Professor I. Zizioulas (current Metropolitan of Pergamus and Chairman of the Athens Academy) at the Poemantic Division of the Thessaloniki University's School of Theology, during the academic year 1984-1985. They are published with the blessing and the permission of the reverend Metropolitan."
*[[:Wikipedia:John Zizioulas|John Zizioulas (Wikipedia)]]
*[http://www.resourcesforchristiantheology.org/?cat=11 Resources for Christian Theology: John Zizioulas]

{{Start box}}
{{succession|
before=?|
title=Metropolitan of Pergamon|
years=1986 - present|
after=—}}
{{End box}}

[[Category:Bishops]]
[[Category:Modern Writers]]

Talk:John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon

2008-05-15T13:08:14Z

Cebactokpatop: /* Italia Ortodossa */

*[[Talk:John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon/Archive 1|Archive 1]] - from article creation (2007) to end of March 2008.
*[[Talk:John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon/Archive 2|Archive 2]] - from April 1 to May 9, 2008.

== Consensus straw poll ==

Who here believes that it can be clearly shown that the Mainstream Chalcedonian churches (the explicit bias of OrthodoxWiki) regard Metr. John as heterodox (i.e., a heretic)? —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 21:11, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

* You can place my vote firmly '''against''' such an idea. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 21:11, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

* You can place my vote firmly '''against''' such an idea. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 21:31, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

* I must also resolutely vote '''against''' a notion so ridiculous. [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 21:37, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

* So far '''against''' that, IMHO, the question borders on being rhetorical (albeit a necessary question, given the circumstances). — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 21:58, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

:Friends, I'm not sure this is really necessary. It is often said that the Church is not a democracy. For our purposes (re: bias), I suspect it is enough to ask questions such as "Has such a person or such ideas been formally condemned by a local or ecumenical synod?"
:Many theologians are (every theologian is?) controversial. The intensity of debate shows, in my mind, the deep sense of responsibility people have in the engagement and can be a useful tool for diagnosing the larger patterns of tension within the Orthodox world. OrthodoxWiki certainly should not (except perhaps in extreme circumstances) label any Orthodox bishop "heterodox" or a "heretic," but neither do we need to defend his theology against all critics. I would like to continue to push simply toward "objective" statements rather than evaluative statements -- the who, what, where, when, and why which befits an encyclopedic undertaking. — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk])

Oh, Father, how we have tried! The point has been made ''ad nauseum'' that no synod has sugested, much less concluded, that Metropolitan John's teaching is heterodox. Since creating the article, I've tried to edit it with encylopedic neutrality. The trouble has been one person's irresistible urge to villify the Metropolitan, and to twist sources that are praising the Metropolitan (such as Leithart and Papanikolaou) into negative criticism. The choir appreciates the sermon, but I think only one chorister is flat! --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 23:52, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

: The Church is of course not a democracy, but I do think that straw polls are useful in terms of trying to analyze and establish consensus on OrthodoxWiki articles. I don't think anyone here is arguing that this article should be utterly free from mention of criticism, but I do think there's generally a consensus that the way one editor has been going about adding it has been 1) unacceptable in its approach to collaboration (i.e., essentially none), 2) reflecting a basic lack of understanding of Orthodox theology and terminology, and 3) reflecting a lack of willingness to respect the official OrthodoxWiki bias. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 00:01, May 10, 2008 (UTC)

If I may add a point here: '''Just as the Church is not a democracy, neither is OrthodoxWiki an anarchy.''' Cebactokpatop is destroying the environment necessary for constructive and collaborative editing through his rude, ignorant and disruptive editing. I am shocked that a blind eye has been turned to the gravely insulting remarks Cebactokpatop has made to clergy contributing on OrthodoxWiki. He is an editor who has been repeatedly warned, yet shows absolutely no change in behaviour. Having a collaborative environment is not only about permitting a variety of viewpoints; it is also about protecting that environment from abuse. At present, Cebactokpatop has single-handedly destroyed the collaborative environment of OrthodoxWiki (at least as far as the John Zizioulas article is concerned): constructive edits are blocked and reverted, whilst the talk-page is filled up with incivil discourse, peppered with Cebactokpatop's beligerent theological illiteracy.
Cebactokpatop has made it clear that he is not interested (or capable?) of constructive editing here. As such, there is only one way to restore the collaborative environment necessary for OrthodoxWiki to flourish, and that is to ban Cebactokpatop. [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 00:19, May 10, 2008 (UTC)

:Just to respond to a small point in that message - I don't think I would be terribly out of line by putting forward that a blind eye hasn't been turned to insulting remarks, whether against clergy or otherwise, particularly since at least half of those remarks have been made towards various sysops. — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 03:11, May 10, 2008 (UTC)

::Well, Cebactokpatop is a thug, and the sysops should be putting a stop to his thuggery, instead of continuing to allow him to disrupt constructive editing on OrthodoxWiki. [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 14:39, May 10, 2008 (UTC)

== Italia Ortodossa ==

In a link to an article in the Italian journal being cited as a source of criticism, we find the following claim: "This explains why orthodox people cannot help defining western Christianity as 'Arian'." This does not represent mainstream Orthodox criticism of the West. There are many things to say about deficiencies in Western theology, but this wholesale condemnation of the West as "Arian" is an expression of a fringe belief. The same article claims, "The same concept of 'Church - Eucharist' is also found in the Russian theologian Afanasieff, but it is typically western." This betrays an almost complete ignorance of the history of Western ecclesiology, which in fact has ''not'' focused on the Eucharist. Moreover, the style of the magazine is polemical and vicious. An example from the same article: "we must state that Zizioulas’ s theological style and argumentation can be proven deceitful, as he often stands too far from the truth/" Calling the Metropolitan deceitful is not criticism, academic or otherwise. It is libelous. As such, it has no place in this encyclopedia article. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 17:04, May 13, 2008 (UTC)

:I've addressed part of this in an archived part of this talk page: it is impossible to describe the West as being 'Arian' - the filioque clause alone forbids it! As unsound as it may be for other reasons, it does ensure that arianism is entirely rejected. — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 21:14, May 13, 2008 (UTC)

: I've reverted the re-addition of the link—as noted multiple times elsewhere, it's essentially just polemical screed. It doesn't qualify by our research standard for controversial issues, i.e., it is not a "reliable, third-party source." —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 12:45, May 15, 2008 (UTC)

:: Just because you do not share opinions expressed in the article of that magazine, it does not justify your unauthorized removal of that valid academic criticism. Orthodox criticism of the West is not always expressed in such an openly manner, as in the subject article, but, one who knows the state of the faith in the West would agree with the magazine. Fact that Westerners have difficulties with so common Orthodox confession of The Faith: "Christ our God", and most of the time replace it with "Christ our Lord" speaks for itself. Besides, the magazine editorial staff live in the West, surrounded by the Western Christianity, and are on that basis fully eligible to provide their stance on the matter. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 12:49, May 15, 2008 (UTC)

::: It has nothing to do with whether we agree with the contents of the link or not—it's that the link is essentially unreliable polemic. If it were a reasoned, reliable source, then it might warrant inclusion, no matter what opinions it expressed. There are many such links and sources cited on OrthodoxWiki—content with which we may disagree but is of the requisite '''quality''' and '''notability''' as to be included.

::: I am somewhat amazed at the argument you present here for the ''Italia Ortodossa'' depiction of Western Christianity as "Arian," namely that they live in the West! Living in the West does not make one educated in Western theology. In any event, the overwhelming majority of Western Christians I know have no problem whatsoever with the phrase "Christ our God" and believe in it wholeheartedly. I have lived my whole life in Western culture and in the company of Western Christians (with the exception of 5 years on Guam). That doesn't make me an expert, either, of course, but I think it should be enough to debunk the notion that the West is entirely Arian. In fact, only a tiny minority could be said to be Arian, e.g., Jehovah's Witnesses.

::: It's precisely that sort of unwarranted and quite frankly ignorant assertion which shows that ''Italia Ortodossa'' is an unreliable source. Please do not keep reverting the article in defiance of pretty much all the other editors' clear consensus. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 13:01, May 15, 2008 (UTC)

:::: Details about "theological education" of the editorial staff of that magazine was provided earlier, and you have no grounds for removal on that basis. It is your private disagreement with the article that is putting you on this unjustified quest. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 13:08, May 15, 2008 (UTC)

John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon

2008-05-15T12:50:21Z

Cebactokpatop: Undo revision 66189 by ASDamick (Talk) Restoring last approved version by Fr. John.

Talk:John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon

2008-05-15T12:49:32Z

Cebactokpatop: /* Italia Ortodossa */

*[[Talk:John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon/Archive 1|Archive 1]] - from article creation (2007) to end of March 2008.
*[[Talk:John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon/Archive 2|Archive 2]] - from April 1 to May 9, 2008.

== Consensus straw poll ==

Who here believes that it can be clearly shown that the Mainstream Chalcedonian churches (the explicit bias of OrthodoxWiki) regard Metr. John as heterodox (i.e., a heretic)? —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 21:11, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

* You can place my vote firmly '''against''' such an idea. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 21:11, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

* You can place my vote firmly '''against''' such an idea. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 21:31, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

* I must also resolutely vote '''against''' a notion so ridiculous. [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 21:37, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

* So far '''against''' that, IMHO, the question borders on being rhetorical (albeit a necessary question, given the circumstances). — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 21:58, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

:Friends, I'm not sure this is really necessary. It is often said that the Church is not a democracy. For our purposes (re: bias), I suspect it is enough to ask questions such as "Has such a person or such ideas been formally condemned by a local or ecumenical synod?"
:Many theologians are (every theologian is?) controversial. The intensity of debate shows, in my mind, the deep sense of responsibility people have in the engagement and can be a useful tool for diagnosing the larger patterns of tension within the Orthodox world. OrthodoxWiki certainly should not (except perhaps in extreme circumstances) label any Orthodox bishop "heterodox" or a "heretic," but neither do we need to defend his theology against all critics. I would like to continue to push simply toward "objective" statements rather than evaluative statements -- the who, what, where, when, and why which befits an encyclopedic undertaking. — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk])

Oh, Father, how we have tried! The point has been made ''ad nauseum'' that no synod has sugested, much less concluded, that Metropolitan John's teaching is heterodox. Since creating the article, I've tried to edit it with encylopedic neutrality. The trouble has been one person's irresistible urge to villify the Metropolitan, and to twist sources that are praising the Metropolitan (such as Leithart and Papanikolaou) into negative criticism. The choir appreciates the sermon, but I think only one chorister is flat! --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 23:52, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

: The Church is of course not a democracy, but I do think that straw polls are useful in terms of trying to analyze and establish consensus on OrthodoxWiki articles. I don't think anyone here is arguing that this article should be utterly free from mention of criticism, but I do think there's generally a consensus that the way one editor has been going about adding it has been 1) unacceptable in its approach to collaboration (i.e., essentially none), 2) reflecting a basic lack of understanding of Orthodox theology and terminology, and 3) reflecting a lack of willingness to respect the official OrthodoxWiki bias. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 00:01, May 10, 2008 (UTC)

If I may add a point here: '''Just as the Church is not a democracy, neither is OrthodoxWiki an anarchy.''' Cebactokpatop is destroying the environment necessary for constructive and collaborative editing through his rude, ignorant and disruptive editing. I am shocked that a blind eye has been turned to the gravely insulting remarks Cebactokpatop has made to clergy contributing on OrthodoxWiki. He is an editor who has been repeatedly warned, yet shows absolutely no change in behaviour. Having a collaborative environment is not only about permitting a variety of viewpoints; it is also about protecting that environment from abuse. At present, Cebactokpatop has single-handedly destroyed the collaborative environment of OrthodoxWiki (at least as far as the John Zizioulas article is concerned): constructive edits are blocked and reverted, whilst the talk-page is filled up with incivil discourse, peppered with Cebactokpatop's beligerent theological illiteracy.
Cebactokpatop has made it clear that he is not interested (or capable?) of constructive editing here. As such, there is only one way to restore the collaborative environment necessary for OrthodoxWiki to flourish, and that is to ban Cebactokpatop. [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 00:19, May 10, 2008 (UTC)

:Just to respond to a small point in that message - I don't think I would be terribly out of line by putting forward that a blind eye hasn't been turned to insulting remarks, whether against clergy or otherwise, particularly since at least half of those remarks have been made towards various sysops. — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 03:11, May 10, 2008 (UTC)

::Well, Cebactokpatop is a thug, and the sysops should be putting a stop to his thuggery, instead of continuing to allow him to disrupt constructive editing on OrthodoxWiki. [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 14:39, May 10, 2008 (UTC)

== Italia Ortodossa ==

In a link to an article in the Italian journal being cited as a source of criticism, we find the following claim: "This explains why orthodox people cannot help defining western Christianity as 'Arian'." This does not represent mainstream Orthodox criticism of the West. There are many things to say about deficiencies in Western theology, but this wholesale condemnation of the West as "Arian" is an expression of a fringe belief. The same article claims, "The same concept of 'Church - Eucharist' is also found in the Russian theologian Afanasieff, but it is typically western." This betrays an almost complete ignorance of the history of Western ecclesiology, which in fact has ''not'' focused on the Eucharist. Moreover, the style of the magazine is polemical and vicious. An example from the same article: "we must state that Zizioulas’ s theological style and argumentation can be proven deceitful, as he often stands too far from the truth/" Calling the Metropolitan deceitful is not criticism, academic or otherwise. It is libelous. As such, it has no place in this encyclopedia article. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 17:04, May 13, 2008 (UTC)

:I've addressed part of this in an archived part of this talk page: it is impossible to describe the West as being 'Arian' - the filioque clause alone forbids it! As unsound as it may be for other reasons, it does ensure that arianism is entirely rejected. — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 21:14, May 13, 2008 (UTC)

: I've reverted the re-addition of the link—as noted multiple times elsewhere, it's essentially just polemical screed. It doesn't qualify by our research standard for controversial issues, i.e., it is not a "reliable, third-party source." —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 12:45, May 15, 2008 (UTC)

:: Just because you do not share opinions expressed in the article of that magazine, it does not justify your unauthorized removal of that valid academic criticism. Orthodox criticism of the West is not always expressed in such an openly manner, as in the subject article, but, one who knows the state of the faith in the West would agree with the magazine. Fact that Westerners have difficulties with so common Orthodox confession of The Faith: "Christ our God", and most of the time replace it with "Christ our Lord" speaks for itself. Besides, the magazine editorial staff live in the West, surrounded by the Western Christianity, and are on that basis fully eligible to provide their stance on the matter. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 12:49, May 15, 2008 (UTC)

John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon

2008-05-15T12:37:20Z

Cebactokpatop: Undo revision 66182 by Fr Lev (Talk) Restoring last approved version by Fr. John.

Talk:John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon

2008-05-09T19:44:20Z

Cebactokpatop: /* Reversion */

*[[Talk:John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon/Archive 1|Archive 1]] - from article creation (2007) to end of March 2008.
*[[Talk:John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon/Archive 2|Archive 2]] - from April 2008.

== Reversion ==

I've rolled back [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]]'s recent major changes (essentially for reasons detailed throughout this Talk page)—perhaps it was a mistake to unprotect the article again so soon. I'll leave it unprotected for now, hoping that Agenda-driven edits won't take over again. If they do, and especially if they're from [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]], it may be necessary to introduce a ban on that editor for a time. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:07, April 30, 2008 (UTC)

: Your revert without even reading the changes I put in is another proof that this website has no interest in expressing the reality that exists in The Church, but rather fictitious visions of several individuals claiming to be "fr". [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 18:30, April 30, 2008 (UTC)

:: Oh, trust me—I read them. Anyway, [[w:Talk:John Zizioulas]], along with your Agenda here, demonstrate that you're not interested in pursuing the editing of an encyclopedia in a calm manner. Indeed, your above condemnation of our many thousands of editors ''en masse'' is a pretty clear indication that you're not interested in good faith editing. As noted on your Talk page, your account has been banned. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:33, April 30, 2008 (UTC)

::: Your action against my account was illegal. It represented misjudgment on your side, which resulted in misuse of your sysops powers. Consequently, your error was reverted by Fr. John. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 18:21, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

:::: Illegal? Are you planning to sue me now? (In what court?) —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:25, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

::::: I did already. Fact that I am still here tells you what the judgment of the judge was. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 19:44, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

== Enough ==

This is an Orthodox Website which for many people is a valuable source of knowledge. The attacks against His Eminence Metropolitan John of Pergamon, or any other hierarch of the Holy Orthodox Church, are not necessary on this forum. Whilst I don't share the same ecclesiological opinions as His Eminence, I have no right as a member of the Church to criticise him. Please, for the sake of those young people who use this website for edification, cease these attacks on the hierachy of the One, Holy Orthodox Church. - Peter Mav

:I also agree Peter, it would be a good idea if the discussion around this Father of the church is put on hold and indeed perhaps we should pray for the poor dear's soul as the amount of negativity emitted towards him is very unfair! I say, lets all work towards continuing to build Orthodox articles not critical defences to be used in a court of law. I dont even know why he is controversial :-) Like Mother Molania said in her talk from [[Ancient Faith Radio]], Insane people associating with insane people can not become sane ...only the Saints are "sane"! Chit chatting, keeps US in INSANITY! [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 09:32, May 1, 2008 (UTC)

:: That is precisely why all over the article of Metropolitan John and other contemporary Orthodox theologians we should print in big bold letters: “DO NOT BASE YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE ORTHODOXY ON WIRITINGS OF THIS CONTEMPORARIES WHOSE THEOLOGY IS NOT VERIFIED BY THE HISTORY YET. USE THEOLOGY OF THE HOLY FATHERS INSTEAD.”

:: We do not want to educate young people with the thought of the potentially problematic theologians like m. John (and fr. Schmmemmann, fr. Mayendorff, fr. Afanasiev, etc. – students of the “Paris school of Orthodoxy”). If you want to discuss it further, and you know more appropriate place (e.g. private forum), we can go there and continue.

:: [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 14:59, May 1, 2008 (UTC)

::: This is an encyclopedia, not a catechism. We're not in the business of putting big warning labels on articles about modern writers, especially those who are generally quite well-regarded throughout the Orthodox world, such as nearly everyone you mention.

::: That they are criticized by certain minority sectors of Orthodoxy is certainly a viable element for their respective articles, but that criticism should not be the dominant theme of the article, which would be undue weight. The impression a reader should get ought to be based on how the writer is regarded throughout the Orthodox Church, not on the idiosyncratic criticisms of a few, especially not regarding someone who's never even been accused by the proper authorities (much less condemned by them).

::: In any event, any general overview of Orthodoxy makes it plain that our theological emphasis is on the Scriptures and the Holy Fathers, not on any modern writer. If someone gets his entire impression of Orthodoxy or education in the faith from a single article on OrthodoxWiki, well, he's going about it wrong. One would hope that common sense would make that clear. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:31, May 1, 2008 (UTC)

I agree with some points raised by all who have responded. I am still concerned however, because I know a lot of youths use this website for introductory information and not having extensive knowledge or sometimes even the spiritual grounding can be scandalised. Obviously, mentioning that this hierarch's teachings are not accepted by some is good, encyclopaedic knowledge but some of the criticisms prior to their removal were not beneficial to the soul of anyone. I apologise if I have offended anyone. - Peter Mav

: In the above response of user Andrew we find the basis for the entire dispute. He is saying that Metropolitan John is ''"regarded throughout the Orthodox Church"'' and being ''"criticized by certain minority sectors of Orthodoxy"'', which is completely untrue/false/wrong/misguiding/misleading/etc. Vast majority of Orthodoxy exists beyond US shoreline, and even beyond English speaking world. Sooner that group of the individuals realize that, sooner we will get synergy in our actions. Such a fringe and perverted view of position of m. John in Orthodoxy is what user Andrew and couple of other individuals kept promoting, constantly trying to minimize the number and extent of the critics. It is best evident in the current version of the article, when in the criticism section they put reference to Bishop Ignjatije, who praises his work. What is that reference doing there? [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 12:54, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

I think that the user Fr Andrew is correct in his assessment. Lest anyone get the impression that the Serbian Church has somehow made a judgement that Metropolitan John is heterodox, I thought it worthwhile to note that a bishop and professor of theology in Serbia is a strong supporter of Metropolitan John's work. Anytime anyone disagrees with Cebactokpatop, he resorts to personal attack (both here and in the Wikipedia article). He has attacked and dismissed not only the other editors and Metropolitan John, but also:
*Bishop Kallistos Ware ("Ecumenist buddy of JZ")
*Christos Yannaras ("Ecumenist buddy of JZ")
*Fr John Meyendorff ("Heterodox", along with Schmmemann and Afanasiev)
*Fr Boris Bobrinskoy ("never heard of this guy"): I can't help it if Cebactokpatop hasn't heard of the dean of the St Sergius Institute in Paris, but then again, he dismisses the Paris school as "heterodox."
*Bishop Ignjatije Midić ("ecumenist... who can hardly be called a theologian, as he is almost not writing anything"): Well, in addition to being bishop of Branicevo, he is professor of dogmatics and ethics at the Serbian theological institute in Belgrade and is the author of a new book on dogmatics.
*Aristotle Papanikolaou ("Another buddy of JZ"), etc.

When I mentioned Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos, his only response was "Are you sure?" The answer to that is, Yes. If one checks the several references to Metropolitan John in Metropolitan Hierotheos' book on the person, one finds they are all very positive. On a personal note, having just finished reading ''Communion and Otherness'' and looking through ''Being as Communion'' again, I do not see how anyone who carefully read them could give any credence to the charges Cebactokpatop has made, not least of which is the absurd charge of heterodoxy. Aprt from the Serbian text he cites by Lazic and the interview with Archbishop Stylianos, NONE of the sources he cites as criticisms draw his conclusions. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 13:51, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

:: You are certainly entitled to support JZ and other individuals from Paris school of "orthodoxy". However, you are not entitled to personally dismiss me for providing valid academic resources that criticize JZ or any other product of mentioned school in Paris. From the list of the articles you contributed to, we can clearly see that your faith is in Paris. Orthodox who prefer to have their faith elswhere (e.g. Cappadocia), have a right to express their dissatisfaction with the innovations of Paris' school as well. You have done a great job in prizing JZ's work in the article. Now it is a time to balance it with the concerns of the Traditional Orthodox, Mr. Puhalo. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 17:43, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

::: Methinks you have Fr. Lev confused with Abp. [[Lazar (Puhalo) of Ottawa]]. They're not the same person. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:02, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

:::: Are you sure about that my friend? I am beyond reasonable doubts... they are the same person. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 18:10, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

::::: Based on what? The name "Lev"? —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:31, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

ROTFL! I have been accused of many things in my life, but never of being an archbishop! --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 19:12, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

: You are right. You are not an Archbishop. To become the one, it would require valid canonical ordination. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 19:14, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

Another personal attack -- ''quelle surprise''! I was "canonically" ordained, BTW, by a "canonical" bishop of a "canonical" patriarchal Church. I know who I am, but I have no idea who Cebactokpatop is. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 19:30, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

: Whatever. I am not interested in "canonicity" of your ordination (if any). What I am interested in, is making sure you understand that current version of the article is not balanced, as you intentionally (or not) tried to minimize criticisms of JZ. Do you understand that? If you do, it would be easier for me to go in and try to balance it so that readers do not get an impression that they have before them, article about some "saint". [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 20:12, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

::Ok, enough everyone with the personal back and forth. I agree that the article should also present criticisms fairly and rationally. Cebactokpatop, I am concerned by your personal attacks, which at least in some cases are totally unfounded, and to my mind, crazy (e.g. Fr Lev is not Archbp Lazar!). If this kind of stuff continues, I'm going to freeze this page. I've just edited the article to incorporate some of the material present in earlier drafts. — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk]) 21:17, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

:::I agree. While I normally say very little on Orthodoxwiki (I'm not a scholar of complex dogma or theology, nor do I wish or claim to be), I've been lurking around this discussion and reading what everyone has said. Cebactokpatop, I think it would behoove you to take a leaf from Frs. Andrew and John, as well as the other sysops and users here on Orthodoxwiki. They've been extremely charitable with you when they have received so very little from you in these discussions. When they indulge your vitriol, you reward them with ad hominem attacks, questioning their identities, and even going so far as to question the canonicity of people's ordinations with temerity (although you deny this, it is clearly evident that you do so). You ask readers and writers to address your edits with "proper academic attire." Yet, I have to ask the physician to heal himself with respect to your paranoia and derision. Fr. Andrew, specifically, has not only responded to you in a very Christ-like manner, but has been nothing short of a gentleman in dealing with you.

:::I ask, in the future, when you are a guest of other wikis and forums, you try to act in a similar manner.[[User:Mike|Mike]] 21:55, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

== Material for Inclusion ==

* [[Fr. John Behr]] in the aticle ''"The Trinitarian Being of the Church"'', argues that Zizioulas' use of The Three as an archetype for The Church, when he establishes communion of The Church as an image of the communion od The Three, ends up dismissing both - The Three and The Church. ''(St Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 48:1 (2004), 67-88)'' {{unsigned|Cebactokpatop}}

In reviewing Fr John Behr's essay, I don't see it saying anything to suggest that Metropolitan John's view ends us "dismissing" the Trinity and the Church. I'd like to see the quote and page number that is alleged to say that. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 22:54, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

: Any suggestions on how to reword Fr. Behr's criticism? Isn't this dismissal of The Church: ''"What is said of the Church is certainly based upon what is said of the Trinity, but the effect of speaking in this manner, paradoxically, is that the Church is separated from God, as a distinct entity reflecting the divine being."'' (page 68) Church without ties to God does not exist, even though, it may perfectly mimic the Three. At the same time, we do not know The Three without Their Church. It is The Church that is left behind to proclaim The Three. Disconnect JZ creates, dismisses The Church, and conequenly blind us from The Three, which equates to dismissal. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 03:43, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

== What counts as "academic criticism"? ==

Fr John, I find your floowing edit problematic: "Peter J. Leithart's article, Divine Energies and Orthodox Soteriology, cites the work of Papanikolaou, and points out where Vladimir Lossky and Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) differ on the issue of divine energies. His article implies criticism, based on understanding of the certain Orthodox, who see work of Prof. Lossky as contemporary synthesis of the patristic theology. Thus, to differ from Prof. Lossky, is to differ from patristic theology."

(1) Leithart in no way understands hie article to be critical of Metropolitan John. Not only is that clear from actually reading the article, but he has confirmed that in personal correspondence. (2) There is nothing here to indicate there is any substantive problem with what Metropolitan John says about the essence/energies distinction. (3) If an undergraduate wrote in an academic paper the sentence, "Thus, to differ from Prof. Lossky, is to differ from patristic theology", there wouldn't get a very good grade. Lossky is a personal theological hereo of mine, but I don't know any serious theologian who would judge him to be the sole criterion of Orthodoxy. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 23:13, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

: Indeed, no. Lossky himself has been criticized by major figures in the 20th century, e.g., Staniloae, who's no theological slouch himself. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 02:42, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:: Zizioulas and Meyendorff fell into the pit trying to criticise either Lossky or St. Gregory Palamas, as both of them are not capable of grasping what those two champions were writing about. Area related to the Holy Spirit is unknown and incomprehensible to these "eucharistic ecclesiologians" who understand bodily portion only, based on instructions from RCC theologians Mr. Congar and Mr. Lubac. In order to understand The Spirit, one has to now The Spirit of Orthodoxy. Paris school is so far from that Spirit that their theology consequently, can not be in the Spirit of Orthodoxy. In order to "bring closer" Orthodoxy to Rome (ecumenists), they have to introduce some other spirit - that is spirit of Rome. Orthodox Spirit can never get any closer to Rome than in past 1000 years. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 02:59, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::: An interesting analysis, but I fail to see how this is relevant to the task at hand, which is summarizing reliable secondary sources into an encyclopedia entry which represents the mainstream Chalcedonian viewpoint and takes minor note of other relevant viewpoints. Personal attacks are not really germane—how do you know what Meyendorff or Metr. John are "capable of grasping"? —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 03:08, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:::: That was my response on your assertion: "Lossky himself has been criticized" with my addition of Meyendorff and St. Gregory as another example of the same failure. JZ in his bible Being as Commununion "showed" how Lossky "was wrong". [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 03:15, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

== Should criticism be 'mainstream'? ==

I have read repeatedly that OrthoWiki is about "mainstream" Orthodoxy. Some of the criticism included here is, e.g., from Old Calendarists, who condemn most of the Churches represented here for using the Revised Julian calendar or for ecumenism. Nothing against Old Calendarist "resistance" synods and hyper-traditionalists, but what relevance should their criticism have in a minstream venue such as this? Given that they make the same criticisms of Bishop Kallistos, Fr Alexander Schmemann, Fr John Meyendorff, Christos Yannaras, etc., as they do of Metropolitan John, why should this be included? And all to satisfy one editor whose personal animus is clear? What will come next? When he became convinced "beyond reasonable doubts" that I am Abp Lazar Puhalo, he immediately went to the page on the Archbishop to write negative comments. I am waiting for him to add "criticism" sections to the articles on Bishop Kallistos, Fr Alexander Schmemann, et al., in which they, too, are denounced as heterodox ecumenists of the Paris School. What is to stop him? After all, he can find a blog or an online article by or quoting Heiromonk Patapios or Archbishop Chrysostomos casting aspersions on the orthodoxy of them all. He has dismissed Bishop Ignatije (Midic) of Pozarevac and Branicevo. Look what passes for "criticism" in the link he provided on that page -- a blog entry with a paragraph of Bishop Ignatije. No argument. Even the priest who wrote the blog wasn't sure that the paragraph was a true representation of Bishop Ignatije. This is the "criticism" that should be included in an encyclopedia article? --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 00:59, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

: I think your point is well made. The so-called "Traditionalist Orthodox" are explicitly not given a soapbox here, as per the [[OW:NPOV|MCB]]. If there seems to be a united front against the subject of an article from those sectors, it is enough to mention it briefly, but not to allow it to dominate an article.

: In any event, what is clear is that Metr. John is generally quite highly regarded throughout the Orthodox Church, which is explicitly defined on OrthodoxWiki as [[List of autocephalous and autonomous churches|this list]], i.e., the Mainstream Chalcedonian churches. Metr. John is not a controversial figure by any means, and the article should reflect that. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 02:37, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

: I dod not provide any link to Bishop Ignjatije. Please stop telling false stories. Also, "resistance" Orthodox are in dogmatics same as Orthodox, which makes them valid in their criticisms. What they differ about is heresy over all heresies - ecumenism, and masonic infux into Orthodoxy - [[Meletios IV (Metaxakis) of Constantinople]]. It appears that those who praise Paris school of "orthodoxy" support ecumenism, and logically, regard "reistance" Orthodox as lesser Orthodox than Vatican! [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 02:47, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:: If I am mistaken in how I read the OrthoWiki history page on the article, my apology. But it seems to say you created that link at 21:53 on May 2, 2008: http://orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Ignatije_%28Midic%29_of_Pozarevac_and_Branicevo&diff=65572&oldid=42851
--[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 02:54, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:: [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]], all of this is essentially irrelevant. The do-it-yourself "Celtic Orthodox" gent who lives near here and visits our church every so often is also quite likely "in dogmatics same as Orthodox," but I'm not about to interview him for this article.

:: The point is that what the "resistance/True/Genuine/Traditionalist/etc." groups think is only of relatively small importance on most OrthodoxWiki articles. Whatever one may think of the so-called "Paris School" (whatever that may mean—does that simply mean St. Sergius Institute?), it currently is part of and accepted by mainstream Orthodoxy, while by comparison the "resistance/True/Genuine/Traditionalist/etc." groups are fringe. Their opinions on Metr. John are irrelevant. Perhaps if one of them had engaged in some major debate with him, they might be relevant.

:: One doesn't have to be an "ecumenist" or a Freemason or an Ultramontanist sympathizer in order to see that giving undue weight to the opinions of such folks is essentially a violation of the explicit bias of OrthodoxWiki. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 02:57, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::: I repeat - I did not produce any link related to Bishop Ignjatije. All I did on his page was to convert section listing his writings from latin into cyrillic.

::: It appears to me that both of you want to minimize amount and extent of the criticisms for some reason. Can you provide a valid reason for your attempts to blind the public? [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 03:08, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:::: It's not a question of eliminating criticism (OrthodoxWiki articles are replete with descriptions of criticism, which is clear from even a cursory browsing of the site)—it's where it's coming from and how much is actually appropriate to represent the mainstream view on the subject matter. Piling an article high with criticisms from fringe sources is not consistent with the policies of OrthodoxWiki, nor does it do anyone a service. "The public" are not "blinded" by an attempt to write balanced articles consistent with OrthodoxWiki policies. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 03:11, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::::: I have a problem with your statements simply because all of the disputes I had here were about same thing - constant denial of the criticisms from several individuals who disguise their denial under the mask of "policies", "encyclopedia", "POV/NPOV", etc. What is balanced for you? To praise his work on two pages, and then mention critics in a mild form just to satisfy annoyances like myself? [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 03:20, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::::::And you don't see a problem with all disputes being about the same thing? This is (or endeavours to be, either/or) a ''Mainstream Chalcedonian Orthodox encyclopedia''. This is fairly explicit in intent and focus. The scholarly attacks on Metr. John provided have been more attack than scholarly (quite a number of them are mere citations or references to Metr. John, rather than any theological grappling), and the few scholars have willingly placed themselves outside of the Mainstream Chalcedonian Orthodoxy that we are ''explicitly'' putting forward.
::::::There have been others who have attempted to browbeat OW into submission for their own agendas - Ben Lomond and Western Rite talk pages are replete with arguments attempting to convince OW that it should not follow it's own ''explicit'' bias towards Mainstream Chalcedonian Orthodoxy. It's not like OW is claiming to be something that it's not. — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 01:49, May 5, 2008 (UTC)

::::::: I do not know what is "Chalcedonian Orthodoxy". I know what Orthodoxy is vs. heterodoxy, namely: Monophysitism, Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, etc. Can you, please, define the term you were using? Thanks. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 18:30, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

::::::::I can do better than that: OrthodoxWiki provides a definition of those terms in the [[OW:MCB|POV section of the Style Manual]]. ''You need to read this''. In short, the terms are used, not because of the existence or nonexistence of any non-Chalcedonian Orthodoxy (that's not actually the point) - rather, the point is of general usage. Many groups take the term Orthodox onto themselves when they are, at most, little-o orthodox (and usually far less), which pushes OW to be quite explicit in its terms. Hence, Mainstream (i.e. one of the 14/15 autocephalous Churches or their autonomous Churches), Chalcedonian (i.e. accepting of the Fourth Ecumenical Council) Orthodox. Whether the adjectives are tautological or otherwise is neither here nor there, but they serve to explain a concept. — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 12:17, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

::::::::: But that leads to the affirmation of their self proclaimed "orthodoxy". If you characterize Orthodoxy as "Chalcedonian", immediately, you affirm existence of other "orthodoxies", that are "slightly" different. Mainstream Orthodoxy has never been characterized in any way, at least, not in the East. In the West, we find characterizations like "Eastern Orthodox", that has geographical connotations, and not theological. I would suggest to OW not to try to distinguish itself from the "orthodox" by adding some "names", but rather, through the explanation of the teachings to make sure visitor understands that entire site is about Orthodoxy. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 12:37, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

::::::::::It does not, which you would know ''if you had read the [[OW:MCB|relevant section]] of the [[OW:SM|Style Manual]]''. Once again, "''you need to read this''", so that you know what OW is and how to edit in OW, rather than against it. — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 12:47, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

== Just a thought ==

It seems to me that this article is basically supposed to be a biographical introduction to Metr. John. While mention of the variety of opinions expressed about his work can, and probably should, be mentioned, it seems to me that this is not the proper forum for a detailed discussion (and listing) of these opinions. Half of the article, as it stands, is concerned with criticism and responses to that criticism and that seems rather unbalanced for something that is trying to be an encyclopedic entry.

I am not sure where a discussion of all these opinions should take place, or even whether OrthodoxWiki is the right forum for such a discussion. It just seems to me that this particular page is not the place for it.

Just my two cents, and with this I leave this debate.

In the risen Christ,
[[User:Vandrona|Fr. Peter]]

:Hi Fr. Peter, Thanks for your comments on this. It is indeed a hard call, but I do think that part of the role OrthodoxWiki plays is precisely in pushing for an articulation of controversial issues in church life. Obviously, so many of the criticisms of Metropolitan John's work are not just about him, but are about a particular movement or trend within Orthodox theology. I really want to see as precise and accurate overview of this debate as possible. Again, I do think this itself is a good service to the community. I'm not interested in personal attacks or blanket condemnations, etc. but am very interested in thoughtful criticisms or defenses. I'm curious about what others think. — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk]) 09:27, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::Hello, Fr. John. I apologize for the lack of clarity in my original post, so I will try to briefly clarify what I was trying to say. First off, having thought about it and read your reply, it does make sense that the wiki is a good place to articulate controversial issues. In which case I meant to suggest following a Wikipedia approach: having a mention of the controversial issue on the biographical page with a link to an article specifically dedicated to the issue being debated (e.g., "Theology of John Zizioulas"). That way we can avoid the contentious section being longer than the rest of the article. We also get another page where all the relevant references can be quoted and noted (hopefully...), rather than simply having somewhat vague mentions in the vein of "Metr. John has addressed this criticism." [[User:Vandrona|Fr. Peter]]

I notice a minor edit "struggle" over the sentence someone wrote and I restored: "His article implies criticism, based on understanding of the certain Orthodox, who see work of [[Vladimir Lossky|Prof. Lossky]] as contemporary synthesis of the patristic theology. Thus, to differ from [[Vladimir Lossky|Prof. Lossky]], is to differ from patristic theology." This had been changed to "This article would be critical if seen through the ideology of [[Vladimir Lossky|Prof. Lossky]]'s work as being a contemporary synthesis of patristic theology." I think I understand the reason for this change -- the original sentence is rather vague and difficult to make sense of (it may be that the original author's primary language was not English), but I'm not sure the cleanup help makes the meaning any clearer. Perhaps somehow can expain this better, but for now I going to revert this again. — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk]) 09:27, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:Because the article is only a critical article if Lossky is held up as a synthesis of patristic theology. If the Lossky=Theology standpoint is not taken, the article is not critical at all, merely comparative. As I don't know how one would even go about justifying the Lossky=Theology standpoint, I don't think that the article is criticism at all, and shouldn't be there. — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 01:37, May 5, 2008 (UTC)

:: For that reason, sentence states: ''"based on understanding of the '''certain Orthodox''', who '''see work of [[Vladimir Lossky|Prof. Lossky]] as contemporary synthesis of the patristic theology'''"''. I think it is clearly explained, why and under what condition, article of Mr. Leithart is seen by ''"certain Orthodox"'' as criticism, unintentional though, but, still criticism. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 13:14, May 5, 2008 (UTC)

:::Sad irony: such a viewpoint of Lossky isn't Orthodox. We do not take any one author as being perfect, theologically or otherwise - which explains how Staniloae can disagree with Lossky and yet not be thrown out of the Church. The question is whether the article ''is'' critical, not whether it can be misinterpreted into criticism. — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 19:30, May 5, 2008 (UTC)

== Selective reading of Papankolaou ==

Cebactokpatop has attempted to make hay of Papanikolaou's statement (in a footnote) that Metropolitan John has acknowledged in a private converstion that the Metropolitan was "influenced" by some secular philosophers, as if this is a "proof text" of some sort. The first thing to say is that this is something the Metropolitan has acknowledged in his own writing. I somehow get the impression that Cebactokpatop saw Papanikolaou's statement as a "smoking gun." But if one reads the text of the page (159) that is footnoted, one sees Papanikolaou saying a couple of things that Cebactokpatop is intentionally ignoring. The ironic one is that fact that Papanikolaou notes that the same charge of being influenced by modern personalism has been made against Lossky, as well as Metropolitan John. Thus he cherry-picks a charge that Papanikolaou points out is made against Lossky, his ''sine qua non'' of Orthodoxy. And, of course, Papanikolaou acquits both theologians. He goes on to cite the differences between the Metropolitan and those modern philosophers and that, for the Metropolitan, only a Trinitarian theology that affirms the monarchy of the Father can provide an adequate theology of personhood. As Papanikolaou says, "[Zizioulas} and Lossky are no more superimposing a philosophical system on the Eastern patristic writers than did these same writers Hellenize the teachings of Jesus" (160). Metropolitan John and Lossky simply have done what the Fathers did -- "thinking about the authoritative texts of the tradition in light of the questions, challenges, and prevailing philosophical currents of their time" (ibid). {{unsigned|Fr Lev}}

== The influence of Buber ==

I have forgotten to mention that I've read in several places that Martin Buber, not to mention other Western philosophers, were important influences on the theology of [[Dumitru Staniloae]]. Turcescu mentions elsewhere that "In ''Dogmatics'', Staniloae tried to blend in a very creative fashion patristic insights with contemporary theology, both Western and Eastern" (in ''The Teachings of Modern Orthodox Christianity on Law, Politics, & Human Nature'', p. 300). --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 12:08, May 6, 2008 (UTC)

: I honestly don't see what's so damning about having non-Orthodox influence on one's thinking, particularly since it's obvious from even a cursory reading of the ancient Fathers that their thinking was profoundly influenced by not just heterodox, but ''pagan'' sources. In any event, it's pretty hard even to function in the world without some sort of non-Orthodox influence on one's thinking.

: The question is whether one's teaching is Orthodox or not (not who or what influenced it), and in our Tradition no ruling can be made on this question without episcopal (synodal, in the case of a bishop being in question) authority. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 12:28, May 6, 2008 (UTC)

:: I think that we can not separate the two. One's heterodox influences bring up next logical question - Has one's theology escaped from the captivity of the influences (sources)? Very good example of this question can be found in the criticism of Fr. Schmmemmann by Fr. Pomazansky. Answer to that question is decisive on whether one's theology is Orthodox or heterodox. In the book Being as Communion, there are numerous references to heterodox writings and many assertions of JZ are based on them. For example, on pages 164-165, JZ talks about "individualities" and "persons" referring to the M. Buber... who made clear distinction between the two, making them antonyms. However, as Turcescu already provided in his article, St. Gregory of Nyssa used both terms as synonyms. In this example, heterodox influence prevailed in the thought of JZ over the Orthodox, resulting in his thought being heterodox as well. If he were to follow Orthodox thought od St. Gregory, we would not have this dispute over his work. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 12:55, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

::: From the fact that Zizioulas borrows a conceptual distinction between persons and individuals from Martin Buber, it does not follow that his thought is heterodox. It is logically fallacious to argue that 'Since X borrows from Y; and since Y is heterodox; therefore X is heterodox.' At most, Turcescu's article establishes that Zizioulas uses some words in different ways than St Gregory of Nyssa. But that does not make Zizioulas heterodox.

::: Also, the claims made by Turscescu have been challenged (both by Zizioulas and others); as such, they cannot be appealed to as authoritative.

::: Moreover, as far as I can see, there is no dispute over the thought of Metropolitan John. All that exists is Cebactokpatop trying to insert anti-Zizioulas polemic into the article, with everyone else telling him that he is being unreasonable and incivil. [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 13:46, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

:::: It wouldn't follow under one condition - if it was not contrary to Orthodox. Since JZ adapted his thought to Buber's, whose definitions of terms "individual" and "person" are contrary to those of St. Gregory, his thought, consequently is based on foundations contrary to Orthodoxy. His direct adoption of heterodox definitions without revising them and providing content that is in line with Orthodoxy, pushed his thought outside to the sea of heterodoxy... [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 14:39, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

::::: Again you fail to understand the point. Zizioulas found a particular way of speaking (the distinction between person and individual) helpful in articulating Orthodox theology in dialogue with the concerns of existentialist thinking. He uses 'individual' as a shorthand for a human being whose mode of existence is selfish and in rejection of the love of God; he uses 'person' as a shorthand for a human being whose mode of existence is ecclesial. It is not heterodox to distinguish between these different modes of existence. Your failure to grasp this suggests that you do not understand Zizioulas' thought. [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 21:20, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

:::::: "Shorthands" for various "modes of existence" he uses he calls "hypostases": biological, ecclesial, eucharistic, etc. If you were to read his bible Being as Communion, you could have possibly noted that. In his thought, hypostases come and go depending on the mood of the individual (person) in the morning. Does anyone know any patristic reference to "modes of existence" being called "hypostases"? So... Consequently, as per his thought, in the Holy Three, we have three "modes of existence". How was this historical Trinitarian heresy being called? Please remind me... [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 12:50, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

Yes, in St Maximus Confessor. Taking up language first used by the Cappadocians in discussing the person (''hypostasis''), human or divine, the Confessor distinguishes between ''what'' a person is and ''how'' he is. He employs a distinction between ''logos'' (which is unchangeable) and the ''tropos'' (his ''hypostasis'', which is changeable). To acknowledge that the Persons are modes of existence is not the same thing as Modalism. No one who read the Metropolitan and his vigorous argument against Sabellianism could imagine him to be saying that! But if one wishes to say that this makes the Metropolitan a heretic, then that entails saying St Maximus is a heretic. Ignorance – even invincible ignorance – is not an excuse for throwing around charges of heresy. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 14:34, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

: Quote: ''"To acknowledge that the Persons are modes of existence is not the same thing as Modalism."'' Show me how it isn't. Also, show me where St. Maximus equates "modes of existence" with hypostases. Thank you. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 17:37, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

==The Neopatristic Revival==
One of the great ironies of this back and forth has been the characterization of a number of important Orthodox theologians in the West as “modernist” or under the influence of Jewish or Western philosophers. Perhaps the most important commonality of Lossky, Zizioulas, Yannaras, Meyendorff, Schmemann, Florovksy, Romanides, and Staniloae was/is their commitment to a “return to the Fathers.” For a great deal of time, Greek and Russian theology languished under a “western captivity” in which Orthodox theologians abandoned patristics in favor of Roman scholasticism. Of these, the most influential has always been Lossky, in whom I was initiated thirty years ago when I first read ''The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church''. (BTW, ‘Eastern’ was not part of Lossky’s original title but was inserted at the insistence of an editor.) As it has been described by Aidan Nichols, “This study, with its identification an existentialist and personalist slant to the patristic dogmatics of, especially, Gregory of Nyssa and Maximus Confessor, soon acquired the status of a classic.” --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 17:50, May 6, 2008 (UTC)

: Please do not mix Fr. Florovsky with the reas to of the "team". Although, several of his stances were problematic, he was Orthodox theologian, apart and far from those that came out of Paris school. The "team" misused him, and now many think how he is part of the "team". He is not. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 20:12, May 7, 2008 (UTC)

:: On the contrary, Florovsky is united with Lossky, Schmemann, Meyendorff, Romanides, Yannaras and Zizioulas in calling for a return to patristic theology, rather than to continue with the religious philosophy of Bulgakov and Berdiaev, or to acquiesce in the redundant repetition of nineteenth-century Russian seminary theology (cf. Pomazansky's ''Orthodox Dogmatic Theology''). [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 13:52, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

::: It is well known that names you mentioned (except Fr. Florovsky) use such "call" to disguise their inventions and parade them as patristic. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 14:32, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

:::: It is not well known, becuase it is not correct. Anyway, it is clear that you do not understand Orthodox theology well enough to be making such claims. [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 21:22, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

== revising the Lossky sentence ==

Clearly, Fr John was not himself claiming that "to differ from Lossky" is to differ from the Fathers; he was trying to state what the reviser believes. The statement before was ambiguous, so I have edited it to make clear Fr John's intent. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 18:57, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

: Oh Lord... He can read Fr. John's mind! [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 20:09, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

:: Cebactokpatop, please don't remove a {{fact}} tag without providing the reference. [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 21:09, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

I assume that Fr John is monitoring this page and that he will correct me if I have drawn a bad inference from his comments. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 23:16, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

== Who believes that 'to differ from Lossky is to differ from patristic theology'??? ==

Could someone please provide references of some individual or group within Orthodoxy who believes that to differ from Lossky's theology is to differ from patristic theology??? I am not aware of anyone who holds this ridiculous position except Cebactokpatop. If no-one except Cebactokpatop holds this view then this sentence should be struck from the article, as Orthodoxwiki is not about providing a platform for the idiosyncratic views of one editor. [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 21:14, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

== Turcescu's Misreading of Zizioulas ==

Turcescu criticizes the Metropolitan on the question of person versus individual by indicating that St Gregory of Nyssa sometime uses ἄτομον (''atomon'') “to express the notion of the person.” Of the Cappadocians, only St Gregory uses ''atomon'' as equivalent to ''hypostasis'' or ''prosopon''. So one could stop here and say that only one of the Cappadocians followed a usage contrary to the Metropolitan’s reading. But that would still leave a misimpression. For if one thought that St Gregory was saying atomon as predicated of human persons could be predicated of divine persons ''simpliciter'', we would be left with the heresy of tritheism. But St Gregory was not foolish, which is why he never said any such thing. The other Fathers (Cappadocian or otherwise) never run the risk of confusing someone (such as Turcescu and his fervent disciple, Cebactokpatop) by using ''atomon'' as equivalent to person. While we find the Orthodox confession of three ''hypostaseis'' or three ''prosopa'', nowhere in Orthodox theology do we find the confession of three ''atoma''. Thus Turcescu’s criticism of the Metropolitan’s refusal to equate ''atomon'' with either ''prosopon'' or ''hypostasis'' can only by employed in a defense of tritheism. While at no point on these pages has Cebactokpatop ever read someone else’s posts charitably, I will give him the benefit of the doubt and not infer that he is arguing for tritheism. And if I am right about his intent (I am no mind reader, as he pointed out), then he needs to consider revising his support of Turcescu’s argument. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 00:40, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

== Please STOP ==

It would be benfitial if you would stop turning the article back into the state before the intervention of Fr. John. Since he has last word in any dispute, your constant "little-by-little" changes are annoying and childish. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 17:46, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

The original, and the new edit, is ungrammatical as well as misleading. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 18:28, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

: You are welcome to turn "ungrammatical" into "grammatical" without changing the meaning. However, your assertion that it is "misleading" tells me you are not capable of doing it. So better don't. Thank you. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 19:40, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

Talk:John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon

2008-05-09T19:40:33Z

Cebactokpatop: /* Please STOP */

*[[Talk:John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon/Archive 1|Archive 1]] - from article creation (2007) to end of March 2008.
*[[Talk:John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon/Archive 2|Archive 2]] - from April 2008.

== Reversion ==

I've rolled back [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]]'s recent major changes (essentially for reasons detailed throughout this Talk page)—perhaps it was a mistake to unprotect the article again so soon. I'll leave it unprotected for now, hoping that Agenda-driven edits won't take over again. If they do, and especially if they're from [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]], it may be necessary to introduce a ban on that editor for a time. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:07, April 30, 2008 (UTC)

: Your revert without even reading the changes I put in is another proof that this website has no interest in expressing the reality that exists in The Church, but rather fictitious visions of several individuals claiming to be "fr". [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 18:30, April 30, 2008 (UTC)

:: Oh, trust me—I read them. Anyway, [[w:Talk:John Zizioulas]], along with your Agenda here, demonstrate that you're not interested in pursuing the editing of an encyclopedia in a calm manner. Indeed, your above condemnation of our many thousands of editors ''en masse'' is a pretty clear indication that you're not interested in good faith editing. As noted on your Talk page, your account has been banned. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:33, April 30, 2008 (UTC)

::: Your action against my account was illegal. It represented misjudgment on your side, which resulted in misuse of your sysops powers. Consequently, your error was reverted by Fr. John. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 18:21, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

:::: Illegal? Are you planning to sue me now? (In what court?) —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:25, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

== Enough ==

This is an Orthodox Website which for many people is a valuable source of knowledge. The attacks against His Eminence Metropolitan John of Pergamon, or any other hierarch of the Holy Orthodox Church, are not necessary on this forum. Whilst I don't share the same ecclesiological opinions as His Eminence, I have no right as a member of the Church to criticise him. Please, for the sake of those young people who use this website for edification, cease these attacks on the hierachy of the One, Holy Orthodox Church. - Peter Mav

:I also agree Peter, it would be a good idea if the discussion around this Father of the church is put on hold and indeed perhaps we should pray for the poor dear's soul as the amount of negativity emitted towards him is very unfair! I say, lets all work towards continuing to build Orthodox articles not critical defences to be used in a court of law. I dont even know why he is controversial :-) Like Mother Molania said in her talk from [[Ancient Faith Radio]], Insane people associating with insane people can not become sane ...only the Saints are "sane"! Chit chatting, keeps US in INSANITY! [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 09:32, May 1, 2008 (UTC)

:: That is precisely why all over the article of Metropolitan John and other contemporary Orthodox theologians we should print in big bold letters: “DO NOT BASE YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE ORTHODOXY ON WIRITINGS OF THIS CONTEMPORARIES WHOSE THEOLOGY IS NOT VERIFIED BY THE HISTORY YET. USE THEOLOGY OF THE HOLY FATHERS INSTEAD.”

:: We do not want to educate young people with the thought of the potentially problematic theologians like m. John (and fr. Schmmemmann, fr. Mayendorff, fr. Afanasiev, etc. – students of the “Paris school of Orthodoxy”). If you want to discuss it further, and you know more appropriate place (e.g. private forum), we can go there and continue.

:: [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 14:59, May 1, 2008 (UTC)

::: This is an encyclopedia, not a catechism. We're not in the business of putting big warning labels on articles about modern writers, especially those who are generally quite well-regarded throughout the Orthodox world, such as nearly everyone you mention.

::: That they are criticized by certain minority sectors of Orthodoxy is certainly a viable element for their respective articles, but that criticism should not be the dominant theme of the article, which would be undue weight. The impression a reader should get ought to be based on how the writer is regarded throughout the Orthodox Church, not on the idiosyncratic criticisms of a few, especially not regarding someone who's never even been accused by the proper authorities (much less condemned by them).

::: In any event, any general overview of Orthodoxy makes it plain that our theological emphasis is on the Scriptures and the Holy Fathers, not on any modern writer. If someone gets his entire impression of Orthodoxy or education in the faith from a single article on OrthodoxWiki, well, he's going about it wrong. One would hope that common sense would make that clear. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:31, May 1, 2008 (UTC)

I agree with some points raised by all who have responded. I am still concerned however, because I know a lot of youths use this website for introductory information and not having extensive knowledge or sometimes even the spiritual grounding can be scandalised. Obviously, mentioning that this hierarch's teachings are not accepted by some is good, encyclopaedic knowledge but some of the criticisms prior to their removal were not beneficial to the soul of anyone. I apologise if I have offended anyone. - Peter Mav

: In the above response of user Andrew we find the basis for the entire dispute. He is saying that Metropolitan John is ''"regarded throughout the Orthodox Church"'' and being ''"criticized by certain minority sectors of Orthodoxy"'', which is completely untrue/false/wrong/misguiding/misleading/etc. Vast majority of Orthodoxy exists beyond US shoreline, and even beyond English speaking world. Sooner that group of the individuals realize that, sooner we will get synergy in our actions. Such a fringe and perverted view of position of m. John in Orthodoxy is what user Andrew and couple of other individuals kept promoting, constantly trying to minimize the number and extent of the critics. It is best evident in the current version of the article, when in the criticism section they put reference to Bishop Ignjatije, who praises his work. What is that reference doing there? [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 12:54, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

I think that the user Fr Andrew is correct in his assessment. Lest anyone get the impression that the Serbian Church has somehow made a judgement that Metropolitan John is heterodox, I thought it worthwhile to note that a bishop and professor of theology in Serbia is a strong supporter of Metropolitan John's work. Anytime anyone disagrees with Cebactokpatop, he resorts to personal attack (both here and in the Wikipedia article). He has attacked and dismissed not only the other editors and Metropolitan John, but also:
*Bishop Kallistos Ware ("Ecumenist buddy of JZ")
*Christos Yannaras ("Ecumenist buddy of JZ")
*Fr John Meyendorff ("Heterodox", along with Schmmemann and Afanasiev)
*Fr Boris Bobrinskoy ("never heard of this guy"): I can't help it if Cebactokpatop hasn't heard of the dean of the St Sergius Institute in Paris, but then again, he dismisses the Paris school as "heterodox."
*Bishop Ignjatije Midić ("ecumenist... who can hardly be called a theologian, as he is almost not writing anything"): Well, in addition to being bishop of Branicevo, he is professor of dogmatics and ethics at the Serbian theological institute in Belgrade and is the author of a new book on dogmatics.
*Aristotle Papanikolaou ("Another buddy of JZ"), etc.

When I mentioned Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos, his only response was "Are you sure?" The answer to that is, Yes. If one checks the several references to Metropolitan John in Metropolitan Hierotheos' book on the person, one finds they are all very positive. On a personal note, having just finished reading ''Communion and Otherness'' and looking through ''Being as Communion'' again, I do not see how anyone who carefully read them could give any credence to the charges Cebactokpatop has made, not least of which is the absurd charge of heterodoxy. Aprt from the Serbian text he cites by Lazic and the interview with Archbishop Stylianos, NONE of the sources he cites as criticisms draw his conclusions. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 13:51, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

:: You are certainly entitled to support JZ and other individuals from Paris school of "orthodoxy". However, you are not entitled to personally dismiss me for providing valid academic resources that criticize JZ or any other product of mentioned school in Paris. From the list of the articles you contributed to, we can clearly see that your faith is in Paris. Orthodox who prefer to have their faith elswhere (e.g. Cappadocia), have a right to express their dissatisfaction with the innovations of Paris' school as well. You have done a great job in prizing JZ's work in the article. Now it is a time to balance it with the concerns of the Traditional Orthodox, Mr. Puhalo. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 17:43, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

::: Methinks you have Fr. Lev confused with Abp. [[Lazar (Puhalo) of Ottawa]]. They're not the same person. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:02, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

:::: Are you sure about that my friend? I am beyond reasonable doubts... they are the same person. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 18:10, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

::::: Based on what? The name "Lev"? —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:31, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

ROTFL! I have been accused of many things in my life, but never of being an archbishop! --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 19:12, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

: You are right. You are not an Archbishop. To become the one, it would require valid canonical ordination. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 19:14, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

Another personal attack -- ''quelle surprise''! I was "canonically" ordained, BTW, by a "canonical" bishop of a "canonical" patriarchal Church. I know who I am, but I have no idea who Cebactokpatop is. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 19:30, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

: Whatever. I am not interested in "canonicity" of your ordination (if any). What I am interested in, is making sure you understand that current version of the article is not balanced, as you intentionally (or not) tried to minimize criticisms of JZ. Do you understand that? If you do, it would be easier for me to go in and try to balance it so that readers do not get an impression that they have before them, article about some "saint". [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 20:12, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

::Ok, enough everyone with the personal back and forth. I agree that the article should also present criticisms fairly and rationally. Cebactokpatop, I am concerned by your personal attacks, which at least in some cases are totally unfounded, and to my mind, crazy (e.g. Fr Lev is not Archbp Lazar!). If this kind of stuff continues, I'm going to freeze this page. I've just edited the article to incorporate some of the material present in earlier drafts. — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk]) 21:17, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

:::I agree. While I normally say very little on Orthodoxwiki (I'm not a scholar of complex dogma or theology, nor do I wish or claim to be), I've been lurking around this discussion and reading what everyone has said. Cebactokpatop, I think it would behoove you to take a leaf from Frs. Andrew and John, as well as the other sysops and users here on Orthodoxwiki. They've been extremely charitable with you when they have received so very little from you in these discussions. When they indulge your vitriol, you reward them with ad hominem attacks, questioning their identities, and even going so far as to question the canonicity of people's ordinations with temerity (although you deny this, it is clearly evident that you do so). You ask readers and writers to address your edits with "proper academic attire." Yet, I have to ask the physician to heal himself with respect to your paranoia and derision. Fr. Andrew, specifically, has not only responded to you in a very Christ-like manner, but has been nothing short of a gentleman in dealing with you.

:::I ask, in the future, when you are a guest of other wikis and forums, you try to act in a similar manner.[[User:Mike|Mike]] 21:55, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

== Material for Inclusion ==

* [[Fr. John Behr]] in the aticle ''"The Trinitarian Being of the Church"'', argues that Zizioulas' use of The Three as an archetype for The Church, when he establishes communion of The Church as an image of the communion od The Three, ends up dismissing both - The Three and The Church. ''(St Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 48:1 (2004), 67-88)'' {{unsigned|Cebactokpatop}}

In reviewing Fr John Behr's essay, I don't see it saying anything to suggest that Metropolitan John's view ends us "dismissing" the Trinity and the Church. I'd like to see the quote and page number that is alleged to say that. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 22:54, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

: Any suggestions on how to reword Fr. Behr's criticism? Isn't this dismissal of The Church: ''"What is said of the Church is certainly based upon what is said of the Trinity, but the effect of speaking in this manner, paradoxically, is that the Church is separated from God, as a distinct entity reflecting the divine being."'' (page 68) Church without ties to God does not exist, even though, it may perfectly mimic the Three. At the same time, we do not know The Three without Their Church. It is The Church that is left behind to proclaim The Three. Disconnect JZ creates, dismisses The Church, and conequenly blind us from The Three, which equates to dismissal. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 03:43, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

== What counts as "academic criticism"? ==

Fr John, I find your floowing edit problematic: "Peter J. Leithart's article, Divine Energies and Orthodox Soteriology, cites the work of Papanikolaou, and points out where Vladimir Lossky and Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) differ on the issue of divine energies. His article implies criticism, based on understanding of the certain Orthodox, who see work of Prof. Lossky as contemporary synthesis of the patristic theology. Thus, to differ from Prof. Lossky, is to differ from patristic theology."

(1) Leithart in no way understands hie article to be critical of Metropolitan John. Not only is that clear from actually reading the article, but he has confirmed that in personal correspondence. (2) There is nothing here to indicate there is any substantive problem with what Metropolitan John says about the essence/energies distinction. (3) If an undergraduate wrote in an academic paper the sentence, "Thus, to differ from Prof. Lossky, is to differ from patristic theology", there wouldn't get a very good grade. Lossky is a personal theological hereo of mine, but I don't know any serious theologian who would judge him to be the sole criterion of Orthodoxy. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 23:13, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

: Indeed, no. Lossky himself has been criticized by major figures in the 20th century, e.g., Staniloae, who's no theological slouch himself. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 02:42, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:: Zizioulas and Meyendorff fell into the pit trying to criticise either Lossky or St. Gregory Palamas, as both of them are not capable of grasping what those two champions were writing about. Area related to the Holy Spirit is unknown and incomprehensible to these "eucharistic ecclesiologians" who understand bodily portion only, based on instructions from RCC theologians Mr. Congar and Mr. Lubac. In order to understand The Spirit, one has to now The Spirit of Orthodoxy. Paris school is so far from that Spirit that their theology consequently, can not be in the Spirit of Orthodoxy. In order to "bring closer" Orthodoxy to Rome (ecumenists), they have to introduce some other spirit - that is spirit of Rome. Orthodox Spirit can never get any closer to Rome than in past 1000 years. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 02:59, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::: An interesting analysis, but I fail to see how this is relevant to the task at hand, which is summarizing reliable secondary sources into an encyclopedia entry which represents the mainstream Chalcedonian viewpoint and takes minor note of other relevant viewpoints. Personal attacks are not really germane—how do you know what Meyendorff or Metr. John are "capable of grasping"? —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 03:08, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:::: That was my response on your assertion: "Lossky himself has been criticized" with my addition of Meyendorff and St. Gregory as another example of the same failure. JZ in his bible Being as Commununion "showed" how Lossky "was wrong". [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 03:15, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

== Should criticism be 'mainstream'? ==

I have read repeatedly that OrthoWiki is about "mainstream" Orthodoxy. Some of the criticism included here is, e.g., from Old Calendarists, who condemn most of the Churches represented here for using the Revised Julian calendar or for ecumenism. Nothing against Old Calendarist "resistance" synods and hyper-traditionalists, but what relevance should their criticism have in a minstream venue such as this? Given that they make the same criticisms of Bishop Kallistos, Fr Alexander Schmemann, Fr John Meyendorff, Christos Yannaras, etc., as they do of Metropolitan John, why should this be included? And all to satisfy one editor whose personal animus is clear? What will come next? When he became convinced "beyond reasonable doubts" that I am Abp Lazar Puhalo, he immediately went to the page on the Archbishop to write negative comments. I am waiting for him to add "criticism" sections to the articles on Bishop Kallistos, Fr Alexander Schmemann, et al., in which they, too, are denounced as heterodox ecumenists of the Paris School. What is to stop him? After all, he can find a blog or an online article by or quoting Heiromonk Patapios or Archbishop Chrysostomos casting aspersions on the orthodoxy of them all. He has dismissed Bishop Ignatije (Midic) of Pozarevac and Branicevo. Look what passes for "criticism" in the link he provided on that page -- a blog entry with a paragraph of Bishop Ignatije. No argument. Even the priest who wrote the blog wasn't sure that the paragraph was a true representation of Bishop Ignatije. This is the "criticism" that should be included in an encyclopedia article? --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 00:59, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

: I think your point is well made. The so-called "Traditionalist Orthodox" are explicitly not given a soapbox here, as per the [[OW:NPOV|MCB]]. If there seems to be a united front against the subject of an article from those sectors, it is enough to mention it briefly, but not to allow it to dominate an article.

: In any event, what is clear is that Metr. John is generally quite highly regarded throughout the Orthodox Church, which is explicitly defined on OrthodoxWiki as [[List of autocephalous and autonomous churches|this list]], i.e., the Mainstream Chalcedonian churches. Metr. John is not a controversial figure by any means, and the article should reflect that. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 02:37, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

: I dod not provide any link to Bishop Ignjatije. Please stop telling false stories. Also, "resistance" Orthodox are in dogmatics same as Orthodox, which makes them valid in their criticisms. What they differ about is heresy over all heresies - ecumenism, and masonic infux into Orthodoxy - [[Meletios IV (Metaxakis) of Constantinople]]. It appears that those who praise Paris school of "orthodoxy" support ecumenism, and logically, regard "reistance" Orthodox as lesser Orthodox than Vatican! [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 02:47, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:: If I am mistaken in how I read the OrthoWiki history page on the article, my apology. But it seems to say you created that link at 21:53 on May 2, 2008: http://orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Ignatije_%28Midic%29_of_Pozarevac_and_Branicevo&diff=65572&oldid=42851
--[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 02:54, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:: [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]], all of this is essentially irrelevant. The do-it-yourself "Celtic Orthodox" gent who lives near here and visits our church every so often is also quite likely "in dogmatics same as Orthodox," but I'm not about to interview him for this article.

:: The point is that what the "resistance/True/Genuine/Traditionalist/etc." groups think is only of relatively small importance on most OrthodoxWiki articles. Whatever one may think of the so-called "Paris School" (whatever that may mean—does that simply mean St. Sergius Institute?), it currently is part of and accepted by mainstream Orthodoxy, while by comparison the "resistance/True/Genuine/Traditionalist/etc." groups are fringe. Their opinions on Metr. John are irrelevant. Perhaps if one of them had engaged in some major debate with him, they might be relevant.

:: One doesn't have to be an "ecumenist" or a Freemason or an Ultramontanist sympathizer in order to see that giving undue weight to the opinions of such folks is essentially a violation of the explicit bias of OrthodoxWiki. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 02:57, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::: I repeat - I did not produce any link related to Bishop Ignjatije. All I did on his page was to convert section listing his writings from latin into cyrillic.

::: It appears to me that both of you want to minimize amount and extent of the criticisms for some reason. Can you provide a valid reason for your attempts to blind the public? [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 03:08, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:::: It's not a question of eliminating criticism (OrthodoxWiki articles are replete with descriptions of criticism, which is clear from even a cursory browsing of the site)—it's where it's coming from and how much is actually appropriate to represent the mainstream view on the subject matter. Piling an article high with criticisms from fringe sources is not consistent with the policies of OrthodoxWiki, nor does it do anyone a service. "The public" are not "blinded" by an attempt to write balanced articles consistent with OrthodoxWiki policies. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 03:11, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::::: I have a problem with your statements simply because all of the disputes I had here were about same thing - constant denial of the criticisms from several individuals who disguise their denial under the mask of "policies", "encyclopedia", "POV/NPOV", etc. What is balanced for you? To praise his work on two pages, and then mention critics in a mild form just to satisfy annoyances like myself? [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 03:20, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::::::And you don't see a problem with all disputes being about the same thing? This is (or endeavours to be, either/or) a ''Mainstream Chalcedonian Orthodox encyclopedia''. This is fairly explicit in intent and focus. The scholarly attacks on Metr. John provided have been more attack than scholarly (quite a number of them are mere citations or references to Metr. John, rather than any theological grappling), and the few scholars have willingly placed themselves outside of the Mainstream Chalcedonian Orthodoxy that we are ''explicitly'' putting forward.
::::::There have been others who have attempted to browbeat OW into submission for their own agendas - Ben Lomond and Western Rite talk pages are replete with arguments attempting to convince OW that it should not follow it's own ''explicit'' bias towards Mainstream Chalcedonian Orthodoxy. It's not like OW is claiming to be something that it's not. — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 01:49, May 5, 2008 (UTC)

::::::: I do not know what is "Chalcedonian Orthodoxy". I know what Orthodoxy is vs. heterodoxy, namely: Monophysitism, Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, etc. Can you, please, define the term you were using? Thanks. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 18:30, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

::::::::I can do better than that: OrthodoxWiki provides a definition of those terms in the [[OW:MCB|POV section of the Style Manual]]. ''You need to read this''. In short, the terms are used, not because of the existence or nonexistence of any non-Chalcedonian Orthodoxy (that's not actually the point) - rather, the point is of general usage. Many groups take the term Orthodox onto themselves when they are, at most, little-o orthodox (and usually far less), which pushes OW to be quite explicit in its terms. Hence, Mainstream (i.e. one of the 14/15 autocephalous Churches or their autonomous Churches), Chalcedonian (i.e. accepting of the Fourth Ecumenical Council) Orthodox. Whether the adjectives are tautological or otherwise is neither here nor there, but they serve to explain a concept. — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 12:17, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

::::::::: But that leads to the affirmation of their self proclaimed "orthodoxy". If you characterize Orthodoxy as "Chalcedonian", immediately, you affirm existence of other "orthodoxies", that are "slightly" different. Mainstream Orthodoxy has never been characterized in any way, at least, not in the East. In the West, we find characterizations like "Eastern Orthodox", that has geographical connotations, and not theological. I would suggest to OW not to try to distinguish itself from the "orthodox" by adding some "names", but rather, through the explanation of the teachings to make sure visitor understands that entire site is about Orthodoxy. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 12:37, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

::::::::::It does not, which you would know ''if you had read the [[OW:MCB|relevant section]] of the [[OW:SM|Style Manual]]''. Once again, "''you need to read this''", so that you know what OW is and how to edit in OW, rather than against it. — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 12:47, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

== Just a thought ==

It seems to me that this article is basically supposed to be a biographical introduction to Metr. John. While mention of the variety of opinions expressed about his work can, and probably should, be mentioned, it seems to me that this is not the proper forum for a detailed discussion (and listing) of these opinions. Half of the article, as it stands, is concerned with criticism and responses to that criticism and that seems rather unbalanced for something that is trying to be an encyclopedic entry.

I am not sure where a discussion of all these opinions should take place, or even whether OrthodoxWiki is the right forum for such a discussion. It just seems to me that this particular page is not the place for it.

Just my two cents, and with this I leave this debate.

In the risen Christ,
[[User:Vandrona|Fr. Peter]]

:Hi Fr. Peter, Thanks for your comments on this. It is indeed a hard call, but I do think that part of the role OrthodoxWiki plays is precisely in pushing for an articulation of controversial issues in church life. Obviously, so many of the criticisms of Metropolitan John's work are not just about him, but are about a particular movement or trend within Orthodox theology. I really want to see as precise and accurate overview of this debate as possible. Again, I do think this itself is a good service to the community. I'm not interested in personal attacks or blanket condemnations, etc. but am very interested in thoughtful criticisms or defenses. I'm curious about what others think. — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk]) 09:27, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::Hello, Fr. John. I apologize for the lack of clarity in my original post, so I will try to briefly clarify what I was trying to say. First off, having thought about it and read your reply, it does make sense that the wiki is a good place to articulate controversial issues. In which case I meant to suggest following a Wikipedia approach: having a mention of the controversial issue on the biographical page with a link to an article specifically dedicated to the issue being debated (e.g., "Theology of John Zizioulas"). That way we can avoid the contentious section being longer than the rest of the article. We also get another page where all the relevant references can be quoted and noted (hopefully...), rather than simply having somewhat vague mentions in the vein of "Metr. John has addressed this criticism." [[User:Vandrona|Fr. Peter]]

I notice a minor edit "struggle" over the sentence someone wrote and I restored: "His article implies criticism, based on understanding of the certain Orthodox, who see work of [[Vladimir Lossky|Prof. Lossky]] as contemporary synthesis of the patristic theology. Thus, to differ from [[Vladimir Lossky|Prof. Lossky]], is to differ from patristic theology." This had been changed to "This article would be critical if seen through the ideology of [[Vladimir Lossky|Prof. Lossky]]'s work as being a contemporary synthesis of patristic theology." I think I understand the reason for this change -- the original sentence is rather vague and difficult to make sense of (it may be that the original author's primary language was not English), but I'm not sure the cleanup help makes the meaning any clearer. Perhaps somehow can expain this better, but for now I going to revert this again. — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk]) 09:27, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:Because the article is only a critical article if Lossky is held up as a synthesis of patristic theology. If the Lossky=Theology standpoint is not taken, the article is not critical at all, merely comparative. As I don't know how one would even go about justifying the Lossky=Theology standpoint, I don't think that the article is criticism at all, and shouldn't be there. — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 01:37, May 5, 2008 (UTC)

:: For that reason, sentence states: ''"based on understanding of the '''certain Orthodox''', who '''see work of [[Vladimir Lossky|Prof. Lossky]] as contemporary synthesis of the patristic theology'''"''. I think it is clearly explained, why and under what condition, article of Mr. Leithart is seen by ''"certain Orthodox"'' as criticism, unintentional though, but, still criticism. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 13:14, May 5, 2008 (UTC)

:::Sad irony: such a viewpoint of Lossky isn't Orthodox. We do not take any one author as being perfect, theologically or otherwise - which explains how Staniloae can disagree with Lossky and yet not be thrown out of the Church. The question is whether the article ''is'' critical, not whether it can be misinterpreted into criticism. — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 19:30, May 5, 2008 (UTC)

== Selective reading of Papankolaou ==

Cebactokpatop has attempted to make hay of Papanikolaou's statement (in a footnote) that Metropolitan John has acknowledged in a private converstion that the Metropolitan was "influenced" by some secular philosophers, as if this is a "proof text" of some sort. The first thing to say is that this is something the Metropolitan has acknowledged in his own writing. I somehow get the impression that Cebactokpatop saw Papanikolaou's statement as a "smoking gun." But if one reads the text of the page (159) that is footnoted, one sees Papanikolaou saying a couple of things that Cebactokpatop is intentionally ignoring. The ironic one is that fact that Papanikolaou notes that the same charge of being influenced by modern personalism has been made against Lossky, as well as Metropolitan John. Thus he cherry-picks a charge that Papanikolaou points out is made against Lossky, his ''sine qua non'' of Orthodoxy. And, of course, Papanikolaou acquits both theologians. He goes on to cite the differences between the Metropolitan and those modern philosophers and that, for the Metropolitan, only a Trinitarian theology that affirms the monarchy of the Father can provide an adequate theology of personhood. As Papanikolaou says, "[Zizioulas} and Lossky are no more superimposing a philosophical system on the Eastern patristic writers than did these same writers Hellenize the teachings of Jesus" (160). Metropolitan John and Lossky simply have done what the Fathers did -- "thinking about the authoritative texts of the tradition in light of the questions, challenges, and prevailing philosophical currents of their time" (ibid). {{unsigned|Fr Lev}}

== The influence of Buber ==

I have forgotten to mention that I've read in several places that Martin Buber, not to mention other Western philosophers, were important influences on the theology of [[Dumitru Staniloae]]. Turcescu mentions elsewhere that "In ''Dogmatics'', Staniloae tried to blend in a very creative fashion patristic insights with contemporary theology, both Western and Eastern" (in ''The Teachings of Modern Orthodox Christianity on Law, Politics, & Human Nature'', p. 300). --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 12:08, May 6, 2008 (UTC)

: I honestly don't see what's so damning about having non-Orthodox influence on one's thinking, particularly since it's obvious from even a cursory reading of the ancient Fathers that their thinking was profoundly influenced by not just heterodox, but ''pagan'' sources. In any event, it's pretty hard even to function in the world without some sort of non-Orthodox influence on one's thinking.

: The question is whether one's teaching is Orthodox or not (not who or what influenced it), and in our Tradition no ruling can be made on this question without episcopal (synodal, in the case of a bishop being in question) authority. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 12:28, May 6, 2008 (UTC)

:: I think that we can not separate the two. One's heterodox influences bring up next logical question - Has one's theology escaped from the captivity of the influences (sources)? Very good example of this question can be found in the criticism of Fr. Schmmemmann by Fr. Pomazansky. Answer to that question is decisive on whether one's theology is Orthodox or heterodox. In the book Being as Communion, there are numerous references to heterodox writings and many assertions of JZ are based on them. For example, on pages 164-165, JZ talks about "individualities" and "persons" referring to the M. Buber... who made clear distinction between the two, making them antonyms. However, as Turcescu already provided in his article, St. Gregory of Nyssa used both terms as synonyms. In this example, heterodox influence prevailed in the thought of JZ over the Orthodox, resulting in his thought being heterodox as well. If he were to follow Orthodox thought od St. Gregory, we would not have this dispute over his work. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 12:55, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

::: From the fact that Zizioulas borrows a conceptual distinction between persons and individuals from Martin Buber, it does not follow that his thought is heterodox. It is logically fallacious to argue that 'Since X borrows from Y; and since Y is heterodox; therefore X is heterodox.' At most, Turcescu's article establishes that Zizioulas uses some words in different ways than St Gregory of Nyssa. But that does not make Zizioulas heterodox.

::: Also, the claims made by Turscescu have been challenged (both by Zizioulas and others); as such, they cannot be appealed to as authoritative.

::: Moreover, as far as I can see, there is no dispute over the thought of Metropolitan John. All that exists is Cebactokpatop trying to insert anti-Zizioulas polemic into the article, with everyone else telling him that he is being unreasonable and incivil. [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 13:46, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

:::: It wouldn't follow under one condition - if it was not contrary to Orthodox. Since JZ adapted his thought to Buber's, whose definitions of terms "individual" and "person" are contrary to those of St. Gregory, his thought, consequently is based on foundations contrary to Orthodoxy. His direct adoption of heterodox definitions without revising them and providing content that is in line with Orthodoxy, pushed his thought outside to the sea of heterodoxy... [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 14:39, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

::::: Again you fail to understand the point. Zizioulas found a particular way of speaking (the distinction between person and individual) helpful in articulating Orthodox theology in dialogue with the concerns of existentialist thinking. He uses 'individual' as a shorthand for a human being whose mode of existence is selfish and in rejection of the love of God; he uses 'person' as a shorthand for a human being whose mode of existence is ecclesial. It is not heterodox to distinguish between these different modes of existence. Your failure to grasp this suggests that you do not understand Zizioulas' thought. [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 21:20, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

:::::: "Shorthands" for various "modes of existence" he uses he calls "hypostases": biological, ecclesial, eucharistic, etc. If you were to read his bible Being as Communion, you could have possibly noted that. In his thought, hypostases come and go depending on the mood of the individual (person) in the morning. Does anyone know any patristic reference to "modes of existence" being called "hypostases"? So... Consequently, as per his thought, in the Holy Three, we have three "modes of existence". How was this historical Trinitarian heresy being called? Please remind me... [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 12:50, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

Yes, in St Maximus Confessor. Taking up language first used by the Cappadocians in discussing the person (''hypostasis''), human or divine, the Confessor distinguishes between ''what'' a person is and ''how'' he is. He employs a distinction between ''logos'' (which is unchangeable) and the ''tropos'' (his ''hypostasis'', which is changeable). To acknowledge that the Persons are modes of existence is not the same thing as Modalism. No one who read the Metropolitan and his vigorous argument against Sabellianism could imagine him to be saying that! But if one wishes to say that this makes the Metropolitan a heretic, then that entails saying St Maximus is a heretic. Ignorance – even invincible ignorance – is not an excuse for throwing around charges of heresy. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 14:34, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

: Quote: ''"To acknowledge that the Persons are modes of existence is not the same thing as Modalism."'' Show me how it isn't. Also, show me where St. Maximus equates "modes of existence" with hypostases. Thank you. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 17:37, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

==The Neopatristic Revival==
One of the great ironies of this back and forth has been the characterization of a number of important Orthodox theologians in the West as “modernist” or under the influence of Jewish or Western philosophers. Perhaps the most important commonality of Lossky, Zizioulas, Yannaras, Meyendorff, Schmemann, Florovksy, Romanides, and Staniloae was/is their commitment to a “return to the Fathers.” For a great deal of time, Greek and Russian theology languished under a “western captivity” in which Orthodox theologians abandoned patristics in favor of Roman scholasticism. Of these, the most influential has always been Lossky, in whom I was initiated thirty years ago when I first read ''The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church''. (BTW, ‘Eastern’ was not part of Lossky’s original title but was inserted at the insistence of an editor.) As it has been described by Aidan Nichols, “This study, with its identification an existentialist and personalist slant to the patristic dogmatics of, especially, Gregory of Nyssa and Maximus Confessor, soon acquired the status of a classic.” --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 17:50, May 6, 2008 (UTC)

: Please do not mix Fr. Florovsky with the reas to of the "team". Although, several of his stances were problematic, he was Orthodox theologian, apart and far from those that came out of Paris school. The "team" misused him, and now many think how he is part of the "team". He is not. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 20:12, May 7, 2008 (UTC)

:: On the contrary, Florovsky is united with Lossky, Schmemann, Meyendorff, Romanides, Yannaras and Zizioulas in calling for a return to patristic theology, rather than to continue with the religious philosophy of Bulgakov and Berdiaev, or to acquiesce in the redundant repetition of nineteenth-century Russian seminary theology (cf. Pomazansky's ''Orthodox Dogmatic Theology''). [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 13:52, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

::: It is well known that names you mentioned (except Fr. Florovsky) use such "call" to disguise their inventions and parade them as patristic. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 14:32, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

:::: It is not well known, becuase it is not correct. Anyway, it is clear that you do not understand Orthodox theology well enough to be making such claims. [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 21:22, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

== revising the Lossky sentence ==

Clearly, Fr John was not himself claiming that "to differ from Lossky" is to differ from the Fathers; he was trying to state what the reviser believes. The statement before was ambiguous, so I have edited it to make clear Fr John's intent. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 18:57, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

: Oh Lord... He can read Fr. John's mind! [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 20:09, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

:: Cebactokpatop, please don't remove a {{fact}} tag without providing the reference. [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 21:09, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

I assume that Fr John is monitoring this page and that he will correct me if I have drawn a bad inference from his comments. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 23:16, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

== Who believes that 'to differ from Lossky is to differ from patristic theology'??? ==

Could someone please provide references of some individual or group within Orthodoxy who believes that to differ from Lossky's theology is to differ from patristic theology??? I am not aware of anyone who holds this ridiculous position except Cebactokpatop. If no-one except Cebactokpatop holds this view then this sentence should be struck from the article, as Orthodoxwiki is not about providing a platform for the idiosyncratic views of one editor. [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 21:14, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

== Turcescu's Misreading of Zizioulas ==

Turcescu criticizes the Metropolitan on the question of person versus individual by indicating that St Gregory of Nyssa sometime uses ἄτομον (''atomon'') “to express the notion of the person.” Of the Cappadocians, only St Gregory uses ''atomon'' as equivalent to ''hypostasis'' or ''prosopon''. So one could stop here and say that only one of the Cappadocians followed a usage contrary to the Metropolitan’s reading. But that would still leave a misimpression. For if one thought that St Gregory was saying atomon as predicated of human persons could be predicated of divine persons ''simpliciter'', we would be left with the heresy of tritheism. But St Gregory was not foolish, which is why he never said any such thing. The other Fathers (Cappadocian or otherwise) never run the risk of confusing someone (such as Turcescu and his fervent disciple, Cebactokpatop) by using ''atomon'' as equivalent to person. While we find the Orthodox confession of three ''hypostaseis'' or three ''prosopa'', nowhere in Orthodox theology do we find the confession of three ''atoma''. Thus Turcescu’s criticism of the Metropolitan’s refusal to equate ''atomon'' with either ''prosopon'' or ''hypostasis'' can only by employed in a defense of tritheism. While at no point on these pages has Cebactokpatop ever read someone else’s posts charitably, I will give him the benefit of the doubt and not infer that he is arguing for tritheism. And if I am right about his intent (I am no mind reader, as he pointed out), then he needs to consider revising his support of Turcescu’s argument. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 00:40, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

== Please STOP ==

It would be benfitial if you would stop turning the article back into the state before the intervention of Fr. John. Since he has last word in any dispute, your constant "little-by-little" changes are annoying and childish. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 17:46, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

The original, and the new edit, is ungrammatical as well as misleading. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 18:28, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

: You are welcome to turn "ungrammatical" into "grammatical" without changing the meaning. However, your assertion that it is "misleading" tells me you are not capable of doing it. So better don't. Thank you. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 19:40, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

Talk:John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon

2008-05-09T17:46:14Z

Cebactokpatop: /* Please STOP */ new section

*[[Talk:John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon/Archive 1|Archive 1]] - from article creation (2007) to end of March 2008.
*[[Talk:John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon/Archive 2|Archive 2]] - from April 2008.

== Reversion ==

I've rolled back [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]]'s recent major changes (essentially for reasons detailed throughout this Talk page)—perhaps it was a mistake to unprotect the article again so soon. I'll leave it unprotected for now, hoping that Agenda-driven edits won't take over again. If they do, and especially if they're from [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]], it may be necessary to introduce a ban on that editor for a time. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:07, April 30, 2008 (UTC)

: Your revert without even reading the changes I put in is another proof that this website has no interest in expressing the reality that exists in The Church, but rather fictitious visions of several individuals claiming to be "fr". [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 18:30, April 30, 2008 (UTC)

:: Oh, trust me—I read them. Anyway, [[w:Talk:John Zizioulas]], along with your Agenda here, demonstrate that you're not interested in pursuing the editing of an encyclopedia in a calm manner. Indeed, your above condemnation of our many thousands of editors ''en masse'' is a pretty clear indication that you're not interested in good faith editing. As noted on your Talk page, your account has been banned. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:33, April 30, 2008 (UTC)

::: Your action against my account was illegal. It represented misjudgment on your side, which resulted in misuse of your sysops powers. Consequently, your error was reverted by Fr. John. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 18:21, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

:::: Illegal? Are you planning to sue me now? (In what court?) —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:25, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

== Enough ==

This is an Orthodox Website which for many people is a valuable source of knowledge. The attacks against His Eminence Metropolitan John of Pergamon, or any other hierarch of the Holy Orthodox Church, are not necessary on this forum. Whilst I don't share the same ecclesiological opinions as His Eminence, I have no right as a member of the Church to criticise him. Please, for the sake of those young people who use this website for edification, cease these attacks on the hierachy of the One, Holy Orthodox Church. - Peter Mav

:I also agree Peter, it would be a good idea if the discussion around this Father of the church is put on hold and indeed perhaps we should pray for the poor dear's soul as the amount of negativity emitted towards him is very unfair! I say, lets all work towards continuing to build Orthodox articles not critical defences to be used in a court of law. I dont even know why he is controversial :-) Like Mother Molania said in her talk from [[Ancient Faith Radio]], Insane people associating with insane people can not become sane ...only the Saints are "sane"! Chit chatting, keeps US in INSANITY! [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 09:32, May 1, 2008 (UTC)

:: That is precisely why all over the article of Metropolitan John and other contemporary Orthodox theologians we should print in big bold letters: “DO NOT BASE YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE ORTHODOXY ON WIRITINGS OF THIS CONTEMPORARIES WHOSE THEOLOGY IS NOT VERIFIED BY THE HISTORY YET. USE THEOLOGY OF THE HOLY FATHERS INSTEAD.”

:: We do not want to educate young people with the thought of the potentially problematic theologians like m. John (and fr. Schmmemmann, fr. Mayendorff, fr. Afanasiev, etc. – students of the “Paris school of Orthodoxy”). If you want to discuss it further, and you know more appropriate place (e.g. private forum), we can go there and continue.

:: [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 14:59, May 1, 2008 (UTC)

::: This is an encyclopedia, not a catechism. We're not in the business of putting big warning labels on articles about modern writers, especially those who are generally quite well-regarded throughout the Orthodox world, such as nearly everyone you mention.

::: That they are criticized by certain minority sectors of Orthodoxy is certainly a viable element for their respective articles, but that criticism should not be the dominant theme of the article, which would be undue weight. The impression a reader should get ought to be based on how the writer is regarded throughout the Orthodox Church, not on the idiosyncratic criticisms of a few, especially not regarding someone who's never even been accused by the proper authorities (much less condemned by them).

::: In any event, any general overview of Orthodoxy makes it plain that our theological emphasis is on the Scriptures and the Holy Fathers, not on any modern writer. If someone gets his entire impression of Orthodoxy or education in the faith from a single article on OrthodoxWiki, well, he's going about it wrong. One would hope that common sense would make that clear. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:31, May 1, 2008 (UTC)

I agree with some points raised by all who have responded. I am still concerned however, because I know a lot of youths use this website for introductory information and not having extensive knowledge or sometimes even the spiritual grounding can be scandalised. Obviously, mentioning that this hierarch's teachings are not accepted by some is good, encyclopaedic knowledge but some of the criticisms prior to their removal were not beneficial to the soul of anyone. I apologise if I have offended anyone. - Peter Mav

: In the above response of user Andrew we find the basis for the entire dispute. He is saying that Metropolitan John is ''"regarded throughout the Orthodox Church"'' and being ''"criticized by certain minority sectors of Orthodoxy"'', which is completely untrue/false/wrong/misguiding/misleading/etc. Vast majority of Orthodoxy exists beyond US shoreline, and even beyond English speaking world. Sooner that group of the individuals realize that, sooner we will get synergy in our actions. Such a fringe and perverted view of position of m. John in Orthodoxy is what user Andrew and couple of other individuals kept promoting, constantly trying to minimize the number and extent of the critics. It is best evident in the current version of the article, when in the criticism section they put reference to Bishop Ignjatije, who praises his work. What is that reference doing there? [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 12:54, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

I think that the user Fr Andrew is correct in his assessment. Lest anyone get the impression that the Serbian Church has somehow made a judgement that Metropolitan John is heterodox, I thought it worthwhile to note that a bishop and professor of theology in Serbia is a strong supporter of Metropolitan John's work. Anytime anyone disagrees with Cebactokpatop, he resorts to personal attack (both here and in the Wikipedia article). He has attacked and dismissed not only the other editors and Metropolitan John, but also:
*Bishop Kallistos Ware ("Ecumenist buddy of JZ")
*Christos Yannaras ("Ecumenist buddy of JZ")
*Fr John Meyendorff ("Heterodox", along with Schmmemann and Afanasiev)
*Fr Boris Bobrinskoy ("never heard of this guy"): I can't help it if Cebactokpatop hasn't heard of the dean of the St Sergius Institute in Paris, but then again, he dismisses the Paris school as "heterodox."
*Bishop Ignjatije Midić ("ecumenist... who can hardly be called a theologian, as he is almost not writing anything"): Well, in addition to being bishop of Branicevo, he is professor of dogmatics and ethics at the Serbian theological institute in Belgrade and is the author of a new book on dogmatics.
*Aristotle Papanikolaou ("Another buddy of JZ"), etc.

When I mentioned Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos, his only response was "Are you sure?" The answer to that is, Yes. If one checks the several references to Metropolitan John in Metropolitan Hierotheos' book on the person, one finds they are all very positive. On a personal note, having just finished reading ''Communion and Otherness'' and looking through ''Being as Communion'' again, I do not see how anyone who carefully read them could give any credence to the charges Cebactokpatop has made, not least of which is the absurd charge of heterodoxy. Aprt from the Serbian text he cites by Lazic and the interview with Archbishop Stylianos, NONE of the sources he cites as criticisms draw his conclusions. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 13:51, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

:: You are certainly entitled to support JZ and other individuals from Paris school of "orthodoxy". However, you are not entitled to personally dismiss me for providing valid academic resources that criticize JZ or any other product of mentioned school in Paris. From the list of the articles you contributed to, we can clearly see that your faith is in Paris. Orthodox who prefer to have their faith elswhere (e.g. Cappadocia), have a right to express their dissatisfaction with the innovations of Paris' school as well. You have done a great job in prizing JZ's work in the article. Now it is a time to balance it with the concerns of the Traditional Orthodox, Mr. Puhalo. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 17:43, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

::: Methinks you have Fr. Lev confused with Abp. [[Lazar (Puhalo) of Ottawa]]. They're not the same person. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:02, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

:::: Are you sure about that my friend? I am beyond reasonable doubts... they are the same person. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 18:10, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

::::: Based on what? The name "Lev"? —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:31, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

ROTFL! I have been accused of many things in my life, but never of being an archbishop! --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 19:12, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

: You are right. You are not an Archbishop. To become the one, it would require valid canonical ordination. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 19:14, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

Another personal attack -- ''quelle surprise''! I was "canonically" ordained, BTW, by a "canonical" bishop of a "canonical" patriarchal Church. I know who I am, but I have no idea who Cebactokpatop is. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 19:30, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

: Whatever. I am not interested in "canonicity" of your ordination (if any). What I am interested in, is making sure you understand that current version of the article is not balanced, as you intentionally (or not) tried to minimize criticisms of JZ. Do you understand that? If you do, it would be easier for me to go in and try to balance it so that readers do not get an impression that they have before them, article about some "saint". [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 20:12, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

::Ok, enough everyone with the personal back and forth. I agree that the article should also present criticisms fairly and rationally. Cebactokpatop, I am concerned by your personal attacks, which at least in some cases are totally unfounded, and to my mind, crazy (e.g. Fr Lev is not Archbp Lazar!). If this kind of stuff continues, I'm going to freeze this page. I've just edited the article to incorporate some of the material present in earlier drafts. — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk]) 21:17, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

:::I agree. While I normally say very little on Orthodoxwiki (I'm not a scholar of complex dogma or theology, nor do I wish or claim to be), I've been lurking around this discussion and reading what everyone has said. Cebactokpatop, I think it would behoove you to take a leaf from Frs. Andrew and John, as well as the other sysops and users here on Orthodoxwiki. They've been extremely charitable with you when they have received so very little from you in these discussions. When they indulge your vitriol, you reward them with ad hominem attacks, questioning their identities, and even going so far as to question the canonicity of people's ordinations with temerity (although you deny this, it is clearly evident that you do so). You ask readers and writers to address your edits with "proper academic attire." Yet, I have to ask the physician to heal himself with respect to your paranoia and derision. Fr. Andrew, specifically, has not only responded to you in a very Christ-like manner, but has been nothing short of a gentleman in dealing with you.

:::I ask, in the future, when you are a guest of other wikis and forums, you try to act in a similar manner.[[User:Mike|Mike]] 21:55, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

== Material for Inclusion ==

* [[Fr. John Behr]] in the aticle ''"The Trinitarian Being of the Church"'', argues that Zizioulas' use of The Three as an archetype for The Church, when he establishes communion of The Church as an image of the communion od The Three, ends up dismissing both - The Three and The Church. ''(St Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 48:1 (2004), 67-88)'' {{unsigned|Cebactokpatop}}

In reviewing Fr John Behr's essay, I don't see it saying anything to suggest that Metropolitan John's view ends us "dismissing" the Trinity and the Church. I'd like to see the quote and page number that is alleged to say that. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 22:54, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

: Any suggestions on how to reword Fr. Behr's criticism? Isn't this dismissal of The Church: ''"What is said of the Church is certainly based upon what is said of the Trinity, but the effect of speaking in this manner, paradoxically, is that the Church is separated from God, as a distinct entity reflecting the divine being."'' (page 68) Church without ties to God does not exist, even though, it may perfectly mimic the Three. At the same time, we do not know The Three without Their Church. It is The Church that is left behind to proclaim The Three. Disconnect JZ creates, dismisses The Church, and conequenly blind us from The Three, which equates to dismissal. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 03:43, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

== What counts as "academic criticism"? ==

Fr John, I find your floowing edit problematic: "Peter J. Leithart's article, Divine Energies and Orthodox Soteriology, cites the work of Papanikolaou, and points out where Vladimir Lossky and Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) differ on the issue of divine energies. His article implies criticism, based on understanding of the certain Orthodox, who see work of Prof. Lossky as contemporary synthesis of the patristic theology. Thus, to differ from Prof. Lossky, is to differ from patristic theology."

(1) Leithart in no way understands hie article to be critical of Metropolitan John. Not only is that clear from actually reading the article, but he has confirmed that in personal correspondence. (2) There is nothing here to indicate there is any substantive problem with what Metropolitan John says about the essence/energies distinction. (3) If an undergraduate wrote in an academic paper the sentence, "Thus, to differ from Prof. Lossky, is to differ from patristic theology", there wouldn't get a very good grade. Lossky is a personal theological hereo of mine, but I don't know any serious theologian who would judge him to be the sole criterion of Orthodoxy. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 23:13, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

: Indeed, no. Lossky himself has been criticized by major figures in the 20th century, e.g., Staniloae, who's no theological slouch himself. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 02:42, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:: Zizioulas and Meyendorff fell into the pit trying to criticise either Lossky or St. Gregory Palamas, as both of them are not capable of grasping what those two champions were writing about. Area related to the Holy Spirit is unknown and incomprehensible to these "eucharistic ecclesiologians" who understand bodily portion only, based on instructions from RCC theologians Mr. Congar and Mr. Lubac. In order to understand The Spirit, one has to now The Spirit of Orthodoxy. Paris school is so far from that Spirit that their theology consequently, can not be in the Spirit of Orthodoxy. In order to "bring closer" Orthodoxy to Rome (ecumenists), they have to introduce some other spirit - that is spirit of Rome. Orthodox Spirit can never get any closer to Rome than in past 1000 years. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 02:59, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::: An interesting analysis, but I fail to see how this is relevant to the task at hand, which is summarizing reliable secondary sources into an encyclopedia entry which represents the mainstream Chalcedonian viewpoint and takes minor note of other relevant viewpoints. Personal attacks are not really germane—how do you know what Meyendorff or Metr. John are "capable of grasping"? —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 03:08, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:::: That was my response on your assertion: "Lossky himself has been criticized" with my addition of Meyendorff and St. Gregory as another example of the same failure. JZ in his bible Being as Commununion "showed" how Lossky "was wrong". [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 03:15, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

== Should criticism be 'mainstream'? ==

I have read repeatedly that OrthoWiki is about "mainstream" Orthodoxy. Some of the criticism included here is, e.g., from Old Calendarists, who condemn most of the Churches represented here for using the Revised Julian calendar or for ecumenism. Nothing against Old Calendarist "resistance" synods and hyper-traditionalists, but what relevance should their criticism have in a minstream venue such as this? Given that they make the same criticisms of Bishop Kallistos, Fr Alexander Schmemann, Fr John Meyendorff, Christos Yannaras, etc., as they do of Metropolitan John, why should this be included? And all to satisfy one editor whose personal animus is clear? What will come next? When he became convinced "beyond reasonable doubts" that I am Abp Lazar Puhalo, he immediately went to the page on the Archbishop to write negative comments. I am waiting for him to add "criticism" sections to the articles on Bishop Kallistos, Fr Alexander Schmemann, et al., in which they, too, are denounced as heterodox ecumenists of the Paris School. What is to stop him? After all, he can find a blog or an online article by or quoting Heiromonk Patapios or Archbishop Chrysostomos casting aspersions on the orthodoxy of them all. He has dismissed Bishop Ignatije (Midic) of Pozarevac and Branicevo. Look what passes for "criticism" in the link he provided on that page -- a blog entry with a paragraph of Bishop Ignatije. No argument. Even the priest who wrote the blog wasn't sure that the paragraph was a true representation of Bishop Ignatije. This is the "criticism" that should be included in an encyclopedia article? --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 00:59, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

: I think your point is well made. The so-called "Traditionalist Orthodox" are explicitly not given a soapbox here, as per the [[OW:NPOV|MCB]]. If there seems to be a united front against the subject of an article from those sectors, it is enough to mention it briefly, but not to allow it to dominate an article.

: In any event, what is clear is that Metr. John is generally quite highly regarded throughout the Orthodox Church, which is explicitly defined on OrthodoxWiki as [[List of autocephalous and autonomous churches|this list]], i.e., the Mainstream Chalcedonian churches. Metr. John is not a controversial figure by any means, and the article should reflect that. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 02:37, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

: I dod not provide any link to Bishop Ignjatije. Please stop telling false stories. Also, "resistance" Orthodox are in dogmatics same as Orthodox, which makes them valid in their criticisms. What they differ about is heresy over all heresies - ecumenism, and masonic infux into Orthodoxy - [[Meletios IV (Metaxakis) of Constantinople]]. It appears that those who praise Paris school of "orthodoxy" support ecumenism, and logically, regard "reistance" Orthodox as lesser Orthodox than Vatican! [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 02:47, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:: If I am mistaken in how I read the OrthoWiki history page on the article, my apology. But it seems to say you created that link at 21:53 on May 2, 2008: http://orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Ignatije_%28Midic%29_of_Pozarevac_and_Branicevo&diff=65572&oldid=42851
--[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 02:54, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:: [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]], all of this is essentially irrelevant. The do-it-yourself "Celtic Orthodox" gent who lives near here and visits our church every so often is also quite likely "in dogmatics same as Orthodox," but I'm not about to interview him for this article.

:: The point is that what the "resistance/True/Genuine/Traditionalist/etc." groups think is only of relatively small importance on most OrthodoxWiki articles. Whatever one may think of the so-called "Paris School" (whatever that may mean—does that simply mean St. Sergius Institute?), it currently is part of and accepted by mainstream Orthodoxy, while by comparison the "resistance/True/Genuine/Traditionalist/etc." groups are fringe. Their opinions on Metr. John are irrelevant. Perhaps if one of them had engaged in some major debate with him, they might be relevant.

:: One doesn't have to be an "ecumenist" or a Freemason or an Ultramontanist sympathizer in order to see that giving undue weight to the opinions of such folks is essentially a violation of the explicit bias of OrthodoxWiki. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 02:57, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::: I repeat - I did not produce any link related to Bishop Ignjatije. All I did on his page was to convert section listing his writings from latin into cyrillic.

::: It appears to me that both of you want to minimize amount and extent of the criticisms for some reason. Can you provide a valid reason for your attempts to blind the public? [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 03:08, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:::: It's not a question of eliminating criticism (OrthodoxWiki articles are replete with descriptions of criticism, which is clear from even a cursory browsing of the site)—it's where it's coming from and how much is actually appropriate to represent the mainstream view on the subject matter. Piling an article high with criticisms from fringe sources is not consistent with the policies of OrthodoxWiki, nor does it do anyone a service. "The public" are not "blinded" by an attempt to write balanced articles consistent with OrthodoxWiki policies. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 03:11, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::::: I have a problem with your statements simply because all of the disputes I had here were about same thing - constant denial of the criticisms from several individuals who disguise their denial under the mask of "policies", "encyclopedia", "POV/NPOV", etc. What is balanced for you? To praise his work on two pages, and then mention critics in a mild form just to satisfy annoyances like myself? [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 03:20, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::::::And you don't see a problem with all disputes being about the same thing? This is (or endeavours to be, either/or) a ''Mainstream Chalcedonian Orthodox encyclopedia''. This is fairly explicit in intent and focus. The scholarly attacks on Metr. John provided have been more attack than scholarly (quite a number of them are mere citations or references to Metr. John, rather than any theological grappling), and the few scholars have willingly placed themselves outside of the Mainstream Chalcedonian Orthodoxy that we are ''explicitly'' putting forward.
::::::There have been others who have attempted to browbeat OW into submission for their own agendas - Ben Lomond and Western Rite talk pages are replete with arguments attempting to convince OW that it should not follow it's own ''explicit'' bias towards Mainstream Chalcedonian Orthodoxy. It's not like OW is claiming to be something that it's not. — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 01:49, May 5, 2008 (UTC)

::::::: I do not know what is "Chalcedonian Orthodoxy". I know what Orthodoxy is vs. heterodoxy, namely: Monophysitism, Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, etc. Can you, please, define the term you were using? Thanks. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 18:30, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

::::::::I can do better than that: OrthodoxWiki provides a definition of those terms in the [[OW:MCB|POV section of the Style Manual]]. ''You need to read this''. In short, the terms are used, not because of the existence or nonexistence of any non-Chalcedonian Orthodoxy (that's not actually the point) - rather, the point is of general usage. Many groups take the term Orthodox onto themselves when they are, at most, little-o orthodox (and usually far less), which pushes OW to be quite explicit in its terms. Hence, Mainstream (i.e. one of the 14/15 autocephalous Churches or their autonomous Churches), Chalcedonian (i.e. accepting of the Fourth Ecumenical Council) Orthodox. Whether the adjectives are tautological or otherwise is neither here nor there, but they serve to explain a concept. — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 12:17, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

::::::::: But that leads to the affirmation of their self proclaimed "orthodoxy". If you characterize Orthodoxy as "Chalcedonian", immediately, you affirm existence of other "orthodoxies", that are "slightly" different. Mainstream Orthodoxy has never been characterized in any way, at least, not in the East. In the West, we find characterizations like "Eastern Orthodox", that has geographical connotations, and not theological. I would suggest to OW not to try to distinguish itself from the "orthodox" by adding some "names", but rather, through the explanation of the teachings to make sure visitor understands that entire site is about Orthodoxy. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 12:37, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

::::::::::It does not, which you would know ''if you had read the [[OW:MCB|relevant section]] of the [[OW:SM|Style Manual]]''. Once again, "''you need to read this''", so that you know what OW is and how to edit in OW, rather than against it. — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 12:47, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

== Just a thought ==

It seems to me that this article is basically supposed to be a biographical introduction to Metr. John. While mention of the variety of opinions expressed about his work can, and probably should, be mentioned, it seems to me that this is not the proper forum for a detailed discussion (and listing) of these opinions. Half of the article, as it stands, is concerned with criticism and responses to that criticism and that seems rather unbalanced for something that is trying to be an encyclopedic entry.

I am not sure where a discussion of all these opinions should take place, or even whether OrthodoxWiki is the right forum for such a discussion. It just seems to me that this particular page is not the place for it.

Just my two cents, and with this I leave this debate.

In the risen Christ,
[[User:Vandrona|Fr. Peter]]

:Hi Fr. Peter, Thanks for your comments on this. It is indeed a hard call, but I do think that part of the role OrthodoxWiki plays is precisely in pushing for an articulation of controversial issues in church life. Obviously, so many of the criticisms of Metropolitan John's work are not just about him, but are about a particular movement or trend within Orthodox theology. I really want to see as precise and accurate overview of this debate as possible. Again, I do think this itself is a good service to the community. I'm not interested in personal attacks or blanket condemnations, etc. but am very interested in thoughtful criticisms or defenses. I'm curious about what others think. — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk]) 09:27, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::Hello, Fr. John. I apologize for the lack of clarity in my original post, so I will try to briefly clarify what I was trying to say. First off, having thought about it and read your reply, it does make sense that the wiki is a good place to articulate controversial issues. In which case I meant to suggest following a Wikipedia approach: having a mention of the controversial issue on the biographical page with a link to an article specifically dedicated to the issue being debated (e.g., "Theology of John Zizioulas"). That way we can avoid the contentious section being longer than the rest of the article. We also get another page where all the relevant references can be quoted and noted (hopefully...), rather than simply having somewhat vague mentions in the vein of "Metr. John has addressed this criticism." [[User:Vandrona|Fr. Peter]]

I notice a minor edit "struggle" over the sentence someone wrote and I restored: "His article implies criticism, based on understanding of the certain Orthodox, who see work of [[Vladimir Lossky|Prof. Lossky]] as contemporary synthesis of the patristic theology. Thus, to differ from [[Vladimir Lossky|Prof. Lossky]], is to differ from patristic theology." This had been changed to "This article would be critical if seen through the ideology of [[Vladimir Lossky|Prof. Lossky]]'s work as being a contemporary synthesis of patristic theology." I think I understand the reason for this change -- the original sentence is rather vague and difficult to make sense of (it may be that the original author's primary language was not English), but I'm not sure the cleanup help makes the meaning any clearer. Perhaps somehow can expain this better, but for now I going to revert this again. — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk]) 09:27, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:Because the article is only a critical article if Lossky is held up as a synthesis of patristic theology. If the Lossky=Theology standpoint is not taken, the article is not critical at all, merely comparative. As I don't know how one would even go about justifying the Lossky=Theology standpoint, I don't think that the article is criticism at all, and shouldn't be there. — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 01:37, May 5, 2008 (UTC)

:: For that reason, sentence states: ''"based on understanding of the '''certain Orthodox''', who '''see work of [[Vladimir Lossky|Prof. Lossky]] as contemporary synthesis of the patristic theology'''"''. I think it is clearly explained, why and under what condition, article of Mr. Leithart is seen by ''"certain Orthodox"'' as criticism, unintentional though, but, still criticism. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 13:14, May 5, 2008 (UTC)

:::Sad irony: such a viewpoint of Lossky isn't Orthodox. We do not take any one author as being perfect, theologically or otherwise - which explains how Staniloae can disagree with Lossky and yet not be thrown out of the Church. The question is whether the article ''is'' critical, not whether it can be misinterpreted into criticism. — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 19:30, May 5, 2008 (UTC)

== Selective reading of Papankolaou ==

Cebactokpatop has attempted to make hay of Papanikolaou's statement (in a footnote) that Metropolitan John has acknowledged in a private converstion that the Metropolitan was "influenced" by some secular philosophers, as if this is a "proof text" of some sort. The first thing to say is that this is something the Metropolitan has acknowledged in his own writing. I somehow get the impression that Cebactokpatop saw Papanikolaou's statement as a "smoking gun." But if one reads the text of the page (159) that is footnoted, one sees Papanikolaou saying a couple of things that Cebactokpatop is intentionally ignoring. The ironic one is that fact that Papanikolaou notes that the same charge of being influenced by modern personalism has been made against Lossky, as well as Metropolitan John. Thus he cherry-picks a charge that Papanikolaou points out is made against Lossky, his ''sine qua non'' of Orthodoxy. And, of course, Papanikolaou acquits both theologians. He goes on to cite the differences between the Metropolitan and those modern philosophers and that, for the Metropolitan, only a Trinitarian theology that affirms the monarchy of the Father can provide an adequate theology of personhood. As Papanikolaou says, "[Zizioulas} and Lossky are no more superimposing a philosophical system on the Eastern patristic writers than did these same writers Hellenize the teachings of Jesus" (160). Metropolitan John and Lossky simply have done what the Fathers did -- "thinking about the authoritative texts of the tradition in light of the questions, challenges, and prevailing philosophical currents of their time" (ibid). {{unsigned|Fr Lev}}

== The influence of Buber ==

I have forgotten to mention that I've read in several places that Martin Buber, not to mention other Western philosophers, were important influences on the theology of [[Dumitru Staniloae]]. Turcescu mentions elsewhere that "In ''Dogmatics'', Staniloae tried to blend in a very creative fashion patristic insights with contemporary theology, both Western and Eastern" (in ''The Teachings of Modern Orthodox Christianity on Law, Politics, & Human Nature'', p. 300). --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 12:08, May 6, 2008 (UTC)

: I honestly don't see what's so damning about having non-Orthodox influence on one's thinking, particularly since it's obvious from even a cursory reading of the ancient Fathers that their thinking was profoundly influenced by not just heterodox, but ''pagan'' sources. In any event, it's pretty hard even to function in the world without some sort of non-Orthodox influence on one's thinking.

: The question is whether one's teaching is Orthodox or not (not who or what influenced it), and in our Tradition no ruling can be made on this question without episcopal (synodal, in the case of a bishop being in question) authority. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 12:28, May 6, 2008 (UTC)

:: I think that we can not separate the two. One's heterodox influences bring up next logical question - Has one's theology escaped from the captivity of the influences (sources)? Very good example of this question can be found in the criticism of Fr. Schmmemmann by Fr. Pomazansky. Answer to that question is decisive on whether one's theology is Orthodox or heterodox. In the book Being as Communion, there are numerous references to heterodox writings and many assertions of JZ are based on them. For example, on pages 164-165, JZ talks about "individualities" and "persons" referring to the M. Buber... who made clear distinction between the two, making them antonyms. However, as Turcescu already provided in his article, St. Gregory of Nyssa used both terms as synonyms. In this example, heterodox influence prevailed in the thought of JZ over the Orthodox, resulting in his thought being heterodox as well. If he were to follow Orthodox thought od St. Gregory, we would not have this dispute over his work. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 12:55, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

::: From the fact that Zizioulas borrows a conceptual distinction between persons and individuals from Martin Buber, it does not follow that his thought is heterodox. It is logically fallacious to argue that 'Since X borrows from Y; and since Y is heterodox; therefore X is heterodox.' At most, Turcescu's article establishes that Zizioulas uses some words in different ways than St Gregory of Nyssa. But that does not make Zizioulas heterodox.

::: Also, the claims made by Turscescu have been challenged (both by Zizioulas and others); as such, they cannot be appealed to as authoritative.

::: Moreover, as far as I can see, there is no dispute over the thought of Metropolitan John. All that exists is Cebactokpatop trying to insert anti-Zizioulas polemic into the article, with everyone else telling him that he is being unreasonable and incivil. [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 13:46, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

:::: It wouldn't follow under one condition - if it was not contrary to Orthodox. Since JZ adapted his thought to Buber's, whose definitions of terms "individual" and "person" are contrary to those of St. Gregory, his thought, consequently is based on foundations contrary to Orthodoxy. His direct adoption of heterodox definitions without revising them and providing content that is in line with Orthodoxy, pushed his thought outside to the sea of heterodoxy... [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 14:39, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

::::: Again you fail to understand the point. Zizioulas found a particular way of speaking (the distinction between person and individual) helpful in articulating Orthodox theology in dialogue with the concerns of existentialist thinking. He uses 'individual' as a shorthand for a human being whose mode of existence is selfish and in rejection of the love of God; he uses 'person' as a shorthand for a human being whose mode of existence is ecclesial. It is not heterodox to distinguish between these different modes of existence. Your failure to grasp this suggests that you do not understand Zizioulas' thought. [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 21:20, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

:::::: "Shorthands" for various "modes of existence" he uses he calls "hypostases": biological, ecclesial, eucharistic, etc. If you were to read his bible Being as Communion, you could have possibly noted that. In his thought, hypostases come and go depending on the mood of the individual (person) in the morning. Does anyone know any patristic reference to "modes of existence" being called "hypostases"? So... Consequently, as per his thought, in the Holy Three, we have three "modes of existence". How was this historical Trinitarian heresy being called? Please remind me... [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 12:50, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

Yes, in St Maximus Confessor. Taking up language first used by the Cappadocians in discussing the person (''hypostasis''), human or divine, the Confessor distinguishes between ''what'' a person is and ''how'' he is. He employs a distinction between ''logos'' (which is unchangeable) and the ''tropos'' (his ''hypostasis'', which is changeable). To acknowledge that the Persons are modes of existence is not the same thing as Modalism. No one who read the Metropolitan and his vigorous argument against Sabellianism could imagine him to be saying that! But if one wishes to say that this makes the Metropolitan a heretic, then that entails saying St Maximus is a heretic. Ignorance – even invincible ignorance – is not an excuse for throwing around charges of heresy. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 14:34, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

: Quote: ''"To acknowledge that the Persons are modes of existence is not the same thing as Modalism."'' Show me how it isn't. Also, show me where St. Maximus equates "modes of existence" with hypostases. Thank you. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 17:37, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

==The Neopatristic Revival==
One of the great ironies of this back and forth has been the characterization of a number of important Orthodox theologians in the West as “modernist” or under the influence of Jewish or Western philosophers. Perhaps the most important commonality of Lossky, Zizioulas, Yannaras, Meyendorff, Schmemann, Florovksy, Romanides, and Staniloae was/is their commitment to a “return to the Fathers.” For a great deal of time, Greek and Russian theology languished under a “western captivity” in which Orthodox theologians abandoned patristics in favor of Roman scholasticism. Of these, the most influential has always been Lossky, in whom I was initiated thirty years ago when I first read ''The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church''. (BTW, ‘Eastern’ was not part of Lossky’s original title but was inserted at the insistence of an editor.) As it has been described by Aidan Nichols, “This study, with its identification an existentialist and personalist slant to the patristic dogmatics of, especially, Gregory of Nyssa and Maximus Confessor, soon acquired the status of a classic.” --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 17:50, May 6, 2008 (UTC)

: Please do not mix Fr. Florovsky with the reas to of the "team". Although, several of his stances were problematic, he was Orthodox theologian, apart and far from those that came out of Paris school. The "team" misused him, and now many think how he is part of the "team". He is not. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 20:12, May 7, 2008 (UTC)

:: On the contrary, Florovsky is united with Lossky, Schmemann, Meyendorff, Romanides, Yannaras and Zizioulas in calling for a return to patristic theology, rather than to continue with the religious philosophy of Bulgakov and Berdiaev, or to acquiesce in the redundant repetition of nineteenth-century Russian seminary theology (cf. Pomazansky's ''Orthodox Dogmatic Theology''). [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 13:52, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

::: It is well known that names you mentioned (except Fr. Florovsky) use such "call" to disguise their inventions and parade them as patristic. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 14:32, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

:::: It is not well known, becuase it is not correct. Anyway, it is clear that you do not understand Orthodox theology well enough to be making such claims. [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 21:22, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

== revising the Lossky sentence ==

Clearly, Fr John was not himself claiming that "to differ from Lossky" is to differ from the Fathers; he was trying to state what the reviser believes. The statement before was ambiguous, so I have edited it to make clear Fr John's intent. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 18:57, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

: Oh Lord... He can read Fr. John's mind! [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 20:09, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

:: Cebactokpatop, please don't remove a {{fact}} tag without providing the reference. [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 21:09, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

I assume that Fr John is monitoring this page and that he will correct me if I have drawn a bad inference from his comments. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 23:16, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

== Who believes that 'to differ from Lossky is to differ from patristic theology'??? ==

Could someone please provide references of some individual or group within Orthodoxy who believes that to differ from Lossky's theology is to differ from patristic theology??? I am not aware of anyone who holds this ridiculous position except Cebactokpatop. If no-one except Cebactokpatop holds this view then this sentence should be struck from the article, as Orthodoxwiki is not about providing a platform for the idiosyncratic views of one editor. [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 21:14, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

== Turcescu's Misreading of Zizioulas ==

Turcescu criticizes the Metropolitan on the question of person versus individual by indicating that St Gregory of Nyssa sometime uses ἄτομον (''atomon'') “to express the notion of the person.” Of the Cappadocians, only St Gregory uses ''atomon'' as equivalent to ''hypostasis'' or ''prosopon''. So one could stop here and say that only one of the Cappadocians followed a usage contrary to the Metropolitan’s reading. But that would still leave a misimpression. For if one thought that St Gregory was saying atomon as predicated of human persons could be predicated of divine persons ''simpliciter'', we would be left with the heresy of tritheism. But St Gregory was not foolish, which is why he never said any such thing. The other Fathers (Cappadocian or otherwise) never run the risk of confusing someone (such as Turcescu and his fervent disciple, Cebactokpatop) by using ''atomon'' as equivalent to person. While we find the Orthodox confession of three ''hypostaseis'' or three ''prosopa'', nowhere in Orthodox theology do we find the confession of three ''atoma''. Thus Turcescu’s criticism of the Metropolitan’s refusal to equate ''atomon'' with either ''prosopon'' or ''hypostasis'' can only by employed in a defense of tritheism. While at no point on these pages has Cebactokpatop ever read someone else’s posts charitably, I will give him the benefit of the doubt and not infer that he is arguing for tritheism. And if I am right about his intent (I am no mind reader, as he pointed out), then he needs to consider revising his support of Turcescu’s argument. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 00:40, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

== Please STOP ==

It would be benfitial if you would stop turning the article back into the state before the intervention of Fr. John. Since he has last word in any dispute, your constant "little-by-little" changes are annoying and childish. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 17:46, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

Talk:John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon

2008-05-09T17:40:49Z

Cebactokpatop: /* The influence of Buber */

*[[Talk:John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon/Archive 1|Archive 1]] - from article creation (2007) to end of March 2008.
*[[Talk:John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon/Archive 2|Archive 2]] - from April 2008.

== Reversion ==

I've rolled back [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]]'s recent major changes (essentially for reasons detailed throughout this Talk page)—perhaps it was a mistake to unprotect the article again so soon. I'll leave it unprotected for now, hoping that Agenda-driven edits won't take over again. If they do, and especially if they're from [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]], it may be necessary to introduce a ban on that editor for a time. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:07, April 30, 2008 (UTC)

: Your revert without even reading the changes I put in is another proof that this website has no interest in expressing the reality that exists in The Church, but rather fictitious visions of several individuals claiming to be "fr". [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 18:30, April 30, 2008 (UTC)

:: Oh, trust me—I read them. Anyway, [[w:Talk:John Zizioulas]], along with your Agenda here, demonstrate that you're not interested in pursuing the editing of an encyclopedia in a calm manner. Indeed, your above condemnation of our many thousands of editors ''en masse'' is a pretty clear indication that you're not interested in good faith editing. As noted on your Talk page, your account has been banned. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:33, April 30, 2008 (UTC)

::: Your action against my account was illegal. It represented misjudgment on your side, which resulted in misuse of your sysops powers. Consequently, your error was reverted by Fr. John. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 18:21, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

:::: Illegal? Are you planning to sue me now? (In what court?) —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:25, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

== Enough ==

This is an Orthodox Website which for many people is a valuable source of knowledge. The attacks against His Eminence Metropolitan John of Pergamon, or any other hierarch of the Holy Orthodox Church, are not necessary on this forum. Whilst I don't share the same ecclesiological opinions as His Eminence, I have no right as a member of the Church to criticise him. Please, for the sake of those young people who use this website for edification, cease these attacks on the hierachy of the One, Holy Orthodox Church. - Peter Mav

:I also agree Peter, it would be a good idea if the discussion around this Father of the church is put on hold and indeed perhaps we should pray for the poor dear's soul as the amount of negativity emitted towards him is very unfair! I say, lets all work towards continuing to build Orthodox articles not critical defences to be used in a court of law. I dont even know why he is controversial :-) Like Mother Molania said in her talk from [[Ancient Faith Radio]], Insane people associating with insane people can not become sane ...only the Saints are "sane"! Chit chatting, keeps US in INSANITY! [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 09:32, May 1, 2008 (UTC)

:: That is precisely why all over the article of Metropolitan John and other contemporary Orthodox theologians we should print in big bold letters: “DO NOT BASE YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE ORTHODOXY ON WIRITINGS OF THIS CONTEMPORARIES WHOSE THEOLOGY IS NOT VERIFIED BY THE HISTORY YET. USE THEOLOGY OF THE HOLY FATHERS INSTEAD.”

:: We do not want to educate young people with the thought of the potentially problematic theologians like m. John (and fr. Schmmemmann, fr. Mayendorff, fr. Afanasiev, etc. – students of the “Paris school of Orthodoxy”). If you want to discuss it further, and you know more appropriate place (e.g. private forum), we can go there and continue.

:: [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 14:59, May 1, 2008 (UTC)

::: This is an encyclopedia, not a catechism. We're not in the business of putting big warning labels on articles about modern writers, especially those who are generally quite well-regarded throughout the Orthodox world, such as nearly everyone you mention.

::: That they are criticized by certain minority sectors of Orthodoxy is certainly a viable element for their respective articles, but that criticism should not be the dominant theme of the article, which would be undue weight. The impression a reader should get ought to be based on how the writer is regarded throughout the Orthodox Church, not on the idiosyncratic criticisms of a few, especially not regarding someone who's never even been accused by the proper authorities (much less condemned by them).

::: In any event, any general overview of Orthodoxy makes it plain that our theological emphasis is on the Scriptures and the Holy Fathers, not on any modern writer. If someone gets his entire impression of Orthodoxy or education in the faith from a single article on OrthodoxWiki, well, he's going about it wrong. One would hope that common sense would make that clear. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:31, May 1, 2008 (UTC)

I agree with some points raised by all who have responded. I am still concerned however, because I know a lot of youths use this website for introductory information and not having extensive knowledge or sometimes even the spiritual grounding can be scandalised. Obviously, mentioning that this hierarch's teachings are not accepted by some is good, encyclopaedic knowledge but some of the criticisms prior to their removal were not beneficial to the soul of anyone. I apologise if I have offended anyone. - Peter Mav

: In the above response of user Andrew we find the basis for the entire dispute. He is saying that Metropolitan John is ''"regarded throughout the Orthodox Church"'' and being ''"criticized by certain minority sectors of Orthodoxy"'', which is completely untrue/false/wrong/misguiding/misleading/etc. Vast majority of Orthodoxy exists beyond US shoreline, and even beyond English speaking world. Sooner that group of the individuals realize that, sooner we will get synergy in our actions. Such a fringe and perverted view of position of m. John in Orthodoxy is what user Andrew and couple of other individuals kept promoting, constantly trying to minimize the number and extent of the critics. It is best evident in the current version of the article, when in the criticism section they put reference to Bishop Ignjatije, who praises his work. What is that reference doing there? [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 12:54, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

I think that the user Fr Andrew is correct in his assessment. Lest anyone get the impression that the Serbian Church has somehow made a judgement that Metropolitan John is heterodox, I thought it worthwhile to note that a bishop and professor of theology in Serbia is a strong supporter of Metropolitan John's work. Anytime anyone disagrees with Cebactokpatop, he resorts to personal attack (both here and in the Wikipedia article). He has attacked and dismissed not only the other editors and Metropolitan John, but also:
*Bishop Kallistos Ware ("Ecumenist buddy of JZ")
*Christos Yannaras ("Ecumenist buddy of JZ")
*Fr John Meyendorff ("Heterodox", along with Schmmemann and Afanasiev)
*Fr Boris Bobrinskoy ("never heard of this guy"): I can't help it if Cebactokpatop hasn't heard of the dean of the St Sergius Institute in Paris, but then again, he dismisses the Paris school as "heterodox."
*Bishop Ignjatije Midić ("ecumenist... who can hardly be called a theologian, as he is almost not writing anything"): Well, in addition to being bishop of Branicevo, he is professor of dogmatics and ethics at the Serbian theological institute in Belgrade and is the author of a new book on dogmatics.
*Aristotle Papanikolaou ("Another buddy of JZ"), etc.

When I mentioned Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos, his only response was "Are you sure?" The answer to that is, Yes. If one checks the several references to Metropolitan John in Metropolitan Hierotheos' book on the person, one finds they are all very positive. On a personal note, having just finished reading ''Communion and Otherness'' and looking through ''Being as Communion'' again, I do not see how anyone who carefully read them could give any credence to the charges Cebactokpatop has made, not least of which is the absurd charge of heterodoxy. Aprt from the Serbian text he cites by Lazic and the interview with Archbishop Stylianos, NONE of the sources he cites as criticisms draw his conclusions. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 13:51, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

:: You are certainly entitled to support JZ and other individuals from Paris school of "orthodoxy". However, you are not entitled to personally dismiss me for providing valid academic resources that criticize JZ or any other product of mentioned school in Paris. From the list of the articles you contributed to, we can clearly see that your faith is in Paris. Orthodox who prefer to have their faith elswhere (e.g. Cappadocia), have a right to express their dissatisfaction with the innovations of Paris' school as well. You have done a great job in prizing JZ's work in the article. Now it is a time to balance it with the concerns of the Traditional Orthodox, Mr. Puhalo. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 17:43, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

::: Methinks you have Fr. Lev confused with Abp. [[Lazar (Puhalo) of Ottawa]]. They're not the same person. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:02, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

:::: Are you sure about that my friend? I am beyond reasonable doubts... they are the same person. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 18:10, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

::::: Based on what? The name "Lev"? —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:31, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

ROTFL! I have been accused of many things in my life, but never of being an archbishop! --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 19:12, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

: You are right. You are not an Archbishop. To become the one, it would require valid canonical ordination. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 19:14, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

Another personal attack -- ''quelle surprise''! I was "canonically" ordained, BTW, by a "canonical" bishop of a "canonical" patriarchal Church. I know who I am, but I have no idea who Cebactokpatop is. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 19:30, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

: Whatever. I am not interested in "canonicity" of your ordination (if any). What I am interested in, is making sure you understand that current version of the article is not balanced, as you intentionally (or not) tried to minimize criticisms of JZ. Do you understand that? If you do, it would be easier for me to go in and try to balance it so that readers do not get an impression that they have before them, article about some "saint". [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 20:12, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

::Ok, enough everyone with the personal back and forth. I agree that the article should also present criticisms fairly and rationally. Cebactokpatop, I am concerned by your personal attacks, which at least in some cases are totally unfounded, and to my mind, crazy (e.g. Fr Lev is not Archbp Lazar!). If this kind of stuff continues, I'm going to freeze this page. I've just edited the article to incorporate some of the material present in earlier drafts. — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk]) 21:17, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

:::I agree. While I normally say very little on Orthodoxwiki (I'm not a scholar of complex dogma or theology, nor do I wish or claim to be), I've been lurking around this discussion and reading what everyone has said. Cebactokpatop, I think it would behoove you to take a leaf from Frs. Andrew and John, as well as the other sysops and users here on Orthodoxwiki. They've been extremely charitable with you when they have received so very little from you in these discussions. When they indulge your vitriol, you reward them with ad hominem attacks, questioning their identities, and even going so far as to question the canonicity of people's ordinations with temerity (although you deny this, it is clearly evident that you do so). You ask readers and writers to address your edits with "proper academic attire." Yet, I have to ask the physician to heal himself with respect to your paranoia and derision. Fr. Andrew, specifically, has not only responded to you in a very Christ-like manner, but has been nothing short of a gentleman in dealing with you.

:::I ask, in the future, when you are a guest of other wikis and forums, you try to act in a similar manner.[[User:Mike|Mike]] 21:55, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

== Material for Inclusion ==

* [[Fr. John Behr]] in the aticle ''"The Trinitarian Being of the Church"'', argues that Zizioulas' use of The Three as an archetype for The Church, when he establishes communion of The Church as an image of the communion od The Three, ends up dismissing both - The Three and The Church. ''(St Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 48:1 (2004), 67-88)'' {{unsigned|Cebactokpatop}}

In reviewing Fr John Behr's essay, I don't see it saying anything to suggest that Metropolitan John's view ends us "dismissing" the Trinity and the Church. I'd like to see the quote and page number that is alleged to say that. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 22:54, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

: Any suggestions on how to reword Fr. Behr's criticism? Isn't this dismissal of The Church: ''"What is said of the Church is certainly based upon what is said of the Trinity, but the effect of speaking in this manner, paradoxically, is that the Church is separated from God, as a distinct entity reflecting the divine being."'' (page 68) Church without ties to God does not exist, even though, it may perfectly mimic the Three. At the same time, we do not know The Three without Their Church. It is The Church that is left behind to proclaim The Three. Disconnect JZ creates, dismisses The Church, and conequenly blind us from The Three, which equates to dismissal. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 03:43, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

== What counts as "academic criticism"? ==

Fr John, I find your floowing edit problematic: "Peter J. Leithart's article, Divine Energies and Orthodox Soteriology, cites the work of Papanikolaou, and points out where Vladimir Lossky and Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) differ on the issue of divine energies. His article implies criticism, based on understanding of the certain Orthodox, who see work of Prof. Lossky as contemporary synthesis of the patristic theology. Thus, to differ from Prof. Lossky, is to differ from patristic theology."

(1) Leithart in no way understands hie article to be critical of Metropolitan John. Not only is that clear from actually reading the article, but he has confirmed that in personal correspondence. (2) There is nothing here to indicate there is any substantive problem with what Metropolitan John says about the essence/energies distinction. (3) If an undergraduate wrote in an academic paper the sentence, "Thus, to differ from Prof. Lossky, is to differ from patristic theology", there wouldn't get a very good grade. Lossky is a personal theological hereo of mine, but I don't know any serious theologian who would judge him to be the sole criterion of Orthodoxy. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 23:13, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

: Indeed, no. Lossky himself has been criticized by major figures in the 20th century, e.g., Staniloae, who's no theological slouch himself. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 02:42, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:: Zizioulas and Meyendorff fell into the pit trying to criticise either Lossky or St. Gregory Palamas, as both of them are not capable of grasping what those two champions were writing about. Area related to the Holy Spirit is unknown and incomprehensible to these "eucharistic ecclesiologians" who understand bodily portion only, based on instructions from RCC theologians Mr. Congar and Mr. Lubac. In order to understand The Spirit, one has to now The Spirit of Orthodoxy. Paris school is so far from that Spirit that their theology consequently, can not be in the Spirit of Orthodoxy. In order to "bring closer" Orthodoxy to Rome (ecumenists), they have to introduce some other spirit - that is spirit of Rome. Orthodox Spirit can never get any closer to Rome than in past 1000 years. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 02:59, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::: An interesting analysis, but I fail to see how this is relevant to the task at hand, which is summarizing reliable secondary sources into an encyclopedia entry which represents the mainstream Chalcedonian viewpoint and takes minor note of other relevant viewpoints. Personal attacks are not really germane—how do you know what Meyendorff or Metr. John are "capable of grasping"? —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 03:08, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:::: That was my response on your assertion: "Lossky himself has been criticized" with my addition of Meyendorff and St. Gregory as another example of the same failure. JZ in his bible Being as Commununion "showed" how Lossky "was wrong". [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 03:15, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

== Should criticism be 'mainstream'? ==

I have read repeatedly that OrthoWiki is about "mainstream" Orthodoxy. Some of the criticism included here is, e.g., from Old Calendarists, who condemn most of the Churches represented here for using the Revised Julian calendar or for ecumenism. Nothing against Old Calendarist "resistance" synods and hyper-traditionalists, but what relevance should their criticism have in a minstream venue such as this? Given that they make the same criticisms of Bishop Kallistos, Fr Alexander Schmemann, Fr John Meyendorff, Christos Yannaras, etc., as they do of Metropolitan John, why should this be included? And all to satisfy one editor whose personal animus is clear? What will come next? When he became convinced "beyond reasonable doubts" that I am Abp Lazar Puhalo, he immediately went to the page on the Archbishop to write negative comments. I am waiting for him to add "criticism" sections to the articles on Bishop Kallistos, Fr Alexander Schmemann, et al., in which they, too, are denounced as heterodox ecumenists of the Paris School. What is to stop him? After all, he can find a blog or an online article by or quoting Heiromonk Patapios or Archbishop Chrysostomos casting aspersions on the orthodoxy of them all. He has dismissed Bishop Ignatije (Midic) of Pozarevac and Branicevo. Look what passes for "criticism" in the link he provided on that page -- a blog entry with a paragraph of Bishop Ignatije. No argument. Even the priest who wrote the blog wasn't sure that the paragraph was a true representation of Bishop Ignatije. This is the "criticism" that should be included in an encyclopedia article? --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 00:59, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

: I think your point is well made. The so-called "Traditionalist Orthodox" are explicitly not given a soapbox here, as per the [[OW:NPOV|MCB]]. If there seems to be a united front against the subject of an article from those sectors, it is enough to mention it briefly, but not to allow it to dominate an article.

: In any event, what is clear is that Metr. John is generally quite highly regarded throughout the Orthodox Church, which is explicitly defined on OrthodoxWiki as [[List of autocephalous and autonomous churches|this list]], i.e., the Mainstream Chalcedonian churches. Metr. John is not a controversial figure by any means, and the article should reflect that. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 02:37, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

: I dod not provide any link to Bishop Ignjatije. Please stop telling false stories. Also, "resistance" Orthodox are in dogmatics same as Orthodox, which makes them valid in their criticisms. What they differ about is heresy over all heresies - ecumenism, and masonic infux into Orthodoxy - [[Meletios IV (Metaxakis) of Constantinople]]. It appears that those who praise Paris school of "orthodoxy" support ecumenism, and logically, regard "reistance" Orthodox as lesser Orthodox than Vatican! [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 02:47, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:: If I am mistaken in how I read the OrthoWiki history page on the article, my apology. But it seems to say you created that link at 21:53 on May 2, 2008: http://orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Ignatije_%28Midic%29_of_Pozarevac_and_Branicevo&diff=65572&oldid=42851
--[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 02:54, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:: [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]], all of this is essentially irrelevant. The do-it-yourself "Celtic Orthodox" gent who lives near here and visits our church every so often is also quite likely "in dogmatics same as Orthodox," but I'm not about to interview him for this article.

:: The point is that what the "resistance/True/Genuine/Traditionalist/etc." groups think is only of relatively small importance on most OrthodoxWiki articles. Whatever one may think of the so-called "Paris School" (whatever that may mean—does that simply mean St. Sergius Institute?), it currently is part of and accepted by mainstream Orthodoxy, while by comparison the "resistance/True/Genuine/Traditionalist/etc." groups are fringe. Their opinions on Metr. John are irrelevant. Perhaps if one of them had engaged in some major debate with him, they might be relevant.

:: One doesn't have to be an "ecumenist" or a Freemason or an Ultramontanist sympathizer in order to see that giving undue weight to the opinions of such folks is essentially a violation of the explicit bias of OrthodoxWiki. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 02:57, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::: I repeat - I did not produce any link related to Bishop Ignjatije. All I did on his page was to convert section listing his writings from latin into cyrillic.

::: It appears to me that both of you want to minimize amount and extent of the criticisms for some reason. Can you provide a valid reason for your attempts to blind the public? [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 03:08, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:::: It's not a question of eliminating criticism (OrthodoxWiki articles are replete with descriptions of criticism, which is clear from even a cursory browsing of the site)—it's where it's coming from and how much is actually appropriate to represent the mainstream view on the subject matter. Piling an article high with criticisms from fringe sources is not consistent with the policies of OrthodoxWiki, nor does it do anyone a service. "The public" are not "blinded" by an attempt to write balanced articles consistent with OrthodoxWiki policies. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 03:11, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::::: I have a problem with your statements simply because all of the disputes I had here were about same thing - constant denial of the criticisms from several individuals who disguise their denial under the mask of "policies", "encyclopedia", "POV/NPOV", etc. What is balanced for you? To praise his work on two pages, and then mention critics in a mild form just to satisfy annoyances like myself? [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 03:20, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::::::And you don't see a problem with all disputes being about the same thing? This is (or endeavours to be, either/or) a ''Mainstream Chalcedonian Orthodox encyclopedia''. This is fairly explicit in intent and focus. The scholarly attacks on Metr. John provided have been more attack than scholarly (quite a number of them are mere citations or references to Metr. John, rather than any theological grappling), and the few scholars have willingly placed themselves outside of the Mainstream Chalcedonian Orthodoxy that we are ''explicitly'' putting forward.
::::::There have been others who have attempted to browbeat OW into submission for their own agendas - Ben Lomond and Western Rite talk pages are replete with arguments attempting to convince OW that it should not follow it's own ''explicit'' bias towards Mainstream Chalcedonian Orthodoxy. It's not like OW is claiming to be something that it's not. — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 01:49, May 5, 2008 (UTC)

::::::: I do not know what is "Chalcedonian Orthodoxy". I know what Orthodoxy is vs. heterodoxy, namely: Monophysitism, Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, etc. Can you, please, define the term you were using? Thanks. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 18:30, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

::::::::I can do better than that: OrthodoxWiki provides a definition of those terms in the [[OW:MCB|POV section of the Style Manual]]. ''You need to read this''. In short, the terms are used, not because of the existence or nonexistence of any non-Chalcedonian Orthodoxy (that's not actually the point) - rather, the point is of general usage. Many groups take the term Orthodox onto themselves when they are, at most, little-o orthodox (and usually far less), which pushes OW to be quite explicit in its terms. Hence, Mainstream (i.e. one of the 14/15 autocephalous Churches or their autonomous Churches), Chalcedonian (i.e. accepting of the Fourth Ecumenical Council) Orthodox. Whether the adjectives are tautological or otherwise is neither here nor there, but they serve to explain a concept. — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 12:17, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

::::::::: But that leads to the affirmation of their self proclaimed "orthodoxy". If you characterize Orthodoxy as "Chalcedonian", immediately, you affirm existence of other "orthodoxies", that are "slightly" different. Mainstream Orthodoxy has never been characterized in any way, at least, not in the East. In the West, we find characterizations like "Eastern Orthodox", that has geographical connotations, and not theological. I would suggest to OW not to try to distinguish itself from the "orthodox" by adding some "names", but rather, through the explanation of the teachings to make sure visitor understands that entire site is about Orthodoxy. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 12:37, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

::::::::::It does not, which you would know ''if you had read the [[OW:MCB|relevant section]] of the [[OW:SM|Style Manual]]''. Once again, "''you need to read this''", so that you know what OW is and how to edit in OW, rather than against it. — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 12:47, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

== Just a thought ==

It seems to me that this article is basically supposed to be a biographical introduction to Metr. John. While mention of the variety of opinions expressed about his work can, and probably should, be mentioned, it seems to me that this is not the proper forum for a detailed discussion (and listing) of these opinions. Half of the article, as it stands, is concerned with criticism and responses to that criticism and that seems rather unbalanced for something that is trying to be an encyclopedic entry.

I am not sure where a discussion of all these opinions should take place, or even whether OrthodoxWiki is the right forum for such a discussion. It just seems to me that this particular page is not the place for it.

Just my two cents, and with this I leave this debate.

In the risen Christ,
[[User:Vandrona|Fr. Peter]]

:Hi Fr. Peter, Thanks for your comments on this. It is indeed a hard call, but I do think that part of the role OrthodoxWiki plays is precisely in pushing for an articulation of controversial issues in church life. Obviously, so many of the criticisms of Metropolitan John's work are not just about him, but are about a particular movement or trend within Orthodox theology. I really want to see as precise and accurate overview of this debate as possible. Again, I do think this itself is a good service to the community. I'm not interested in personal attacks or blanket condemnations, etc. but am very interested in thoughtful criticisms or defenses. I'm curious about what others think. — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk]) 09:27, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::Hello, Fr. John. I apologize for the lack of clarity in my original post, so I will try to briefly clarify what I was trying to say. First off, having thought about it and read your reply, it does make sense that the wiki is a good place to articulate controversial issues. In which case I meant to suggest following a Wikipedia approach: having a mention of the controversial issue on the biographical page with a link to an article specifically dedicated to the issue being debated (e.g., "Theology of John Zizioulas"). That way we can avoid the contentious section being longer than the rest of the article. We also get another page where all the relevant references can be quoted and noted (hopefully...), rather than simply having somewhat vague mentions in the vein of "Metr. John has addressed this criticism." [[User:Vandrona|Fr. Peter]]

I notice a minor edit "struggle" over the sentence someone wrote and I restored: "His article implies criticism, based on understanding of the certain Orthodox, who see work of [[Vladimir Lossky|Prof. Lossky]] as contemporary synthesis of the patristic theology. Thus, to differ from [[Vladimir Lossky|Prof. Lossky]], is to differ from patristic theology." This had been changed to "This article would be critical if seen through the ideology of [[Vladimir Lossky|Prof. Lossky]]'s work as being a contemporary synthesis of patristic theology." I think I understand the reason for this change -- the original sentence is rather vague and difficult to make sense of (it may be that the original author's primary language was not English), but I'm not sure the cleanup help makes the meaning any clearer. Perhaps somehow can expain this better, but for now I going to revert this again. — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk]) 09:27, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:Because the article is only a critical article if Lossky is held up as a synthesis of patristic theology. If the Lossky=Theology standpoint is not taken, the article is not critical at all, merely comparative. As I don't know how one would even go about justifying the Lossky=Theology standpoint, I don't think that the article is criticism at all, and shouldn't be there. — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 01:37, May 5, 2008 (UTC)

:: For that reason, sentence states: ''"based on understanding of the '''certain Orthodox''', who '''see work of [[Vladimir Lossky|Prof. Lossky]] as contemporary synthesis of the patristic theology'''"''. I think it is clearly explained, why and under what condition, article of Mr. Leithart is seen by ''"certain Orthodox"'' as criticism, unintentional though, but, still criticism. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 13:14, May 5, 2008 (UTC)

:::Sad irony: such a viewpoint of Lossky isn't Orthodox. We do not take any one author as being perfect, theologically or otherwise - which explains how Staniloae can disagree with Lossky and yet not be thrown out of the Church. The question is whether the article ''is'' critical, not whether it can be misinterpreted into criticism. — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 19:30, May 5, 2008 (UTC)

== Selective reading of Papankolaou ==

Cebactokpatop has attempted to make hay of Papanikolaou's statement (in a footnote) that Metropolitan John has acknowledged in a private converstion that the Metropolitan was "influenced" by some secular philosophers, as if this is a "proof text" of some sort. The first thing to say is that this is something the Metropolitan has acknowledged in his own writing. I somehow get the impression that Cebactokpatop saw Papanikolaou's statement as a "smoking gun." But if one reads the text of the page (159) that is footnoted, one sees Papanikolaou saying a couple of things that Cebactokpatop is intentionally ignoring. The ironic one is that fact that Papanikolaou notes that the same charge of being influenced by modern personalism has been made against Lossky, as well as Metropolitan John. Thus he cherry-picks a charge that Papanikolaou points out is made against Lossky, his ''sine qua non'' of Orthodoxy. And, of course, Papanikolaou acquits both theologians. He goes on to cite the differences between the Metropolitan and those modern philosophers and that, for the Metropolitan, only a Trinitarian theology that affirms the monarchy of the Father can provide an adequate theology of personhood. As Papanikolaou says, "[Zizioulas} and Lossky are no more superimposing a philosophical system on the Eastern patristic writers than did these same writers Hellenize the teachings of Jesus" (160). Metropolitan John and Lossky simply have done what the Fathers did -- "thinking about the authoritative texts of the tradition in light of the questions, challenges, and prevailing philosophical currents of their time" (ibid). {{unsigned|Fr Lev}}

== The influence of Buber ==

I have forgotten to mention that I've read in several places that Martin Buber, not to mention other Western philosophers, were important influences on the theology of [[Dumitru Staniloae]]. Turcescu mentions elsewhere that "In ''Dogmatics'', Staniloae tried to blend in a very creative fashion patristic insights with contemporary theology, both Western and Eastern" (in ''The Teachings of Modern Orthodox Christianity on Law, Politics, & Human Nature'', p. 300). --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 12:08, May 6, 2008 (UTC)

: I honestly don't see what's so damning about having non-Orthodox influence on one's thinking, particularly since it's obvious from even a cursory reading of the ancient Fathers that their thinking was profoundly influenced by not just heterodox, but ''pagan'' sources. In any event, it's pretty hard even to function in the world without some sort of non-Orthodox influence on one's thinking.

: The question is whether one's teaching is Orthodox or not (not who or what influenced it), and in our Tradition no ruling can be made on this question without episcopal (synodal, in the case of a bishop being in question) authority. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 12:28, May 6, 2008 (UTC)

:: I think that we can not separate the two. One's heterodox influences bring up next logical question - Has one's theology escaped from the captivity of the influences (sources)? Very good example of this question can be found in the criticism of Fr. Schmmemmann by Fr. Pomazansky. Answer to that question is decisive on whether one's theology is Orthodox or heterodox. In the book Being as Communion, there are numerous references to heterodox writings and many assertions of JZ are based on them. For example, on pages 164-165, JZ talks about "individualities" and "persons" referring to the M. Buber... who made clear distinction between the two, making them antonyms. However, as Turcescu already provided in his article, St. Gregory of Nyssa used both terms as synonyms. In this example, heterodox influence prevailed in the thought of JZ over the Orthodox, resulting in his thought being heterodox as well. If he were to follow Orthodox thought od St. Gregory, we would not have this dispute over his work. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 12:55, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

::: From the fact that Zizioulas borrows a conceptual distinction between persons and individuals from Martin Buber, it does not follow that his thought is heterodox. It is logically fallacious to argue that 'Since X borrows from Y; and since Y is heterodox; therefore X is heterodox.' At most, Turcescu's article establishes that Zizioulas uses some words in different ways than St Gregory of Nyssa. But that does not make Zizioulas heterodox.

::: Also, the claims made by Turscescu have been challenged (both by Zizioulas and others); as such, they cannot be appealed to as authoritative.

::: Moreover, as far as I can see, there is no dispute over the thought of Metropolitan John. All that exists is Cebactokpatop trying to insert anti-Zizioulas polemic into the article, with everyone else telling him that he is being unreasonable and incivil. [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 13:46, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

:::: It wouldn't follow under one condition - if it was not contrary to Orthodox. Since JZ adapted his thought to Buber's, whose definitions of terms "individual" and "person" are contrary to those of St. Gregory, his thought, consequently is based on foundations contrary to Orthodoxy. His direct adoption of heterodox definitions without revising them and providing content that is in line with Orthodoxy, pushed his thought outside to the sea of heterodoxy... [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 14:39, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

::::: Again you fail to understand the point. Zizioulas found a particular way of speaking (the distinction between person and individual) helpful in articulating Orthodox theology in dialogue with the concerns of existentialist thinking. He uses 'individual' as a shorthand for a human being whose mode of existence is selfish and in rejection of the love of God; he uses 'person' as a shorthand for a human being whose mode of existence is ecclesial. It is not heterodox to distinguish between these different modes of existence. Your failure to grasp this suggests that you do not understand Zizioulas' thought. [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 21:20, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

:::::: "Shorthands" for various "modes of existence" he uses he calls "hypostases": biological, ecclesial, eucharistic, etc. If you were to read his bible Being as Communion, you could have possibly noted that. In his thought, hypostases come and go depending on the mood of the individual (person) in the morning. Does anyone know any patristic reference to "modes of existence" being called "hypostases"? So... Consequently, as per his thought, in the Holy Three, we have three "modes of existence". How was this historical Trinitarian heresy being called? Please remind me... [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 12:50, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

Yes, in St Maximus Confessor. Taking up language first used by the Cappadocians in discussing the person (''hypostasis''), human or divine, the Confessor distinguishes between ''what'' a person is and ''how'' he is. He employs a distinction between ''logos'' (which is unchangeable) and the ''tropos'' (his ''hypostasis'', which is changeable). To acknowledge that the Persons are modes of existence is not the same thing as Modalism. No one who read the Metropolitan and his vigorous argument against Sabellianism could imagine him to be saying that! But if one wishes to say that this makes the Metropolitan a heretic, then that entails saying St Maximus is a heretic. Ignorance – even invincible ignorance – is not an excuse for throwing around charges of heresy. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 14:34, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

: Quote: ''"To acknowledge that the Persons are modes of existence is not the same thing as Modalism."'' Show me how it isn't. Also, show me where St. Maximus equates "modes of existence" with hypostases. Thank you. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 17:37, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

==The Neopatristic Revival==
One of the great ironies of this back and forth has been the characterization of a number of important Orthodox theologians in the West as “modernist” or under the influence of Jewish or Western philosophers. Perhaps the most important commonality of Lossky, Zizioulas, Yannaras, Meyendorff, Schmemann, Florovksy, Romanides, and Staniloae was/is their commitment to a “return to the Fathers.” For a great deal of time, Greek and Russian theology languished under a “western captivity” in which Orthodox theologians abandoned patristics in favor of Roman scholasticism. Of these, the most influential has always been Lossky, in whom I was initiated thirty years ago when I first read ''The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church''. (BTW, ‘Eastern’ was not part of Lossky’s original title but was inserted at the insistence of an editor.) As it has been described by Aidan Nichols, “This study, with its identification an existentialist and personalist slant to the patristic dogmatics of, especially, Gregory of Nyssa and Maximus Confessor, soon acquired the status of a classic.” --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 17:50, May 6, 2008 (UTC)

: Please do not mix Fr. Florovsky with the reas to of the "team". Although, several of his stances were problematic, he was Orthodox theologian, apart and far from those that came out of Paris school. The "team" misused him, and now many think how he is part of the "team". He is not. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 20:12, May 7, 2008 (UTC)

:: On the contrary, Florovsky is united with Lossky, Schmemann, Meyendorff, Romanides, Yannaras and Zizioulas in calling for a return to patristic theology, rather than to continue with the religious philosophy of Bulgakov and Berdiaev, or to acquiesce in the redundant repetition of nineteenth-century Russian seminary theology (cf. Pomazansky's ''Orthodox Dogmatic Theology''). [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 13:52, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

::: It is well known that names you mentioned (except Fr. Florovsky) use such "call" to disguise their inventions and parade them as patristic. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 14:32, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

:::: It is not well known, becuase it is not correct. Anyway, it is clear that you do not understand Orthodox theology well enough to be making such claims. [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 21:22, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

== revising the Lossky sentence ==

Clearly, Fr John was not himself claiming that "to differ from Lossky" is to differ from the Fathers; he was trying to state what the reviser believes. The statement before was ambiguous, so I have edited it to make clear Fr John's intent. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 18:57, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

: Oh Lord... He can read Fr. John's mind! [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 20:09, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

:: Cebactokpatop, please don't remove a {{fact}} tag without providing the reference. [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 21:09, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

I assume that Fr John is monitoring this page and that he will correct me if I have drawn a bad inference from his comments. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 23:16, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

== Who believes that 'to differ from Lossky is to differ from patristic theology'??? ==

Could someone please provide references of some individual or group within Orthodoxy who believes that to differ from Lossky's theology is to differ from patristic theology??? I am not aware of anyone who holds this ridiculous position except Cebactokpatop. If no-one except Cebactokpatop holds this view then this sentence should be struck from the article, as Orthodoxwiki is not about providing a platform for the idiosyncratic views of one editor. [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 21:14, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

== Turcescu's Misreading of Zizioulas ==

Turcescu criticizes the Metropolitan on the question of person versus individual by indicating that St Gregory of Nyssa sometime uses ἄτομον (''atomon'') “to express the notion of the person.” Of the Cappadocians, only St Gregory uses ''atomon'' as equivalent to ''hypostasis'' or ''prosopon''. So one could stop here and say that only one of the Cappadocians followed a usage contrary to the Metropolitan’s reading. But that would still leave a misimpression. For if one thought that St Gregory was saying atomon as predicated of human persons could be predicated of divine persons ''simpliciter'', we would be left with the heresy of tritheism. But St Gregory was not foolish, which is why he never said any such thing. The other Fathers (Cappadocian or otherwise) never run the risk of confusing someone (such as Turcescu and his fervent disciple, Cebactokpatop) by using ''atomon'' as equivalent to person. While we find the Orthodox confession of three ''hypostaseis'' or three ''prosopa'', nowhere in Orthodox theology do we find the confession of three ''atoma''. Thus Turcescu’s criticism of the Metropolitan’s refusal to equate ''atomon'' with either ''prosopon'' or ''hypostasis'' can only by employed in a defense of tritheism. While at no point on these pages has Cebactokpatop ever read someone else’s posts charitably, I will give him the benefit of the doubt and not infer that he is arguing for tritheism. And if I am right about his intent (I am no mind reader, as he pointed out), then he needs to consider revising his support of Turcescu’s argument. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 00:40, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

Talk:John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon

2008-05-09T17:37:54Z

Cebactokpatop: /* The influence of Buber */

*[[Talk:John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon/Archive 1|Archive 1]] - from article creation (2007) to end of March 2008.
*[[Talk:John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon/Archive 2|Archive 2]] - from April 2008.

== Reversion ==

I've rolled back [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]]'s recent major changes (essentially for reasons detailed throughout this Talk page)—perhaps it was a mistake to unprotect the article again so soon. I'll leave it unprotected for now, hoping that Agenda-driven edits won't take over again. If they do, and especially if they're from [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]], it may be necessary to introduce a ban on that editor for a time. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:07, April 30, 2008 (UTC)

: Your revert without even reading the changes I put in is another proof that this website has no interest in expressing the reality that exists in The Church, but rather fictitious visions of several individuals claiming to be "fr". [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 18:30, April 30, 2008 (UTC)

:: Oh, trust me—I read them. Anyway, [[w:Talk:John Zizioulas]], along with your Agenda here, demonstrate that you're not interested in pursuing the editing of an encyclopedia in a calm manner. Indeed, your above condemnation of our many thousands of editors ''en masse'' is a pretty clear indication that you're not interested in good faith editing. As noted on your Talk page, your account has been banned. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:33, April 30, 2008 (UTC)

::: Your action against my account was illegal. It represented misjudgment on your side, which resulted in misuse of your sysops powers. Consequently, your error was reverted by Fr. John. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 18:21, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

:::: Illegal? Are you planning to sue me now? (In what court?) —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:25, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

== Enough ==

This is an Orthodox Website which for many people is a valuable source of knowledge. The attacks against His Eminence Metropolitan John of Pergamon, or any other hierarch of the Holy Orthodox Church, are not necessary on this forum. Whilst I don't share the same ecclesiological opinions as His Eminence, I have no right as a member of the Church to criticise him. Please, for the sake of those young people who use this website for edification, cease these attacks on the hierachy of the One, Holy Orthodox Church. - Peter Mav

:I also agree Peter, it would be a good idea if the discussion around this Father of the church is put on hold and indeed perhaps we should pray for the poor dear's soul as the amount of negativity emitted towards him is very unfair! I say, lets all work towards continuing to build Orthodox articles not critical defences to be used in a court of law. I dont even know why he is controversial :-) Like Mother Molania said in her talk from [[Ancient Faith Radio]], Insane people associating with insane people can not become sane ...only the Saints are "sane"! Chit chatting, keeps US in INSANITY! [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 09:32, May 1, 2008 (UTC)

:: That is precisely why all over the article of Metropolitan John and other contemporary Orthodox theologians we should print in big bold letters: “DO NOT BASE YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE ORTHODOXY ON WIRITINGS OF THIS CONTEMPORARIES WHOSE THEOLOGY IS NOT VERIFIED BY THE HISTORY YET. USE THEOLOGY OF THE HOLY FATHERS INSTEAD.”

:: We do not want to educate young people with the thought of the potentially problematic theologians like m. John (and fr. Schmmemmann, fr. Mayendorff, fr. Afanasiev, etc. – students of the “Paris school of Orthodoxy”). If you want to discuss it further, and you know more appropriate place (e.g. private forum), we can go there and continue.

:: [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 14:59, May 1, 2008 (UTC)

::: This is an encyclopedia, not a catechism. We're not in the business of putting big warning labels on articles about modern writers, especially those who are generally quite well-regarded throughout the Orthodox world, such as nearly everyone you mention.

::: That they are criticized by certain minority sectors of Orthodoxy is certainly a viable element for their respective articles, but that criticism should not be the dominant theme of the article, which would be undue weight. The impression a reader should get ought to be based on how the writer is regarded throughout the Orthodox Church, not on the idiosyncratic criticisms of a few, especially not regarding someone who's never even been accused by the proper authorities (much less condemned by them).

::: In any event, any general overview of Orthodoxy makes it plain that our theological emphasis is on the Scriptures and the Holy Fathers, not on any modern writer. If someone gets his entire impression of Orthodoxy or education in the faith from a single article on OrthodoxWiki, well, he's going about it wrong. One would hope that common sense would make that clear. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:31, May 1, 2008 (UTC)

I agree with some points raised by all who have responded. I am still concerned however, because I know a lot of youths use this website for introductory information and not having extensive knowledge or sometimes even the spiritual grounding can be scandalised. Obviously, mentioning that this hierarch's teachings are not accepted by some is good, encyclopaedic knowledge but some of the criticisms prior to their removal were not beneficial to the soul of anyone. I apologise if I have offended anyone. - Peter Mav

: In the above response of user Andrew we find the basis for the entire dispute. He is saying that Metropolitan John is ''"regarded throughout the Orthodox Church"'' and being ''"criticized by certain minority sectors of Orthodoxy"'', which is completely untrue/false/wrong/misguiding/misleading/etc. Vast majority of Orthodoxy exists beyond US shoreline, and even beyond English speaking world. Sooner that group of the individuals realize that, sooner we will get synergy in our actions. Such a fringe and perverted view of position of m. John in Orthodoxy is what user Andrew and couple of other individuals kept promoting, constantly trying to minimize the number and extent of the critics. It is best evident in the current version of the article, when in the criticism section they put reference to Bishop Ignjatije, who praises his work. What is that reference doing there? [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 12:54, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

I think that the user Fr Andrew is correct in his assessment. Lest anyone get the impression that the Serbian Church has somehow made a judgement that Metropolitan John is heterodox, I thought it worthwhile to note that a bishop and professor of theology in Serbia is a strong supporter of Metropolitan John's work. Anytime anyone disagrees with Cebactokpatop, he resorts to personal attack (both here and in the Wikipedia article). He has attacked and dismissed not only the other editors and Metropolitan John, but also:
*Bishop Kallistos Ware ("Ecumenist buddy of JZ")
*Christos Yannaras ("Ecumenist buddy of JZ")
*Fr John Meyendorff ("Heterodox", along with Schmmemann and Afanasiev)
*Fr Boris Bobrinskoy ("never heard of this guy"): I can't help it if Cebactokpatop hasn't heard of the dean of the St Sergius Institute in Paris, but then again, he dismisses the Paris school as "heterodox."
*Bishop Ignjatije Midić ("ecumenist... who can hardly be called a theologian, as he is almost not writing anything"): Well, in addition to being bishop of Branicevo, he is professor of dogmatics and ethics at the Serbian theological institute in Belgrade and is the author of a new book on dogmatics.
*Aristotle Papanikolaou ("Another buddy of JZ"), etc.

When I mentioned Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos, his only response was "Are you sure?" The answer to that is, Yes. If one checks the several references to Metropolitan John in Metropolitan Hierotheos' book on the person, one finds they are all very positive. On a personal note, having just finished reading ''Communion and Otherness'' and looking through ''Being as Communion'' again, I do not see how anyone who carefully read them could give any credence to the charges Cebactokpatop has made, not least of which is the absurd charge of heterodoxy. Aprt from the Serbian text he cites by Lazic and the interview with Archbishop Stylianos, NONE of the sources he cites as criticisms draw his conclusions. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 13:51, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

:: You are certainly entitled to support JZ and other individuals from Paris school of "orthodoxy". However, you are not entitled to personally dismiss me for providing valid academic resources that criticize JZ or any other product of mentioned school in Paris. From the list of the articles you contributed to, we can clearly see that your faith is in Paris. Orthodox who prefer to have their faith elswhere (e.g. Cappadocia), have a right to express their dissatisfaction with the innovations of Paris' school as well. You have done a great job in prizing JZ's work in the article. Now it is a time to balance it with the concerns of the Traditional Orthodox, Mr. Puhalo. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 17:43, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

::: Methinks you have Fr. Lev confused with Abp. [[Lazar (Puhalo) of Ottawa]]. They're not the same person. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:02, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

:::: Are you sure about that my friend? I am beyond reasonable doubts... they are the same person. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 18:10, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

::::: Based on what? The name "Lev"? —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:31, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

ROTFL! I have been accused of many things in my life, but never of being an archbishop! --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 19:12, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

: You are right. You are not an Archbishop. To become the one, it would require valid canonical ordination. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 19:14, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

Another personal attack -- ''quelle surprise''! I was "canonically" ordained, BTW, by a "canonical" bishop of a "canonical" patriarchal Church. I know who I am, but I have no idea who Cebactokpatop is. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 19:30, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

: Whatever. I am not interested in "canonicity" of your ordination (if any). What I am interested in, is making sure you understand that current version of the article is not balanced, as you intentionally (or not) tried to minimize criticisms of JZ. Do you understand that? If you do, it would be easier for me to go in and try to balance it so that readers do not get an impression that they have before them, article about some "saint". [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 20:12, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

::Ok, enough everyone with the personal back and forth. I agree that the article should also present criticisms fairly and rationally. Cebactokpatop, I am concerned by your personal attacks, which at least in some cases are totally unfounded, and to my mind, crazy (e.g. Fr Lev is not Archbp Lazar!). If this kind of stuff continues, I'm going to freeze this page. I've just edited the article to incorporate some of the material present in earlier drafts. — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk]) 21:17, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

:::I agree. While I normally say very little on Orthodoxwiki (I'm not a scholar of complex dogma or theology, nor do I wish or claim to be), I've been lurking around this discussion and reading what everyone has said. Cebactokpatop, I think it would behoove you to take a leaf from Frs. Andrew and John, as well as the other sysops and users here on Orthodoxwiki. They've been extremely charitable with you when they have received so very little from you in these discussions. When they indulge your vitriol, you reward them with ad hominem attacks, questioning their identities, and even going so far as to question the canonicity of people's ordinations with temerity (although you deny this, it is clearly evident that you do so). You ask readers and writers to address your edits with "proper academic attire." Yet, I have to ask the physician to heal himself with respect to your paranoia and derision. Fr. Andrew, specifically, has not only responded to you in a very Christ-like manner, but has been nothing short of a gentleman in dealing with you.

:::I ask, in the future, when you are a guest of other wikis and forums, you try to act in a similar manner.[[User:Mike|Mike]] 21:55, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

== Material for Inclusion ==

* [[Fr. John Behr]] in the aticle ''"The Trinitarian Being of the Church"'', argues that Zizioulas' use of The Three as an archetype for The Church, when he establishes communion of The Church as an image of the communion od The Three, ends up dismissing both - The Three and The Church. ''(St Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 48:1 (2004), 67-88)'' {{unsigned|Cebactokpatop}}

In reviewing Fr John Behr's essay, I don't see it saying anything to suggest that Metropolitan John's view ends us "dismissing" the Trinity and the Church. I'd like to see the quote and page number that is alleged to say that. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 22:54, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

: Any suggestions on how to reword Fr. Behr's criticism? Isn't this dismissal of The Church: ''"What is said of the Church is certainly based upon what is said of the Trinity, but the effect of speaking in this manner, paradoxically, is that the Church is separated from God, as a distinct entity reflecting the divine being."'' (page 68) Church without ties to God does not exist, even though, it may perfectly mimic the Three. At the same time, we do not know The Three without Their Church. It is The Church that is left behind to proclaim The Three. Disconnect JZ creates, dismisses The Church, and conequenly blind us from The Three, which equates to dismissal. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 03:43, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

== What counts as "academic criticism"? ==

Fr John, I find your floowing edit problematic: "Peter J. Leithart's article, Divine Energies and Orthodox Soteriology, cites the work of Papanikolaou, and points out where Vladimir Lossky and Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) differ on the issue of divine energies. His article implies criticism, based on understanding of the certain Orthodox, who see work of Prof. Lossky as contemporary synthesis of the patristic theology. Thus, to differ from Prof. Lossky, is to differ from patristic theology."

(1) Leithart in no way understands hie article to be critical of Metropolitan John. Not only is that clear from actually reading the article, but he has confirmed that in personal correspondence. (2) There is nothing here to indicate there is any substantive problem with what Metropolitan John says about the essence/energies distinction. (3) If an undergraduate wrote in an academic paper the sentence, "Thus, to differ from Prof. Lossky, is to differ from patristic theology", there wouldn't get a very good grade. Lossky is a personal theological hereo of mine, but I don't know any serious theologian who would judge him to be the sole criterion of Orthodoxy. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 23:13, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

: Indeed, no. Lossky himself has been criticized by major figures in the 20th century, e.g., Staniloae, who's no theological slouch himself. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 02:42, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:: Zizioulas and Meyendorff fell into the pit trying to criticise either Lossky or St. Gregory Palamas, as both of them are not capable of grasping what those two champions were writing about. Area related to the Holy Spirit is unknown and incomprehensible to these "eucharistic ecclesiologians" who understand bodily portion only, based on instructions from RCC theologians Mr. Congar and Mr. Lubac. In order to understand The Spirit, one has to now The Spirit of Orthodoxy. Paris school is so far from that Spirit that their theology consequently, can not be in the Spirit of Orthodoxy. In order to "bring closer" Orthodoxy to Rome (ecumenists), they have to introduce some other spirit - that is spirit of Rome. Orthodox Spirit can never get any closer to Rome than in past 1000 years. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 02:59, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::: An interesting analysis, but I fail to see how this is relevant to the task at hand, which is summarizing reliable secondary sources into an encyclopedia entry which represents the mainstream Chalcedonian viewpoint and takes minor note of other relevant viewpoints. Personal attacks are not really germane—how do you know what Meyendorff or Metr. John are "capable of grasping"? —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 03:08, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:::: That was my response on your assertion: "Lossky himself has been criticized" with my addition of Meyendorff and St. Gregory as another example of the same failure. JZ in his bible Being as Commununion "showed" how Lossky "was wrong". [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 03:15, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

== Should criticism be 'mainstream'? ==

I have read repeatedly that OrthoWiki is about "mainstream" Orthodoxy. Some of the criticism included here is, e.g., from Old Calendarists, who condemn most of the Churches represented here for using the Revised Julian calendar or for ecumenism. Nothing against Old Calendarist "resistance" synods and hyper-traditionalists, but what relevance should their criticism have in a minstream venue such as this? Given that they make the same criticisms of Bishop Kallistos, Fr Alexander Schmemann, Fr John Meyendorff, Christos Yannaras, etc., as they do of Metropolitan John, why should this be included? And all to satisfy one editor whose personal animus is clear? What will come next? When he became convinced "beyond reasonable doubts" that I am Abp Lazar Puhalo, he immediately went to the page on the Archbishop to write negative comments. I am waiting for him to add "criticism" sections to the articles on Bishop Kallistos, Fr Alexander Schmemann, et al., in which they, too, are denounced as heterodox ecumenists of the Paris School. What is to stop him? After all, he can find a blog or an online article by or quoting Heiromonk Patapios or Archbishop Chrysostomos casting aspersions on the orthodoxy of them all. He has dismissed Bishop Ignatije (Midic) of Pozarevac and Branicevo. Look what passes for "criticism" in the link he provided on that page -- a blog entry with a paragraph of Bishop Ignatije. No argument. Even the priest who wrote the blog wasn't sure that the paragraph was a true representation of Bishop Ignatije. This is the "criticism" that should be included in an encyclopedia article? --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 00:59, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

: I think your point is well made. The so-called "Traditionalist Orthodox" are explicitly not given a soapbox here, as per the [[OW:NPOV|MCB]]. If there seems to be a united front against the subject of an article from those sectors, it is enough to mention it briefly, but not to allow it to dominate an article.

: In any event, what is clear is that Metr. John is generally quite highly regarded throughout the Orthodox Church, which is explicitly defined on OrthodoxWiki as [[List of autocephalous and autonomous churches|this list]], i.e., the Mainstream Chalcedonian churches. Metr. John is not a controversial figure by any means, and the article should reflect that. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 02:37, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

: I dod not provide any link to Bishop Ignjatije. Please stop telling false stories. Also, "resistance" Orthodox are in dogmatics same as Orthodox, which makes them valid in their criticisms. What they differ about is heresy over all heresies - ecumenism, and masonic infux into Orthodoxy - [[Meletios IV (Metaxakis) of Constantinople]]. It appears that those who praise Paris school of "orthodoxy" support ecumenism, and logically, regard "reistance" Orthodox as lesser Orthodox than Vatican! [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 02:47, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:: If I am mistaken in how I read the OrthoWiki history page on the article, my apology. But it seems to say you created that link at 21:53 on May 2, 2008: http://orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Ignatije_%28Midic%29_of_Pozarevac_and_Branicevo&diff=65572&oldid=42851
--[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 02:54, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:: [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]], all of this is essentially irrelevant. The do-it-yourself "Celtic Orthodox" gent who lives near here and visits our church every so often is also quite likely "in dogmatics same as Orthodox," but I'm not about to interview him for this article.

:: The point is that what the "resistance/True/Genuine/Traditionalist/etc." groups think is only of relatively small importance on most OrthodoxWiki articles. Whatever one may think of the so-called "Paris School" (whatever that may mean—does that simply mean St. Sergius Institute?), it currently is part of and accepted by mainstream Orthodoxy, while by comparison the "resistance/True/Genuine/Traditionalist/etc." groups are fringe. Their opinions on Metr. John are irrelevant. Perhaps if one of them had engaged in some major debate with him, they might be relevant.

:: One doesn't have to be an "ecumenist" or a Freemason or an Ultramontanist sympathizer in order to see that giving undue weight to the opinions of such folks is essentially a violation of the explicit bias of OrthodoxWiki. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 02:57, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::: I repeat - I did not produce any link related to Bishop Ignjatije. All I did on his page was to convert section listing his writings from latin into cyrillic.

::: It appears to me that both of you want to minimize amount and extent of the criticisms for some reason. Can you provide a valid reason for your attempts to blind the public? [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 03:08, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:::: It's not a question of eliminating criticism (OrthodoxWiki articles are replete with descriptions of criticism, which is clear from even a cursory browsing of the site)—it's where it's coming from and how much is actually appropriate to represent the mainstream view on the subject matter. Piling an article high with criticisms from fringe sources is not consistent with the policies of OrthodoxWiki, nor does it do anyone a service. "The public" are not "blinded" by an attempt to write balanced articles consistent with OrthodoxWiki policies. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 03:11, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::::: I have a problem with your statements simply because all of the disputes I had here were about same thing - constant denial of the criticisms from several individuals who disguise their denial under the mask of "policies", "encyclopedia", "POV/NPOV", etc. What is balanced for you? To praise his work on two pages, and then mention critics in a mild form just to satisfy annoyances like myself? [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 03:20, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::::::And you don't see a problem with all disputes being about the same thing? This is (or endeavours to be, either/or) a ''Mainstream Chalcedonian Orthodox encyclopedia''. This is fairly explicit in intent and focus. The scholarly attacks on Metr. John provided have been more attack than scholarly (quite a number of them are mere citations or references to Metr. John, rather than any theological grappling), and the few scholars have willingly placed themselves outside of the Mainstream Chalcedonian Orthodoxy that we are ''explicitly'' putting forward.
::::::There have been others who have attempted to browbeat OW into submission for their own agendas - Ben Lomond and Western Rite talk pages are replete with arguments attempting to convince OW that it should not follow it's own ''explicit'' bias towards Mainstream Chalcedonian Orthodoxy. It's not like OW is claiming to be something that it's not. — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 01:49, May 5, 2008 (UTC)

::::::: I do not know what is "Chalcedonian Orthodoxy". I know what Orthodoxy is vs. heterodoxy, namely: Monophysitism, Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, etc. Can you, please, define the term you were using? Thanks. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 18:30, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

::::::::I can do better than that: OrthodoxWiki provides a definition of those terms in the [[OW:MCB|POV section of the Style Manual]]. ''You need to read this''. In short, the terms are used, not because of the existence or nonexistence of any non-Chalcedonian Orthodoxy (that's not actually the point) - rather, the point is of general usage. Many groups take the term Orthodox onto themselves when they are, at most, little-o orthodox (and usually far less), which pushes OW to be quite explicit in its terms. Hence, Mainstream (i.e. one of the 14/15 autocephalous Churches or their autonomous Churches), Chalcedonian (i.e. accepting of the Fourth Ecumenical Council) Orthodox. Whether the adjectives are tautological or otherwise is neither here nor there, but they serve to explain a concept. — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 12:17, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

::::::::: But that leads to the affirmation of their self proclaimed "orthodoxy". If you characterize Orthodoxy as "Chalcedonian", immediately, you affirm existence of other "orthodoxies", that are "slightly" different. Mainstream Orthodoxy has never been characterized in any way, at least, not in the East. In the West, we find characterizations like "Eastern Orthodox", that has geographical connotations, and not theological. I would suggest to OW not to try to distinguish itself from the "orthodox" by adding some "names", but rather, through the explanation of the teachings to make sure visitor understands that entire site is about Orthodoxy. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 12:37, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

::::::::::It does not, which you would know ''if you had read the [[OW:MCB|relevant section]] of the [[OW:SM|Style Manual]]''. Once again, "''you need to read this''", so that you know what OW is and how to edit in OW, rather than against it. — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 12:47, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

== Just a thought ==

It seems to me that this article is basically supposed to be a biographical introduction to Metr. John. While mention of the variety of opinions expressed about his work can, and probably should, be mentioned, it seems to me that this is not the proper forum for a detailed discussion (and listing) of these opinions. Half of the article, as it stands, is concerned with criticism and responses to that criticism and that seems rather unbalanced for something that is trying to be an encyclopedic entry.

I am not sure where a discussion of all these opinions should take place, or even whether OrthodoxWiki is the right forum for such a discussion. It just seems to me that this particular page is not the place for it.

Just my two cents, and with this I leave this debate.

In the risen Christ,
[[User:Vandrona|Fr. Peter]]

:Hi Fr. Peter, Thanks for your comments on this. It is indeed a hard call, but I do think that part of the role OrthodoxWiki plays is precisely in pushing for an articulation of controversial issues in church life. Obviously, so many of the criticisms of Metropolitan John's work are not just about him, but are about a particular movement or trend within Orthodox theology. I really want to see as precise and accurate overview of this debate as possible. Again, I do think this itself is a good service to the community. I'm not interested in personal attacks or blanket condemnations, etc. but am very interested in thoughtful criticisms or defenses. I'm curious about what others think. — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk]) 09:27, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::Hello, Fr. John. I apologize for the lack of clarity in my original post, so I will try to briefly clarify what I was trying to say. First off, having thought about it and read your reply, it does make sense that the wiki is a good place to articulate controversial issues. In which case I meant to suggest following a Wikipedia approach: having a mention of the controversial issue on the biographical page with a link to an article specifically dedicated to the issue being debated (e.g., "Theology of John Zizioulas"). That way we can avoid the contentious section being longer than the rest of the article. We also get another page where all the relevant references can be quoted and noted (hopefully...), rather than simply having somewhat vague mentions in the vein of "Metr. John has addressed this criticism." [[User:Vandrona|Fr. Peter]]

I notice a minor edit "struggle" over the sentence someone wrote and I restored: "His article implies criticism, based on understanding of the certain Orthodox, who see work of [[Vladimir Lossky|Prof. Lossky]] as contemporary synthesis of the patristic theology. Thus, to differ from [[Vladimir Lossky|Prof. Lossky]], is to differ from patristic theology." This had been changed to "This article would be critical if seen through the ideology of [[Vladimir Lossky|Prof. Lossky]]'s work as being a contemporary synthesis of patristic theology." I think I understand the reason for this change -- the original sentence is rather vague and difficult to make sense of (it may be that the original author's primary language was not English), but I'm not sure the cleanup help makes the meaning any clearer. Perhaps somehow can expain this better, but for now I going to revert this again. — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk]) 09:27, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:Because the article is only a critical article if Lossky is held up as a synthesis of patristic theology. If the Lossky=Theology standpoint is not taken, the article is not critical at all, merely comparative. As I don't know how one would even go about justifying the Lossky=Theology standpoint, I don't think that the article is criticism at all, and shouldn't be there. — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 01:37, May 5, 2008 (UTC)

:: For that reason, sentence states: ''"based on understanding of the '''certain Orthodox''', who '''see work of [[Vladimir Lossky|Prof. Lossky]] as contemporary synthesis of the patristic theology'''"''. I think it is clearly explained, why and under what condition, article of Mr. Leithart is seen by ''"certain Orthodox"'' as criticism, unintentional though, but, still criticism. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 13:14, May 5, 2008 (UTC)

:::Sad irony: such a viewpoint of Lossky isn't Orthodox. We do not take any one author as being perfect, theologically or otherwise - which explains how Staniloae can disagree with Lossky and yet not be thrown out of the Church. The question is whether the article ''is'' critical, not whether it can be misinterpreted into criticism. — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 19:30, May 5, 2008 (UTC)

== Selective reading of Papankolaou ==

Cebactokpatop has attempted to make hay of Papanikolaou's statement (in a footnote) that Metropolitan John has acknowledged in a private converstion that the Metropolitan was "influenced" by some secular philosophers, as if this is a "proof text" of some sort. The first thing to say is that this is something the Metropolitan has acknowledged in his own writing. I somehow get the impression that Cebactokpatop saw Papanikolaou's statement as a "smoking gun." But if one reads the text of the page (159) that is footnoted, one sees Papanikolaou saying a couple of things that Cebactokpatop is intentionally ignoring. The ironic one is that fact that Papanikolaou notes that the same charge of being influenced by modern personalism has been made against Lossky, as well as Metropolitan John. Thus he cherry-picks a charge that Papanikolaou points out is made against Lossky, his ''sine qua non'' of Orthodoxy. And, of course, Papanikolaou acquits both theologians. He goes on to cite the differences between the Metropolitan and those modern philosophers and that, for the Metropolitan, only a Trinitarian theology that affirms the monarchy of the Father can provide an adequate theology of personhood. As Papanikolaou says, "[Zizioulas} and Lossky are no more superimposing a philosophical system on the Eastern patristic writers than did these same writers Hellenize the teachings of Jesus" (160). Metropolitan John and Lossky simply have done what the Fathers did -- "thinking about the authoritative texts of the tradition in light of the questions, challenges, and prevailing philosophical currents of their time" (ibid). {{unsigned|Fr Lev}}

== The influence of Buber ==

I have forgotten to mention that I've read in several places that Martin Buber, not to mention other Western philosophers, were important influences on the theology of [[Dumitru Staniloae]]. Turcescu mentions elsewhere that "In ''Dogmatics'', Staniloae tried to blend in a very creative fashion patristic insights with contemporary theology, both Western and Eastern" (in ''The Teachings of Modern Orthodox Christianity on Law, Politics, & Human Nature'', p. 300). --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 12:08, May 6, 2008 (UTC)

: I honestly don't see what's so damning about having non-Orthodox influence on one's thinking, particularly since it's obvious from even a cursory reading of the ancient Fathers that their thinking was profoundly influenced by not just heterodox, but ''pagan'' sources. In any event, it's pretty hard even to function in the world without some sort of non-Orthodox influence on one's thinking.

: The question is whether one's teaching is Orthodox or not (not who or what influenced it), and in our Tradition no ruling can be made on this question without episcopal (synodal, in the case of a bishop being in question) authority. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 12:28, May 6, 2008 (UTC)

:: I think that we can not separate the two. One's heterodox influences bring up next logical question - Has one's theology escaped from the captivity of the influences (sources)? Very good example of this question can be found in the criticism of Fr. Schmmemmann by Fr. Pomazansky. Answer to that question is decisive on whether one's theology is Orthodox or heterodox. In the book Being as Communion, there are numerous references to heterodox writings and many assertions of JZ are based on them. For example, on pages 164-165, JZ talks about "individualities" and "persons" referring to the M. Buber... who made clear distinction between the two, making them antonyms. However, as Turcescu already provided in his article, St. Gregory of Nyssa used both terms as synonyms. In this example, heterodox influence prevailed in the thought of JZ over the Orthodox, resulting in his thought being heterodox as well. If he were to follow Orthodox thought od St. Gregory, we would not have this dispute over his work. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 12:55, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

::: From the fact that Zizioulas borrows a conceptual distinction between persons and individuals from Martin Buber, it does not follow that his thought is heterodox. It is logically fallacious to argue that 'Since X borrows from Y; and since Y is heterodox; therefore X is heterodox.' At most, Turcescu's article establishes that Zizioulas uses some words in different ways than St Gregory of Nyssa. But that does not make Zizioulas heterodox.

::: Also, the claims made by Turscescu have been challenged (both by Zizioulas and others); as such, they cannot be appealed to as authoritative.

::: Moreover, as far as I can see, there is no dispute over the thought of Metropolitan John. All that exists is Cebactokpatop trying to insert anti-Zizioulas polemic into the article, with everyone else telling him that he is being unreasonable and incivil. [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 13:46, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

:::: It wouldn't follow under one condition - if it was not contrary to Orthodox. Since JZ adapted his thought to Buber's, whose definitions of terms "individual" and "person" are contrary to those of St. Gregory, his thought, consequently is based on foundations contrary to Orthodoxy. His direct adoption of heterodox definitions without revising them and providing content that is in line with Orthodoxy, pushed his thought outside to the sea of heterodoxy... [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 14:39, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

::::: Again you fail to understand the point. Zizioulas found a particular way of speaking (the distinction between person and individual) helpful in articulating Orthodox theology in dialogue with the concerns of existentialist thinking. He uses 'individual' as a shorthand for a human being whose mode of existence is selfish and in rejection of the love of God; he uses 'person' as a shorthand for a human being whose mode of existence is ecclesial. It is not heterodox to distinguish between these different modes of existence. Your failure to grasp this suggests that you do not understand Zizioulas' thought. [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 21:20, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

:::::: "Shorthands" for various "modes of existence" he uses he calls "hypostases": biological, ecclesial, eucharistic, etc. If you were to read his bible Being as Communion, you could have possibly noted that. In his thought, hypostases come and go depending on the mood of the individual (person) in the morning. Does anyone know any patristic reference to "modes of existence" being called "hypostases"? So... Consequently, as per his thought, in the Holy Three, we have three "modes of existence". How was this historical Trinitarian heresy being called? Please remind me... [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 12:50, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

Yes, in St Maximus Confessor. Taking up language first used by the Cappadocians in discussing the person (''hypostasis''), human or divine, the Confessor distinguishes between ''what'' a person is and ''how'' he is. He employs a distinction between ''logos'' (which is unchangeable) and the ''tropos'' (his ''hypostasis'', which is changeable). To acknowledge that the Persons are modes of existence is not the same thing as Modalism. No one who read the Metropolitan and his vigorous argument against Sabellianism could imagine him to be saying that! But if one wishes to say that this makes the Metropolitan a heretic, then that entails saying St Maximus is a heretic. Ignorance – even invincible ignorance – is not an excuse for throwing around charges of heresy. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 14:34, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

: Quote: ''"To acknowledge that the Persons are modes of existence is not the same thing as Modalism."'' Show me how it isn't. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 17:37, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

==The Neopatristic Revival==
One of the great ironies of this back and forth has been the characterization of a number of important Orthodox theologians in the West as “modernist” or under the influence of Jewish or Western philosophers. Perhaps the most important commonality of Lossky, Zizioulas, Yannaras, Meyendorff, Schmemann, Florovksy, Romanides, and Staniloae was/is their commitment to a “return to the Fathers.” For a great deal of time, Greek and Russian theology languished under a “western captivity” in which Orthodox theologians abandoned patristics in favor of Roman scholasticism. Of these, the most influential has always been Lossky, in whom I was initiated thirty years ago when I first read ''The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church''. (BTW, ‘Eastern’ was not part of Lossky’s original title but was inserted at the insistence of an editor.) As it has been described by Aidan Nichols, “This study, with its identification an existentialist and personalist slant to the patristic dogmatics of, especially, Gregory of Nyssa and Maximus Confessor, soon acquired the status of a classic.” --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 17:50, May 6, 2008 (UTC)

: Please do not mix Fr. Florovsky with the reas to of the "team". Although, several of his stances were problematic, he was Orthodox theologian, apart and far from those that came out of Paris school. The "team" misused him, and now many think how he is part of the "team". He is not. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 20:12, May 7, 2008 (UTC)

:: On the contrary, Florovsky is united with Lossky, Schmemann, Meyendorff, Romanides, Yannaras and Zizioulas in calling for a return to patristic theology, rather than to continue with the religious philosophy of Bulgakov and Berdiaev, or to acquiesce in the redundant repetition of nineteenth-century Russian seminary theology (cf. Pomazansky's ''Orthodox Dogmatic Theology''). [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 13:52, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

::: It is well known that names you mentioned (except Fr. Florovsky) use such "call" to disguise their inventions and parade them as patristic. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 14:32, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

:::: It is not well known, becuase it is not correct. Anyway, it is clear that you do not understand Orthodox theology well enough to be making such claims. [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 21:22, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

== revising the Lossky sentence ==

Clearly, Fr John was not himself claiming that "to differ from Lossky" is to differ from the Fathers; he was trying to state what the reviser believes. The statement before was ambiguous, so I have edited it to make clear Fr John's intent. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 18:57, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

: Oh Lord... He can read Fr. John's mind! [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 20:09, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

:: Cebactokpatop, please don't remove a {{fact}} tag without providing the reference. [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 21:09, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

I assume that Fr John is monitoring this page and that he will correct me if I have drawn a bad inference from his comments. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 23:16, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

== Who believes that 'to differ from Lossky is to differ from patristic theology'??? ==

Could someone please provide references of some individual or group within Orthodoxy who believes that to differ from Lossky's theology is to differ from patristic theology??? I am not aware of anyone who holds this ridiculous position except Cebactokpatop. If no-one except Cebactokpatop holds this view then this sentence should be struck from the article, as Orthodoxwiki is not about providing a platform for the idiosyncratic views of one editor. [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 21:14, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

== Turcescu's Misreading of Zizioulas ==

Turcescu criticizes the Metropolitan on the question of person versus individual by indicating that St Gregory of Nyssa sometime uses ἄτομον (''atomon'') “to express the notion of the person.” Of the Cappadocians, only St Gregory uses ''atomon'' as equivalent to ''hypostasis'' or ''prosopon''. So one could stop here and say that only one of the Cappadocians followed a usage contrary to the Metropolitan’s reading. But that would still leave a misimpression. For if one thought that St Gregory was saying atomon as predicated of human persons could be predicated of divine persons ''simpliciter'', we would be left with the heresy of tritheism. But St Gregory was not foolish, which is why he never said any such thing. The other Fathers (Cappadocian or otherwise) never run the risk of confusing someone (such as Turcescu and his fervent disciple, Cebactokpatop) by using ''atomon'' as equivalent to person. While we find the Orthodox confession of three ''hypostaseis'' or three ''prosopa'', nowhere in Orthodox theology do we find the confession of three ''atoma''. Thus Turcescu’s criticism of the Metropolitan’s refusal to equate ''atomon'' with either ''prosopon'' or ''hypostasis'' can only by employed in a defense of tritheism. While at no point on these pages has Cebactokpatop ever read someone else’s posts charitably, I will give him the benefit of the doubt and not infer that he is arguing for tritheism. And if I am right about his intent (I am no mind reader, as he pointed out), then he needs to consider revising his support of Turcescu’s argument. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 00:40, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon

2008-05-09T17:32:42Z

Cebactokpatop: Undo revision 65940 by Fr Lev (Talk) Restoring original sentence by Fr John.

[[Image:Zizioulas1.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon]]
His Excellency the Most Reverend '''John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon''' (b. 1931) is a modern [[theologian]] and [[titular bishop|titular]] [[Metropolitan]] of Pergamon, under the [[Ecumenical Patriarchate]] of Constantinople.

==Life==
The future metropolitan was born [[January 10]], 1931. He began his studies at the University of Thessaloniki but took his first theology degree from the University of Athens in 1955. He studied patristics under Father Georges Florovsky at Harvard Divinity School, receiving his M.T.S. in 1956, and his doctorate in theology from the University of Athens in 1965. He was professor of theology for 14 years at the University of Glasgow and the University of Edinburgh, and has been a visiting professor at the University of Geneva, Gregorian University, and King's College, London. He was consecrated as a bishop on [[June 22]], 1986 and named Metropolitan of Pergamon.

==Theology and significance==
Metropolitan John is one of the most important Christian theologians alive today, influencing theologians in the Roman Catholic and Protestant communions as well in the Orthodox Church. Some have suggested that his 1985 book, ''Being as Communion'', is perhaps the most significant theological book of the late 20th century.

The principle themes in Metropolitan John’s theology are freedom and otherness, both human and divine. Grounding his work in the Cappadocian Fathers and St Maximus Confessor in particular, he articulates a relational ontology in which neither unity nor plurality have priority. His ''Being as Communion'' (1985) addressed the theme from the importance of communion for unity, while his later ''Communion and Otherness'' (2007) is a complementary analysis of the importance of otherness for communion. He thus takes up the ancient philosophical problem of reconciling the One and the Many, which he examines with respect to divinity (the three Persons of the Trinity and the ''monarchia'' of the Father), humanity (theological anthropology), and the Church (ecclesiology). The philosophical implications of the book extend to the human and social sciences. A further theme of the two studies is the eschatological ontology he derives from St Maximus the Confessor, in which the truly real is that which is real at the ''eschaton''. This is the subject of a new book by the Metropolitan to be released in summer 2008, ''Remembering the Future: An Eschatological Ontology''.

His first book was his doctoral dissertation in 1965, only recently published in English as ''Eucharist, Bishop, Church: The Unity of the Church in the Divine Eucharist and the Bishop During the First Three Centuries'' (2001). It was an early and significant contribution to the development of ‘eucharistic ecclesiology’, associated with [[Nicholas Afanasiev]], that focused on the essential role of the bishop as the presider of the Church’s Divine Liturgy.

Metropolitan John has become a key figure in major ecumenical dialogues between the Orthodox Church and other Christian traditions, and in 2006 succeeded Archbishop [[Stylianos (Harkianakis) of Australia|Stylianos of Australia]] as president of the Commission of Orthodox in the Dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church. Metropolitan John is also well-known for his work on the environment, particularly for his lecture series, ‘Preserving God’s Creation.’

==Books==
*''L'Être ecclésial'' (Paris: Labor et Fides, 1981). ISBN 978-2830901801.
*''E Ktise os eucharistia'' (Athens: Akritas, 1992). ISBN 978-9607006981. This would be rendered in English as ''Creation as Eucharist''.
*''Being and Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church'' (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimirs Seminary Press, 1997). ISBN 978-0881410297.
*''Eucharist, Bishop, Church: The Unity of the Church in the Divine Eucharist and the Bishop During the First Three Centuries'' (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross, 2001). ISBN 978-1885652515.
*''Ellenismos kai Christianismos: H Synantese ton duo Kosmon'' (Athens: ApostolikeDiakonia, 2003). This would be renderd in English as ''Hellenism and Christianity: The Meeting of Two Worlds''.
*''Communion & Otherness: Further Studies in Personhood and the Church'' (London: T & T Clark, 2007). ISBN 978-0567031488.
*''Remembering the Future: An Eschatological Ontology'' (London: T&T Clark, 2008). ISBN 978-0567032355.
*''Lectures in Christian Dogmatics'' (London: T&T Clark, 2009). ISBN 978-0567033154.

==Studies==
*Fox, Patricia A. ''God as Communion: John Zizioulas, Elizabeth Johnson, and the Retrieval of the Symbol of the Triune God'' (Michael Glazer, 2001). ISBN 978-0814650820.
*Knight, Douglas, ed. ''The Theology of John Zizioulas: Personhood and the Church'' (Ashgate, 2007). ISBN 978-0754654308.
*McPartlan, Paul. ''The Eucharist Makes the Church: Henri du Lubac and John Zizioulas in Dialogue''. Eastern Christian Publications, 2006. ISBN 978-1892278616.
*Papanikolaou, Aristotle. ''Being with God: Trinity, Apophaticism, and Divine-Human Communion'' (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2006). ISBN 978-0268038304.

==Criticisms==
Like many theologians, particularly those involved in theological dialogues, Metropolitan John has undergone criticism for his theological works, particularly in the areas of the patristic roots of his theology of personhood, and his ecclesiology and perspective on ecumenical relations.

===Theology of Personhood===
*Lucian Turcescu argues in ''[http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1468-0025.00202 Person versus Individual and Other Modern Misreadings of Gregory of Nyssa]'' that there are differences between patristic theology and the theology of John Zizioulas. Specifically, Turcescu argues that "Zizioulas is ... in error when he contends that the Cappadocians did not understand a person as an individual or when he credits them with having had the same concerns we moderns have when combating individualism today."2
:*These criticisms have been answered by Aristotle Papanikolaou in the same journal 3 and by Metropolitan John himself.4

* Rodoljub Lazic, in his book, ''Innovatory Theology of Metropolitan Zizioulas'' ([http://www.pravoslavlje.net/texts/InovatorskoBogoslovlje.html In Serbian], ATOS - Missionary Center, Belgrade 2002), explains why he believes the work of Zizioulas differs from traditional Orthodoxy and argues that there is a connection between Zizioulas' [[Ecumenism|ecumenical]] orientation and his theology.

* In [http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/her_saints.aspx a letter], Archbishop [http://www.synodinresistance.org/Administration_en/ChrysostomosEtna.html Chrysostomos of Etna] states that Fr [[John Meyendorff]] and Metr. John (Zizioulas) were Westernized theologians, in contrast with Fr [[Georges Florovsky]] (a teacher of Metr. John's).

* Denial of the representation of the Orthodoxy by John Zizioulas can be found in the article published by the editorial staff of the magazine [http://www.italiaortodossa.it Italia Ortodossa], a magazine of Orthodox faithful in Italy: [http://digilander.libero.it/ortodossia/Zizioulas.htm Is the Theologian Ioannis Zizioulas proclaiming Orthodoxy?]

* Peter J. Leithart's article, [http://www.leithart.com/archives/002006.php ''Divine Energies and Orthodox Soteriology''], cites the work of Papanikolaou, and points out where [[Vladimir Lossky]] and Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) differ on the issue of [[divine energies]]. His article implies criticism, based on understanding of the certain Orthodox, who see work of [[Vladimir Lossky|Prof. Lossky]] as contemporary synthesis of the patristic theology, and who therefore believe that to differ from [[Vladimir Lossky|Lossky]], is to differ from patristic theology.{{fact}}

===Ecclesiology and Ecumenical Relations===
*Rodoljub Lazić's booklet, "Innovatory Theology of Metropolitan Zizioulas" ([http://www.pravoslavlje.net/index.php?title=%D0%9D%D0%BE%D0%B2%28%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%81%D0%BA%29%D0%BE_%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%99%D0%B5_%D0%9C%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B0_%D0%97%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%98%D1%83%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%B0 in Serbian]), argues that the Metropolitan's work differs from "traditional" Orthodoxy and that there is a connection between the Metropolitan's [[Ecumenism|ecumenical]] orientation and his theology.
:*However, a former student and supporter of Metropolitan John is [[Ignatije (Midic) of Pozarevac and Branicevo|Bishop Ignjatije Midić]], Bishop of Branicevo and professor in dogmatics and ethics at the Serbian-Orthodox Theological Faculty in Belgrade.

* In an [http://www.greekorthodox.org.au/downloads/files/english/vema/2006/10bVEMA06E.doc interview with Maria Antoniadou], Archbishop [[Stylianos (Harkianakis) of Australia|Stylianos of Australia]] criticizes John Zizioulas for his stance on [[Uniatism]], questioning his status as a systematic theologian.6

* Hieromonk Patapios, in his article, [http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/review_toc.aspx ''A Traditionalist Critique of The Orthodox Church''], criticized ecumenistic [http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/methierotheos_baptism.aspx Baptismal theology] as espoused by Metr. John.

*The 1971 article, ''[http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/mono_2.aspx Concerning the Approaching Orthodox – Monophysite Union]'', gives Metr. John as an example of a "muddled theologian" in his views on Severus of Antioch.

*Some are concerned by his reliance of non-Orthodox sources on his thought in both areas, pointing out the influence of French Catholic theologians [[w:Henri de Lubac|Henri de Lubac]] and [[w:Yves Congar|Yves Congar]], as well as [[w:Martin Buber|Martin Buber]] and [[w:John Macmurray|John Macmurray]]. 3

== Notes ==
1 ''Modern Theology'' 18:4, October 2002, 527-539.

2 ''Ibid'', p.537.

3 "Is John Zizioulas an Existentialist in Disguise? Response to Lucian Turcescu," ''Modern Theology'' 20:4, October 2004, pp. 601-607).

4 In ''Communion and Otherness'', pp. 171-177.

5 ATOS Missionary Center, Belgrade, 2002.

6 In an [http://www.greekorthodox.org.au/downloads/files/english/vema/2006/10bVEMA06E.doc interview with Maria Antoniadou].

==External links==
*[http://www.google.com/notebook/public/12711690312044536402/BDQpBQwoQsNvyxpsi List of Works by John of Pergamon]
*[http://orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/resources/hierarchs/constantinople/currenta.htm#john_metr_pergamon His Eminence John, Metropolitan of Pergamon] from the Orthodox Research Institute
*[http://www.oodegr.com/english/dogmatiki1/perieh.htm Dogmatics notes] - "These are the notes that were taken from the lessons of Professor I. Zizioulas (current Metropolitan of Pergamus and Chairman of the Athens Academy) at the Poemantic Division of the Thessaloniki University's School of Theology, during the academic year 1984-1985. They are published with the blessing and the permission of the reverend Metropolitan."
*[[:Wikipedia:John Zizioulas|John Zizioulas (Wikipedia)]]
*[http://www.resourcesforchristiantheology.org/?cat=11 Resources for Christian Theology: John Zizioulas]

{{Start box}}
{{succession|
before=?|
title=Metropolitan of Pergamon|
years=1986 - present|
after=—}}
{{End box}}

[[Category:Bishops]]
[[Category:Modern Writers]]

Talk:John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon

2008-05-09T12:50:23Z

Cebactokpatop: /* The influence of Buber */

*[[Talk:John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon/Archive 1|Archive 1]] - from article creation (2007) to end of March 2008.
*[[Talk:John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon/Archive 2|Archive 2]] - from April 2008.

== Reversion ==

I've rolled back [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]]'s recent major changes (essentially for reasons detailed throughout this Talk page)—perhaps it was a mistake to unprotect the article again so soon. I'll leave it unprotected for now, hoping that Agenda-driven edits won't take over again. If they do, and especially if they're from [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]], it may be necessary to introduce a ban on that editor for a time. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:07, April 30, 2008 (UTC)

: Your revert without even reading the changes I put in is another proof that this website has no interest in expressing the reality that exists in The Church, but rather fictitious visions of several individuals claiming to be "fr". [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 18:30, April 30, 2008 (UTC)

:: Oh, trust me—I read them. Anyway, [[w:Talk:John Zizioulas]], along with your Agenda here, demonstrate that you're not interested in pursuing the editing of an encyclopedia in a calm manner. Indeed, your above condemnation of our many thousands of editors ''en masse'' is a pretty clear indication that you're not interested in good faith editing. As noted on your Talk page, your account has been banned. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:33, April 30, 2008 (UTC)

::: Your action against my account was illegal. It represented misjudgment on your side, which resulted in misuse of your sysops powers. Consequently, your error was reverted by Fr. John. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 18:21, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

:::: Illegal? Are you planning to sue me now? (In what court?) —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:25, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

== Enough ==

This is an Orthodox Website which for many people is a valuable source of knowledge. The attacks against His Eminence Metropolitan John of Pergamon, or any other hierarch of the Holy Orthodox Church, are not necessary on this forum. Whilst I don't share the same ecclesiological opinions as His Eminence, I have no right as a member of the Church to criticise him. Please, for the sake of those young people who use this website for edification, cease these attacks on the hierachy of the One, Holy Orthodox Church. - Peter Mav

:I also agree Peter, it would be a good idea if the discussion around this Father of the church is put on hold and indeed perhaps we should pray for the poor dear's soul as the amount of negativity emitted towards him is very unfair! I say, lets all work towards continuing to build Orthodox articles not critical defences to be used in a court of law. I dont even know why he is controversial :-) Like Mother Molania said in her talk from [[Ancient Faith Radio]], Insane people associating with insane people can not become sane ...only the Saints are "sane"! Chit chatting, keeps US in INSANITY! [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 09:32, May 1, 2008 (UTC)

:: That is precisely why all over the article of Metropolitan John and other contemporary Orthodox theologians we should print in big bold letters: “DO NOT BASE YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE ORTHODOXY ON WIRITINGS OF THIS CONTEMPORARIES WHOSE THEOLOGY IS NOT VERIFIED BY THE HISTORY YET. USE THEOLOGY OF THE HOLY FATHERS INSTEAD.”

:: We do not want to educate young people with the thought of the potentially problematic theologians like m. John (and fr. Schmmemmann, fr. Mayendorff, fr. Afanasiev, etc. – students of the “Paris school of Orthodoxy”). If you want to discuss it further, and you know more appropriate place (e.g. private forum), we can go there and continue.

:: [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 14:59, May 1, 2008 (UTC)

::: This is an encyclopedia, not a catechism. We're not in the business of putting big warning labels on articles about modern writers, especially those who are generally quite well-regarded throughout the Orthodox world, such as nearly everyone you mention.

::: That they are criticized by certain minority sectors of Orthodoxy is certainly a viable element for their respective articles, but that criticism should not be the dominant theme of the article, which would be undue weight. The impression a reader should get ought to be based on how the writer is regarded throughout the Orthodox Church, not on the idiosyncratic criticisms of a few, especially not regarding someone who's never even been accused by the proper authorities (much less condemned by them).

::: In any event, any general overview of Orthodoxy makes it plain that our theological emphasis is on the Scriptures and the Holy Fathers, not on any modern writer. If someone gets his entire impression of Orthodoxy or education in the faith from a single article on OrthodoxWiki, well, he's going about it wrong. One would hope that common sense would make that clear. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:31, May 1, 2008 (UTC)

I agree with some points raised by all who have responded. I am still concerned however, because I know a lot of youths use this website for introductory information and not having extensive knowledge or sometimes even the spiritual grounding can be scandalised. Obviously, mentioning that this hierarch's teachings are not accepted by some is good, encyclopaedic knowledge but some of the criticisms prior to their removal were not beneficial to the soul of anyone. I apologise if I have offended anyone. - Peter Mav

: In the above response of user Andrew we find the basis for the entire dispute. He is saying that Metropolitan John is ''"regarded throughout the Orthodox Church"'' and being ''"criticized by certain minority sectors of Orthodoxy"'', which is completely untrue/false/wrong/misguiding/misleading/etc. Vast majority of Orthodoxy exists beyond US shoreline, and even beyond English speaking world. Sooner that group of the individuals realize that, sooner we will get synergy in our actions. Such a fringe and perverted view of position of m. John in Orthodoxy is what user Andrew and couple of other individuals kept promoting, constantly trying to minimize the number and extent of the critics. It is best evident in the current version of the article, when in the criticism section they put reference to Bishop Ignjatije, who praises his work. What is that reference doing there? [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 12:54, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

I think that the user Fr Andrew is correct in his assessment. Lest anyone get the impression that the Serbian Church has somehow made a judgement that Metropolitan John is heterodox, I thought it worthwhile to note that a bishop and professor of theology in Serbia is a strong supporter of Metropolitan John's work. Anytime anyone disagrees with Cebactokpatop, he resorts to personal attack (both here and in the Wikipedia article). He has attacked and dismissed not only the other editors and Metropolitan John, but also:
*Bishop Kallistos Ware ("Ecumenist buddy of JZ")
*Christos Yannaras ("Ecumenist buddy of JZ")
*Fr John Meyendorff ("Heterodox", along with Schmmemann and Afanasiev)
*Fr Boris Bobrinskoy ("never heard of this guy"): I can't help it if Cebactokpatop hasn't heard of the dean of the St Sergius Institute in Paris, but then again, he dismisses the Paris school as "heterodox."
*Bishop Ignjatije Midić ("ecumenist... who can hardly be called a theologian, as he is almost not writing anything"): Well, in addition to being bishop of Branicevo, he is professor of dogmatics and ethics at the Serbian theological institute in Belgrade and is the author of a new book on dogmatics.
*Aristotle Papanikolaou ("Another buddy of JZ"), etc.

When I mentioned Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos, his only response was "Are you sure?" The answer to that is, Yes. If one checks the several references to Metropolitan John in Metropolitan Hierotheos' book on the person, one finds they are all very positive. On a personal note, having just finished reading ''Communion and Otherness'' and looking through ''Being as Communion'' again, I do not see how anyone who carefully read them could give any credence to the charges Cebactokpatop has made, not least of which is the absurd charge of heterodoxy. Aprt from the Serbian text he cites by Lazic and the interview with Archbishop Stylianos, NONE of the sources he cites as criticisms draw his conclusions. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 13:51, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

:: You are certainly entitled to support JZ and other individuals from Paris school of "orthodoxy". However, you are not entitled to personally dismiss me for providing valid academic resources that criticize JZ or any other product of mentioned school in Paris. From the list of the articles you contributed to, we can clearly see that your faith is in Paris. Orthodox who prefer to have their faith elswhere (e.g. Cappadocia), have a right to express their dissatisfaction with the innovations of Paris' school as well. You have done a great job in prizing JZ's work in the article. Now it is a time to balance it with the concerns of the Traditional Orthodox, Mr. Puhalo. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 17:43, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

::: Methinks you have Fr. Lev confused with Abp. [[Lazar (Puhalo) of Ottawa]]. They're not the same person. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:02, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

:::: Are you sure about that my friend? I am beyond reasonable doubts... they are the same person. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 18:10, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

::::: Based on what? The name "Lev"? —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:31, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

ROTFL! I have been accused of many things in my life, but never of being an archbishop! --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 19:12, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

: You are right. You are not an Archbishop. To become the one, it would require valid canonical ordination. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 19:14, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

Another personal attack -- ''quelle surprise''! I was "canonically" ordained, BTW, by a "canonical" bishop of a "canonical" patriarchal Church. I know who I am, but I have no idea who Cebactokpatop is. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 19:30, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

: Whatever. I am not interested in "canonicity" of your ordination (if any). What I am interested in, is making sure you understand that current version of the article is not balanced, as you intentionally (or not) tried to minimize criticisms of JZ. Do you understand that? If you do, it would be easier for me to go in and try to balance it so that readers do not get an impression that they have before them, article about some "saint". [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 20:12, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

::Ok, enough everyone with the personal back and forth. I agree that the article should also present criticisms fairly and rationally. Cebactokpatop, I am concerned by your personal attacks, which at least in some cases are totally unfounded, and to my mind, crazy (e.g. Fr Lev is not Archbp Lazar!). If this kind of stuff continues, I'm going to freeze this page. I've just edited the article to incorporate some of the material present in earlier drafts. — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk]) 21:17, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

:::I agree. While I normally say very little on Orthodoxwiki (I'm not a scholar of complex dogma or theology, nor do I wish or claim to be), I've been lurking around this discussion and reading what everyone has said. Cebactokpatop, I think it would behoove you to take a leaf from Frs. Andrew and John, as well as the other sysops and users here on Orthodoxwiki. They've been extremely charitable with you when they have received so very little from you in these discussions. When they indulge your vitriol, you reward them with ad hominem attacks, questioning their identities, and even going so far as to question the canonicity of people's ordinations with temerity (although you deny this, it is clearly evident that you do so). You ask readers and writers to address your edits with "proper academic attire." Yet, I have to ask the physician to heal himself with respect to your paranoia and derision. Fr. Andrew, specifically, has not only responded to you in a very Christ-like manner, but has been nothing short of a gentleman in dealing with you.

:::I ask, in the future, when you are a guest of other wikis and forums, you try to act in a similar manner.[[User:Mike|Mike]] 21:55, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

== Material for Inclusion ==

* [[Fr. John Behr]] in the aticle ''"The Trinitarian Being of the Church"'', argues that Zizioulas' use of The Three as an archetype for The Church, when he establishes communion of The Church as an image of the communion od The Three, ends up dismissing both - The Three and The Church. ''(St Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 48:1 (2004), 67-88)'' {{unsigned|Cebactokpatop}}

In reviewing Fr John Behr's essay, I don't see it saying anything to suggest that Metropolitan John's view ends us "dismissing" the Trinity and the Church. I'd like to see the quote and page number that is alleged to say that. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 22:54, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

: Any suggestions on how to reword Fr. Behr's criticism? Isn't this dismissal of The Church: ''"What is said of the Church is certainly based upon what is said of the Trinity, but the effect of speaking in this manner, paradoxically, is that the Church is separated from God, as a distinct entity reflecting the divine being."'' (page 68) Church without ties to God does not exist, even though, it may perfectly mimic the Three. At the same time, we do not know The Three without Their Church. It is The Church that is left behind to proclaim The Three. Disconnect JZ creates, dismisses The Church, and conequenly blind us from The Three, which equates to dismissal. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 03:43, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

== What counts as "academic criticism"? ==

Fr John, I find your floowing edit problematic: "Peter J. Leithart's article, Divine Energies and Orthodox Soteriology, cites the work of Papanikolaou, and points out where Vladimir Lossky and Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) differ on the issue of divine energies. His article implies criticism, based on understanding of the certain Orthodox, who see work of Prof. Lossky as contemporary synthesis of the patristic theology. Thus, to differ from Prof. Lossky, is to differ from patristic theology."

(1) Leithart in no way understands hie article to be critical of Metropolitan John. Not only is that clear from actually reading the article, but he has confirmed that in personal correspondence. (2) There is nothing here to indicate there is any substantive problem with what Metropolitan John says about the essence/energies distinction. (3) If an undergraduate wrote in an academic paper the sentence, "Thus, to differ from Prof. Lossky, is to differ from patristic theology", there wouldn't get a very good grade. Lossky is a personal theological hereo of mine, but I don't know any serious theologian who would judge him to be the sole criterion of Orthodoxy. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 23:13, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

: Indeed, no. Lossky himself has been criticized by major figures in the 20th century, e.g., Staniloae, who's no theological slouch himself. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 02:42, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:: Zizioulas and Meyendorff fell into the pit trying to criticise either Lossky or St. Gregory Palamas, as both of them are not capable of grasping what those two champions were writing about. Area related to the Holy Spirit is unknown and incomprehensible to these "eucharistic ecclesiologians" who understand bodily portion only, based on instructions from RCC theologians Mr. Congar and Mr. Lubac. In order to understand The Spirit, one has to now The Spirit of Orthodoxy. Paris school is so far from that Spirit that their theology consequently, can not be in the Spirit of Orthodoxy. In order to "bring closer" Orthodoxy to Rome (ecumenists), they have to introduce some other spirit - that is spirit of Rome. Orthodox Spirit can never get any closer to Rome than in past 1000 years. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 02:59, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::: An interesting analysis, but I fail to see how this is relevant to the task at hand, which is summarizing reliable secondary sources into an encyclopedia entry which represents the mainstream Chalcedonian viewpoint and takes minor note of other relevant viewpoints. Personal attacks are not really germane—how do you know what Meyendorff or Metr. John are "capable of grasping"? —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 03:08, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:::: That was my response on your assertion: "Lossky himself has been criticized" with my addition of Meyendorff and St. Gregory as another example of the same failure. JZ in his bible Being as Commununion "showed" how Lossky "was wrong". [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 03:15, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

== Should criticism be 'mainstream'? ==

I have read repeatedly that OrthoWiki is about "mainstream" Orthodoxy. Some of the criticism included here is, e.g., from Old Calendarists, who condemn most of the Churches represented here for using the Revised Julian calendar or for ecumenism. Nothing against Old Calendarist "resistance" synods and hyper-traditionalists, but what relevance should their criticism have in a minstream venue such as this? Given that they make the same criticisms of Bishop Kallistos, Fr Alexander Schmemann, Fr John Meyendorff, Christos Yannaras, etc., as they do of Metropolitan John, why should this be included? And all to satisfy one editor whose personal animus is clear? What will come next? When he became convinced "beyond reasonable doubts" that I am Abp Lazar Puhalo, he immediately went to the page on the Archbishop to write negative comments. I am waiting for him to add "criticism" sections to the articles on Bishop Kallistos, Fr Alexander Schmemann, et al., in which they, too, are denounced as heterodox ecumenists of the Paris School. What is to stop him? After all, he can find a blog or an online article by or quoting Heiromonk Patapios or Archbishop Chrysostomos casting aspersions on the orthodoxy of them all. He has dismissed Bishop Ignatije (Midic) of Pozarevac and Branicevo. Look what passes for "criticism" in the link he provided on that page -- a blog entry with a paragraph of Bishop Ignatije. No argument. Even the priest who wrote the blog wasn't sure that the paragraph was a true representation of Bishop Ignatije. This is the "criticism" that should be included in an encyclopedia article? --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 00:59, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

: I think your point is well made. The so-called "Traditionalist Orthodox" are explicitly not given a soapbox here, as per the [[OW:NPOV|MCB]]. If there seems to be a united front against the subject of an article from those sectors, it is enough to mention it briefly, but not to allow it to dominate an article.

: In any event, what is clear is that Metr. John is generally quite highly regarded throughout the Orthodox Church, which is explicitly defined on OrthodoxWiki as [[List of autocephalous and autonomous churches|this list]], i.e., the Mainstream Chalcedonian churches. Metr. John is not a controversial figure by any means, and the article should reflect that. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 02:37, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

: I dod not provide any link to Bishop Ignjatije. Please stop telling false stories. Also, "resistance" Orthodox are in dogmatics same as Orthodox, which makes them valid in their criticisms. What they differ about is heresy over all heresies - ecumenism, and masonic infux into Orthodoxy - [[Meletios IV (Metaxakis) of Constantinople]]. It appears that those who praise Paris school of "orthodoxy" support ecumenism, and logically, regard "reistance" Orthodox as lesser Orthodox than Vatican! [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 02:47, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:: If I am mistaken in how I read the OrthoWiki history page on the article, my apology. But it seems to say you created that link at 21:53 on May 2, 2008: http://orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Ignatije_%28Midic%29_of_Pozarevac_and_Branicevo&diff=65572&oldid=42851
--[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 02:54, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:: [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]], all of this is essentially irrelevant. The do-it-yourself "Celtic Orthodox" gent who lives near here and visits our church every so often is also quite likely "in dogmatics same as Orthodox," but I'm not about to interview him for this article.

:: The point is that what the "resistance/True/Genuine/Traditionalist/etc." groups think is only of relatively small importance on most OrthodoxWiki articles. Whatever one may think of the so-called "Paris School" (whatever that may mean—does that simply mean St. Sergius Institute?), it currently is part of and accepted by mainstream Orthodoxy, while by comparison the "resistance/True/Genuine/Traditionalist/etc." groups are fringe. Their opinions on Metr. John are irrelevant. Perhaps if one of them had engaged in some major debate with him, they might be relevant.

:: One doesn't have to be an "ecumenist" or a Freemason or an Ultramontanist sympathizer in order to see that giving undue weight to the opinions of such folks is essentially a violation of the explicit bias of OrthodoxWiki. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 02:57, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::: I repeat - I did not produce any link related to Bishop Ignjatije. All I did on his page was to convert section listing his writings from latin into cyrillic.

::: It appears to me that both of you want to minimize amount and extent of the criticisms for some reason. Can you provide a valid reason for your attempts to blind the public? [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 03:08, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:::: It's not a question of eliminating criticism (OrthodoxWiki articles are replete with descriptions of criticism, which is clear from even a cursory browsing of the site)—it's where it's coming from and how much is actually appropriate to represent the mainstream view on the subject matter. Piling an article high with criticisms from fringe sources is not consistent with the policies of OrthodoxWiki, nor does it do anyone a service. "The public" are not "blinded" by an attempt to write balanced articles consistent with OrthodoxWiki policies. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 03:11, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::::: I have a problem with your statements simply because all of the disputes I had here were about same thing - constant denial of the criticisms from several individuals who disguise their denial under the mask of "policies", "encyclopedia", "POV/NPOV", etc. What is balanced for you? To praise his work on two pages, and then mention critics in a mild form just to satisfy annoyances like myself? [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 03:20, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::::::And you don't see a problem with all disputes being about the same thing? This is (or endeavours to be, either/or) a ''Mainstream Chalcedonian Orthodox encyclopedia''. This is fairly explicit in intent and focus. The scholarly attacks on Metr. John provided have been more attack than scholarly (quite a number of them are mere citations or references to Metr. John, rather than any theological grappling), and the few scholars have willingly placed themselves outside of the Mainstream Chalcedonian Orthodoxy that we are ''explicitly'' putting forward.
::::::There have been others who have attempted to browbeat OW into submission for their own agendas - Ben Lomond and Western Rite talk pages are replete with arguments attempting to convince OW that it should not follow it's own ''explicit'' bias towards Mainstream Chalcedonian Orthodoxy. It's not like OW is claiming to be something that it's not. — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 01:49, May 5, 2008 (UTC)

::::::: I do not know what is "Chalcedonian Orthodoxy". I know what Orthodoxy is vs. heterodoxy, namely: Monophysitism, Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, etc. Can you, please, define the term you were using? Thanks. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 18:30, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

::::::::I can do better than that: OrthodoxWiki provides a definition of those terms in the [[OW:MCB|POV section of the Style Manual]]. ''You need to read this''. In short, the terms are used, not because of the existence or nonexistence of any non-Chalcedonian Orthodoxy (that's not actually the point) - rather, the point is of general usage. Many groups take the term Orthodox onto themselves when they are, at most, little-o orthodox (and usually far less), which pushes OW to be quite explicit in its terms. Hence, Mainstream (i.e. one of the 14/15 autocephalous Churches or their autonomous Churches), Chalcedonian (i.e. accepting of the Fourth Ecumenical Council) Orthodox. Whether the adjectives are tautological or otherwise is neither here nor there, but they serve to explain a concept. — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 12:17, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

::::::::: But that leads to the affirmation of their self proclaimed "orthodoxy". If you characterize Orthodoxy as "Chalcedonian", immediately, you affirm existence of other "orthodoxies", that are "slightly" different. Mainstream Orthodoxy has never been characterized in any way, at least, not in the East. In the West, we find characterizations like "Eastern Orthodox", that has geographical connotations, and not theological. I would suggest to OW not to try to distinguish itself from the "orthodox" by adding some "names", but rather, through the explanation of the teachings to make sure visitor understands that entire site is about Orthodoxy. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 12:37, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

::::::::::It does not, which you would know ''if you had read the [[OW:MCB|relevant section]] of the [[OW:SM|Style Manual]]''. Once again, "''you need to read this''", so that you know what OW is and how to edit in OW, rather than against it. — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 12:47, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

== Just a thought ==

It seems to me that this article is basically supposed to be a biographical introduction to Metr. John. While mention of the variety of opinions expressed about his work can, and probably should, be mentioned, it seems to me that this is not the proper forum for a detailed discussion (and listing) of these opinions. Half of the article, as it stands, is concerned with criticism and responses to that criticism and that seems rather unbalanced for something that is trying to be an encyclopedic entry.

I am not sure where a discussion of all these opinions should take place, or even whether OrthodoxWiki is the right forum for such a discussion. It just seems to me that this particular page is not the place for it.

Just my two cents, and with this I leave this debate.

In the risen Christ,
[[User:Vandrona|Fr. Peter]]

:Hi Fr. Peter, Thanks for your comments on this. It is indeed a hard call, but I do think that part of the role OrthodoxWiki plays is precisely in pushing for an articulation of controversial issues in church life. Obviously, so many of the criticisms of Metropolitan John's work are not just about him, but are about a particular movement or trend within Orthodox theology. I really want to see as precise and accurate overview of this debate as possible. Again, I do think this itself is a good service to the community. I'm not interested in personal attacks or blanket condemnations, etc. but am very interested in thoughtful criticisms or defenses. I'm curious about what others think. — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk]) 09:27, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::Hello, Fr. John. I apologize for the lack of clarity in my original post, so I will try to briefly clarify what I was trying to say. First off, having thought about it and read your reply, it does make sense that the wiki is a good place to articulate controversial issues. In which case I meant to suggest following a Wikipedia approach: having a mention of the controversial issue on the biographical page with a link to an article specifically dedicated to the issue being debated (e.g., "Theology of John Zizioulas"). That way we can avoid the contentious section being longer than the rest of the article. We also get another page where all the relevant references can be quoted and noted (hopefully...), rather than simply having somewhat vague mentions in the vein of "Metr. John has addressed this criticism." [[User:Vandrona|Fr. Peter]]

I notice a minor edit "struggle" over the sentence someone wrote and I restored: "His article implies criticism, based on understanding of the certain Orthodox, who see work of [[Vladimir Lossky|Prof. Lossky]] as contemporary synthesis of the patristic theology. Thus, to differ from [[Vladimir Lossky|Prof. Lossky]], is to differ from patristic theology." This had been changed to "This article would be critical if seen through the ideology of [[Vladimir Lossky|Prof. Lossky]]'s work as being a contemporary synthesis of patristic theology." I think I understand the reason for this change -- the original sentence is rather vague and difficult to make sense of (it may be that the original author's primary language was not English), but I'm not sure the cleanup help makes the meaning any clearer. Perhaps somehow can expain this better, but for now I going to revert this again. — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk]) 09:27, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:Because the article is only a critical article if Lossky is held up as a synthesis of patristic theology. If the Lossky=Theology standpoint is not taken, the article is not critical at all, merely comparative. As I don't know how one would even go about justifying the Lossky=Theology standpoint, I don't think that the article is criticism at all, and shouldn't be there. — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 01:37, May 5, 2008 (UTC)

:: For that reason, sentence states: ''"based on understanding of the '''certain Orthodox''', who '''see work of [[Vladimir Lossky|Prof. Lossky]] as contemporary synthesis of the patristic theology'''"''. I think it is clearly explained, why and under what condition, article of Mr. Leithart is seen by ''"certain Orthodox"'' as criticism, unintentional though, but, still criticism. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 13:14, May 5, 2008 (UTC)

:::Sad irony: such a viewpoint of Lossky isn't Orthodox. We do not take any one author as being perfect, theologically or otherwise - which explains how Staniloae can disagree with Lossky and yet not be thrown out of the Church. The question is whether the article ''is'' critical, not whether it can be misinterpreted into criticism. — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 19:30, May 5, 2008 (UTC)

== Selective reading of Papankolaou ==

Cebactokpatop has attempted to make hay of Papanikolaou's statement (in a footnote) that Metropolitan John has acknowledged in a private converstion that the Metropolitan was "influenced" by some secular philosophers, as if this is a "proof text" of some sort. The first thing to say is that this is something the Metropolitan has acknowledged in his own writing. I somehow get the impression that Cebactokpatop saw Papanikolaou's statement as a "smoking gun." But if one reads the text of the page (159) that is footnoted, one sees Papanikolaou saying a couple of things that Cebactokpatop is intentionally ignoring. The ironic one is that fact that Papanikolaou notes that the same charge of being influenced by modern personalism has been made against Lossky, as well as Metropolitan John. Thus he cherry-picks a charge that Papanikolaou points out is made against Lossky, his ''sine qua non'' of Orthodoxy. And, of course, Papanikolaou acquits both theologians. He goes on to cite the differences between the Metropolitan and those modern philosophers and that, for the Metropolitan, only a Trinitarian theology that affirms the monarchy of the Father can provide an adequate theology of personhood. As Papanikolaou says, "[Zizioulas} and Lossky are no more superimposing a philosophical system on the Eastern patristic writers than did these same writers Hellenize the teachings of Jesus" (160). Metropolitan John and Lossky simply have done what the Fathers did -- "thinking about the authoritative texts of the tradition in light of the questions, challenges, and prevailing philosophical currents of their time" (ibid). {{unsigned|Fr Lev}}

== The influence of Buber ==

I have forgotten to mention that I've read in several places that Martin Buber, not to mention other Western philosophers, were important influences on the theology of [[Dumitru Staniloae]]. Turcescu mentions elsewhere that "In ''Dogmatics'', Staniloae tried to blend in a very creative fashion patristic insights with contemporary theology, both Western and Eastern" (in ''The Teachings of Modern Orthodox Christianity on Law, Politics, & Human Nature'', p. 300). --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 12:08, May 6, 2008 (UTC)

: I honestly don't see what's so damning about having non-Orthodox influence on one's thinking, particularly since it's obvious from even a cursory reading of the ancient Fathers that their thinking was profoundly influenced by not just heterodox, but ''pagan'' sources. In any event, it's pretty hard even to function in the world without some sort of non-Orthodox influence on one's thinking.

: The question is whether one's teaching is Orthodox or not (not who or what influenced it), and in our Tradition no ruling can be made on this question without episcopal (synodal, in the case of a bishop being in question) authority. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 12:28, May 6, 2008 (UTC)

:: I think that we can not separate the two. One's heterodox influences bring up next logical question - Has one's theology escaped from the captivity of the influences (sources)? Very good example of this question can be found in the criticism of Fr. Schmmemmann by Fr. Pomazansky. Answer to that question is decisive on whether one's theology is Orthodox or heterodox. In the book Being as Communion, there are numerous references to heterodox writings and many assertions of JZ are based on them. For example, on pages 164-165, JZ talks about "individualities" and "persons" referring to the M. Buber... who made clear distinction between the two, making them antonyms. However, as Turcescu already provided in his article, St. Gregory of Nyssa used both terms as synonyms. In this example, heterodox influence prevailed in the thought of JZ over the Orthodox, resulting in his thought being heterodox as well. If he were to follow Orthodox thought od St. Gregory, we would not have this dispute over his work. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 12:55, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

::: From the fact that Zizioulas borrows a conceptual distinction between persons and individuals from Martin Buber, it does not follow that his thought is heterodox. It is logically fallacious to argue that 'Since X borrows from Y; and since Y is heterodox; therefore X is heterodox.' At most, Turcescu's article establishes that Zizioulas uses some words in different ways than St Gregory of Nyssa. But that does not make Zizioulas heterodox.

::: Also, the claims made by Turscescu have been challenged (both by Zizioulas and others); as such, they cannot be appealed to as authoritative.

::: Moreover, as far as I can see, there is no dispute over the thought of Metropolitan John. All that exists is Cebactokpatop trying to insert anti-Zizioulas polemic into the article, with everyone else telling him that he is being unreasonable and incivil. [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 13:46, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

:::: It wouldn't follow under one condition - if it was not contrary to Orthodox. Since JZ adapted his thought to Buber's, whose definitions of terms "individual" and "person" are contrary to those of St. Gregory, his thought, consequently is based on foundations contrary to Orthodoxy. His direct adoption of heterodox definitions without revising them and providing content that is in line with Orthodoxy, pushed his thought outside to the sea of heterodoxy... [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 14:39, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

::::: Again you fail to understand the point. Zizioulas found a particular way of speaking (the distinction between person and individual) helpful in articulating Orthodox theology in dialogue with the concerns of existentialist thinking. He uses 'individual' as a shorthand for a human being whose mode of existence is selfish and in rejection of the love of God; he uses 'person' as a shorthand for a human being whose mode of existence is ecclesial. It is not heterodox to distinguish between these different modes of existence. Your failure to grasp this suggests that you do not understand Zizioulas' thought. [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 21:20, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

:::::: "Shorthands" for various "modes of existence" he uses he calls "hypostases": biological, ecclesial, eucharistic, etc. If you were to read his bible Being as Communion, you could have possibly noted that. In his thought, hypostases come and go depending on the mood of the individual (person) in the morning. Does anyone know any patristic reference to "modes of existence" being called "hypostases"? So... Consequently, as per his thought, in the Holy Three, we have three "modes of existence". How was this historical Trinitarian heresy being called? Please remind me... [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 12:50, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

==The Neopatristic Revival==
One of the great ironies of this back and forth has been the characterization of a number of important Orthodox theologians in the West as “modernist” or under the influence of Jewish or Western philosophers. Perhaps the most important commonality of Lossky, Zizioulas, Yannaras, Meyendorff, Schmemann, Florovksy, Romanides, and Staniloae was/is their commitment to a “return to the Fathers.” For a great deal of time, Greek and Russian theology languished under a “western captivity” in which Orthodox theologians abandoned patristics in favor of Roman scholasticism. Of these, the most influential has always been Lossky, in whom I was initiated thirty years ago when I first read ''The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church''. (BTW, ‘Eastern’ was not part of Lossky’s original title but was inserted at the insistence of an editor.) As it has been described by Aidan Nichols, “This study, with its identification an existentialist and personalist slant to the patristic dogmatics of, especially, Gregory of Nyssa and Maximus Confessor, soon acquired the status of a classic.” --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 17:50, May 6, 2008 (UTC)

: Please do not mix Fr. Florovsky with the reas to of the "team". Although, several of his stances were problematic, he was Orthodox theologian, apart and far from those that came out of Paris school. The "team" misused him, and now many think how he is part of the "team". He is not. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 20:12, May 7, 2008 (UTC)

:: On the contrary, Florovsky is united with Lossky, Schmemann, Meyendorff, Romanides, Yannaras and Zizioulas in calling for a return to patristic theology, rather than to continue with the religious philosophy of Bulgakov and Berdiaev, or to acquiesce in the redundant repetition of nineteenth-century Russian seminary theology (cf. Pomazansky's ''Orthodox Dogmatic Theology''). [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 13:52, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

::: It is well known that names you mentioned (except Fr. Florovsky) use such "call" to disguise their inventions and parade them as patristic. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 14:32, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

:::: It is not well known, becuase it is not correct. Anyway, it is clear that you do not understand Orthodox theology well enough to be making such claims. [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 21:22, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

== revising the Lossky sentence ==

Clearly, Fr John was not himself claiming that "to differ from Lossky" is to differ from the Fathers; he was trying to state what the reviser believes. The statement before was ambiguous, so I have edited it to make clear Fr John's intent. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 18:57, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

: Oh Lord... He can read Fr. John's mind! [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 20:09, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

:: Cebactokpatop, please don't remove a {{fact}} tag without providing the reference. [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 21:09, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

I assume that Fr John is monitoring this page and that he will correct me if I have drawn a bad inference from his comments. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 23:16, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

== Who believes that 'to differ from Lossky is to differ from patristic theology'??? ==

Could someone please provide references of some individual or group within Orthodoxy who believes that to differ from Lossky's theology is to differ from patristic theology??? I am not aware of anyone who holds this ridiculous position except Cebactokpatop. If no-one except Cebactokpatop holds this view then this sentence should be struck from the article, as Orthodoxwiki is not about providing a platform for the idiosyncratic views of one editor. [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 21:14, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

== Turcescu's Misreading of Zizioulas ==

Turcescu criticizes the Metropolitan on the question of person versus individual by indicating that St Gregory of Nyssa sometime uses ἄτομον (''atomon'') “to express the notion of the person.” Of the Cappadocians, only St Gregory uses ''atomon'' as equivalent to ''hypostasis'' or ''prosopon''. So one could stop here and say that only one of the Cappadocians followed a usage contrary to the Metropolitan’s reading. But that would still leave a misimpression. For if one thought that St Gregory was saying atomon as predicated of human persons could be predicated of divine persons ''simpliciter'', we would be left with the heresy of tritheism. But St Gregory was not foolish, which is why he never said any such thing. The other Fathers (Cappadocian or otherwise) never run the risk of confusing someone (such as Turcescu and his fervent disciple, Cebactokpatop) by using ''atomon'' as equivalent to person. While we find the Orthodox confession of three ''hypostaseis'' or three ''prosopa'', nowhere in Orthodox theology do we find the confession of three ''atoma''. Thus Turcescu’s criticism of the Metropolitan’s refusal to equate ''atomon'' with either ''prosopon'' or ''hypostasis'' can only by employed in a defense of tritheism. While at no point on these pages has Cebactokpatop ever read someone else’s posts charitably, I will give him the benefit of the doubt and not infer that he is arguing for tritheism. And if I am right about his intent (I am no mind reader, as he pointed out), then he needs to consider revising his support of Turcescu’s argument. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 00:40, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

Talk:John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon

2008-05-09T12:38:07Z

Cebactokpatop: /* Should criticism be 'mainstream'? */

*[[Talk:John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon/Archive 1|Archive 1]] - from article creation (2007) to end of March 2008.
*[[Talk:John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon/Archive 2|Archive 2]] - from April 2008.

== Reversion ==

I've rolled back [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]]'s recent major changes (essentially for reasons detailed throughout this Talk page)—perhaps it was a mistake to unprotect the article again so soon. I'll leave it unprotected for now, hoping that Agenda-driven edits won't take over again. If they do, and especially if they're from [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]], it may be necessary to introduce a ban on that editor for a time. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:07, April 30, 2008 (UTC)

: Your revert without even reading the changes I put in is another proof that this website has no interest in expressing the reality that exists in The Church, but rather fictitious visions of several individuals claiming to be "fr". [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 18:30, April 30, 2008 (UTC)

:: Oh, trust me—I read them. Anyway, [[w:Talk:John Zizioulas]], along with your Agenda here, demonstrate that you're not interested in pursuing the editing of an encyclopedia in a calm manner. Indeed, your above condemnation of our many thousands of editors ''en masse'' is a pretty clear indication that you're not interested in good faith editing. As noted on your Talk page, your account has been banned. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:33, April 30, 2008 (UTC)

::: Your action against my account was illegal. It represented misjudgment on your side, which resulted in misuse of your sysops powers. Consequently, your error was reverted by Fr. John. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 18:21, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

:::: Illegal? Are you planning to sue me now? (In what court?) —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:25, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

== Enough ==

This is an Orthodox Website which for many people is a valuable source of knowledge. The attacks against His Eminence Metropolitan John of Pergamon, or any other hierarch of the Holy Orthodox Church, are not necessary on this forum. Whilst I don't share the same ecclesiological opinions as His Eminence, I have no right as a member of the Church to criticise him. Please, for the sake of those young people who use this website for edification, cease these attacks on the hierachy of the One, Holy Orthodox Church. - Peter Mav

:I also agree Peter, it would be a good idea if the discussion around this Father of the church is put on hold and indeed perhaps we should pray for the poor dear's soul as the amount of negativity emitted towards him is very unfair! I say, lets all work towards continuing to build Orthodox articles not critical defences to be used in a court of law. I dont even know why he is controversial :-) Like Mother Molania said in her talk from [[Ancient Faith Radio]], Insane people associating with insane people can not become sane ...only the Saints are "sane"! Chit chatting, keeps US in INSANITY! [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 09:32, May 1, 2008 (UTC)

:: That is precisely why all over the article of Metropolitan John and other contemporary Orthodox theologians we should print in big bold letters: “DO NOT BASE YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE ORTHODOXY ON WIRITINGS OF THIS CONTEMPORARIES WHOSE THEOLOGY IS NOT VERIFIED BY THE HISTORY YET. USE THEOLOGY OF THE HOLY FATHERS INSTEAD.”

:: We do not want to educate young people with the thought of the potentially problematic theologians like m. John (and fr. Schmmemmann, fr. Mayendorff, fr. Afanasiev, etc. – students of the “Paris school of Orthodoxy”). If you want to discuss it further, and you know more appropriate place (e.g. private forum), we can go there and continue.

:: [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 14:59, May 1, 2008 (UTC)

::: This is an encyclopedia, not a catechism. We're not in the business of putting big warning labels on articles about modern writers, especially those who are generally quite well-regarded throughout the Orthodox world, such as nearly everyone you mention.

::: That they are criticized by certain minority sectors of Orthodoxy is certainly a viable element for their respective articles, but that criticism should not be the dominant theme of the article, which would be undue weight. The impression a reader should get ought to be based on how the writer is regarded throughout the Orthodox Church, not on the idiosyncratic criticisms of a few, especially not regarding someone who's never even been accused by the proper authorities (much less condemned by them).

::: In any event, any general overview of Orthodoxy makes it plain that our theological emphasis is on the Scriptures and the Holy Fathers, not on any modern writer. If someone gets his entire impression of Orthodoxy or education in the faith from a single article on OrthodoxWiki, well, he's going about it wrong. One would hope that common sense would make that clear. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:31, May 1, 2008 (UTC)

I agree with some points raised by all who have responded. I am still concerned however, because I know a lot of youths use this website for introductory information and not having extensive knowledge or sometimes even the spiritual grounding can be scandalised. Obviously, mentioning that this hierarch's teachings are not accepted by some is good, encyclopaedic knowledge but some of the criticisms prior to their removal were not beneficial to the soul of anyone. I apologise if I have offended anyone. - Peter Mav

: In the above response of user Andrew we find the basis for the entire dispute. He is saying that Metropolitan John is ''"regarded throughout the Orthodox Church"'' and being ''"criticized by certain minority sectors of Orthodoxy"'', which is completely untrue/false/wrong/misguiding/misleading/etc. Vast majority of Orthodoxy exists beyond US shoreline, and even beyond English speaking world. Sooner that group of the individuals realize that, sooner we will get synergy in our actions. Such a fringe and perverted view of position of m. John in Orthodoxy is what user Andrew and couple of other individuals kept promoting, constantly trying to minimize the number and extent of the critics. It is best evident in the current version of the article, when in the criticism section they put reference to Bishop Ignjatije, who praises his work. What is that reference doing there? [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 12:54, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

I think that the user Fr Andrew is correct in his assessment. Lest anyone get the impression that the Serbian Church has somehow made a judgement that Metropolitan John is heterodox, I thought it worthwhile to note that a bishop and professor of theology in Serbia is a strong supporter of Metropolitan John's work. Anytime anyone disagrees with Cebactokpatop, he resorts to personal attack (both here and in the Wikipedia article). He has attacked and dismissed not only the other editors and Metropolitan John, but also:
*Bishop Kallistos Ware ("Ecumenist buddy of JZ")
*Christos Yannaras ("Ecumenist buddy of JZ")
*Fr John Meyendorff ("Heterodox", along with Schmmemann and Afanasiev)
*Fr Boris Bobrinskoy ("never heard of this guy"): I can't help it if Cebactokpatop hasn't heard of the dean of the St Sergius Institute in Paris, but then again, he dismisses the Paris school as "heterodox."
*Bishop Ignjatije Midić ("ecumenist... who can hardly be called a theologian, as he is almost not writing anything"): Well, in addition to being bishop of Branicevo, he is professor of dogmatics and ethics at the Serbian theological institute in Belgrade and is the author of a new book on dogmatics.
*Aristotle Papanikolaou ("Another buddy of JZ"), etc.

When I mentioned Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos, his only response was "Are you sure?" The answer to that is, Yes. If one checks the several references to Metropolitan John in Metropolitan Hierotheos' book on the person, one finds they are all very positive. On a personal note, having just finished reading ''Communion and Otherness'' and looking through ''Being as Communion'' again, I do not see how anyone who carefully read them could give any credence to the charges Cebactokpatop has made, not least of which is the absurd charge of heterodoxy. Aprt from the Serbian text he cites by Lazic and the interview with Archbishop Stylianos, NONE of the sources he cites as criticisms draw his conclusions. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 13:51, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

:: You are certainly entitled to support JZ and other individuals from Paris school of "orthodoxy". However, you are not entitled to personally dismiss me for providing valid academic resources that criticize JZ or any other product of mentioned school in Paris. From the list of the articles you contributed to, we can clearly see that your faith is in Paris. Orthodox who prefer to have their faith elswhere (e.g. Cappadocia), have a right to express their dissatisfaction with the innovations of Paris' school as well. You have done a great job in prizing JZ's work in the article. Now it is a time to balance it with the concerns of the Traditional Orthodox, Mr. Puhalo. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 17:43, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

::: Methinks you have Fr. Lev confused with Abp. [[Lazar (Puhalo) of Ottawa]]. They're not the same person. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:02, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

:::: Are you sure about that my friend? I am beyond reasonable doubts... they are the same person. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 18:10, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

::::: Based on what? The name "Lev"? —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:31, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

ROTFL! I have been accused of many things in my life, but never of being an archbishop! --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 19:12, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

: You are right. You are not an Archbishop. To become the one, it would require valid canonical ordination. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 19:14, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

Another personal attack -- ''quelle surprise''! I was "canonically" ordained, BTW, by a "canonical" bishop of a "canonical" patriarchal Church. I know who I am, but I have no idea who Cebactokpatop is. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 19:30, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

: Whatever. I am not interested in "canonicity" of your ordination (if any). What I am interested in, is making sure you understand that current version of the article is not balanced, as you intentionally (or not) tried to minimize criticisms of JZ. Do you understand that? If you do, it would be easier for me to go in and try to balance it so that readers do not get an impression that they have before them, article about some "saint". [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 20:12, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

::Ok, enough everyone with the personal back and forth. I agree that the article should also present criticisms fairly and rationally. Cebactokpatop, I am concerned by your personal attacks, which at least in some cases are totally unfounded, and to my mind, crazy (e.g. Fr Lev is not Archbp Lazar!). If this kind of stuff continues, I'm going to freeze this page. I've just edited the article to incorporate some of the material present in earlier drafts. — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk]) 21:17, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

:::I agree. While I normally say very little on Orthodoxwiki (I'm not a scholar of complex dogma or theology, nor do I wish or claim to be), I've been lurking around this discussion and reading what everyone has said. Cebactokpatop, I think it would behoove you to take a leaf from Frs. Andrew and John, as well as the other sysops and users here on Orthodoxwiki. They've been extremely charitable with you when they have received so very little from you in these discussions. When they indulge your vitriol, you reward them with ad hominem attacks, questioning their identities, and even going so far as to question the canonicity of people's ordinations with temerity (although you deny this, it is clearly evident that you do so). You ask readers and writers to address your edits with "proper academic attire." Yet, I have to ask the physician to heal himself with respect to your paranoia and derision. Fr. Andrew, specifically, has not only responded to you in a very Christ-like manner, but has been nothing short of a gentleman in dealing with you.

:::I ask, in the future, when you are a guest of other wikis and forums, you try to act in a similar manner.[[User:Mike|Mike]] 21:55, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

== Material for Inclusion ==

* [[Fr. John Behr]] in the aticle ''"The Trinitarian Being of the Church"'', argues that Zizioulas' use of The Three as an archetype for The Church, when he establishes communion of The Church as an image of the communion od The Three, ends up dismissing both - The Three and The Church. ''(St Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 48:1 (2004), 67-88)'' {{unsigned|Cebactokpatop}}

In reviewing Fr John Behr's essay, I don't see it saying anything to suggest that Metropolitan John's view ends us "dismissing" the Trinity and the Church. I'd like to see the quote and page number that is alleged to say that. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 22:54, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

: Any suggestions on how to reword Fr. Behr's criticism? Isn't this dismissal of The Church: ''"What is said of the Church is certainly based upon what is said of the Trinity, but the effect of speaking in this manner, paradoxically, is that the Church is separated from God, as a distinct entity reflecting the divine being."'' (page 68) Church without ties to God does not exist, even though, it may perfectly mimic the Three. At the same time, we do not know The Three without Their Church. It is The Church that is left behind to proclaim The Three. Disconnect JZ creates, dismisses The Church, and conequenly blind us from The Three, which equates to dismissal. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 03:43, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

== What counts as "academic criticism"? ==

Fr John, I find your floowing edit problematic: "Peter J. Leithart's article, Divine Energies and Orthodox Soteriology, cites the work of Papanikolaou, and points out where Vladimir Lossky and Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) differ on the issue of divine energies. His article implies criticism, based on understanding of the certain Orthodox, who see work of Prof. Lossky as contemporary synthesis of the patristic theology. Thus, to differ from Prof. Lossky, is to differ from patristic theology."

(1) Leithart in no way understands hie article to be critical of Metropolitan John. Not only is that clear from actually reading the article, but he has confirmed that in personal correspondence. (2) There is nothing here to indicate there is any substantive problem with what Metropolitan John says about the essence/energies distinction. (3) If an undergraduate wrote in an academic paper the sentence, "Thus, to differ from Prof. Lossky, is to differ from patristic theology", there wouldn't get a very good grade. Lossky is a personal theological hereo of mine, but I don't know any serious theologian who would judge him to be the sole criterion of Orthodoxy. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 23:13, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

: Indeed, no. Lossky himself has been criticized by major figures in the 20th century, e.g., Staniloae, who's no theological slouch himself. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 02:42, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:: Zizioulas and Meyendorff fell into the pit trying to criticise either Lossky or St. Gregory Palamas, as both of them are not capable of grasping what those two champions were writing about. Area related to the Holy Spirit is unknown and incomprehensible to these "eucharistic ecclesiologians" who understand bodily portion only, based on instructions from RCC theologians Mr. Congar and Mr. Lubac. In order to understand The Spirit, one has to now The Spirit of Orthodoxy. Paris school is so far from that Spirit that their theology consequently, can not be in the Spirit of Orthodoxy. In order to "bring closer" Orthodoxy to Rome (ecumenists), they have to introduce some other spirit - that is spirit of Rome. Orthodox Spirit can never get any closer to Rome than in past 1000 years. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 02:59, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::: An interesting analysis, but I fail to see how this is relevant to the task at hand, which is summarizing reliable secondary sources into an encyclopedia entry which represents the mainstream Chalcedonian viewpoint and takes minor note of other relevant viewpoints. Personal attacks are not really germane—how do you know what Meyendorff or Metr. John are "capable of grasping"? —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 03:08, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:::: That was my response on your assertion: "Lossky himself has been criticized" with my addition of Meyendorff and St. Gregory as another example of the same failure. JZ in his bible Being as Commununion "showed" how Lossky "was wrong". [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 03:15, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

== Should criticism be 'mainstream'? ==

I have read repeatedly that OrthoWiki is about "mainstream" Orthodoxy. Some of the criticism included here is, e.g., from Old Calendarists, who condemn most of the Churches represented here for using the Revised Julian calendar or for ecumenism. Nothing against Old Calendarist "resistance" synods and hyper-traditionalists, but what relevance should their criticism have in a minstream venue such as this? Given that they make the same criticisms of Bishop Kallistos, Fr Alexander Schmemann, Fr John Meyendorff, Christos Yannaras, etc., as they do of Metropolitan John, why should this be included? And all to satisfy one editor whose personal animus is clear? What will come next? When he became convinced "beyond reasonable doubts" that I am Abp Lazar Puhalo, he immediately went to the page on the Archbishop to write negative comments. I am waiting for him to add "criticism" sections to the articles on Bishop Kallistos, Fr Alexander Schmemann, et al., in which they, too, are denounced as heterodox ecumenists of the Paris School. What is to stop him? After all, he can find a blog or an online article by or quoting Heiromonk Patapios or Archbishop Chrysostomos casting aspersions on the orthodoxy of them all. He has dismissed Bishop Ignatije (Midic) of Pozarevac and Branicevo. Look what passes for "criticism" in the link he provided on that page -- a blog entry with a paragraph of Bishop Ignatije. No argument. Even the priest who wrote the blog wasn't sure that the paragraph was a true representation of Bishop Ignatije. This is the "criticism" that should be included in an encyclopedia article? --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 00:59, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

: I think your point is well made. The so-called "Traditionalist Orthodox" are explicitly not given a soapbox here, as per the [[OW:NPOV|MCB]]. If there seems to be a united front against the subject of an article from those sectors, it is enough to mention it briefly, but not to allow it to dominate an article.

: In any event, what is clear is that Metr. John is generally quite highly regarded throughout the Orthodox Church, which is explicitly defined on OrthodoxWiki as [[List of autocephalous and autonomous churches|this list]], i.e., the Mainstream Chalcedonian churches. Metr. John is not a controversial figure by any means, and the article should reflect that. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 02:37, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

: I dod not provide any link to Bishop Ignjatije. Please stop telling false stories. Also, "resistance" Orthodox are in dogmatics same as Orthodox, which makes them valid in their criticisms. What they differ about is heresy over all heresies - ecumenism, and masonic infux into Orthodoxy - [[Meletios IV (Metaxakis) of Constantinople]]. It appears that those who praise Paris school of "orthodoxy" support ecumenism, and logically, regard "reistance" Orthodox as lesser Orthodox than Vatican! [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 02:47, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:: If I am mistaken in how I read the OrthoWiki history page on the article, my apology. But it seems to say you created that link at 21:53 on May 2, 2008: http://orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Ignatije_%28Midic%29_of_Pozarevac_and_Branicevo&diff=65572&oldid=42851
--[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 02:54, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:: [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]], all of this is essentially irrelevant. The do-it-yourself "Celtic Orthodox" gent who lives near here and visits our church every so often is also quite likely "in dogmatics same as Orthodox," but I'm not about to interview him for this article.

:: The point is that what the "resistance/True/Genuine/Traditionalist/etc." groups think is only of relatively small importance on most OrthodoxWiki articles. Whatever one may think of the so-called "Paris School" (whatever that may mean—does that simply mean St. Sergius Institute?), it currently is part of and accepted by mainstream Orthodoxy, while by comparison the "resistance/True/Genuine/Traditionalist/etc." groups are fringe. Their opinions on Metr. John are irrelevant. Perhaps if one of them had engaged in some major debate with him, they might be relevant.

:: One doesn't have to be an "ecumenist" or a Freemason or an Ultramontanist sympathizer in order to see that giving undue weight to the opinions of such folks is essentially a violation of the explicit bias of OrthodoxWiki. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 02:57, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::: I repeat - I did not produce any link related to Bishop Ignjatije. All I did on his page was to convert section listing his writings from latin into cyrillic.

::: It appears to me that both of you want to minimize amount and extent of the criticisms for some reason. Can you provide a valid reason for your attempts to blind the public? [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 03:08, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:::: It's not a question of eliminating criticism (OrthodoxWiki articles are replete with descriptions of criticism, which is clear from even a cursory browsing of the site)—it's where it's coming from and how much is actually appropriate to represent the mainstream view on the subject matter. Piling an article high with criticisms from fringe sources is not consistent with the policies of OrthodoxWiki, nor does it do anyone a service. "The public" are not "blinded" by an attempt to write balanced articles consistent with OrthodoxWiki policies. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 03:11, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::::: I have a problem with your statements simply because all of the disputes I had here were about same thing - constant denial of the criticisms from several individuals who disguise their denial under the mask of "policies", "encyclopedia", "POV/NPOV", etc. What is balanced for you? To praise his work on two pages, and then mention critics in a mild form just to satisfy annoyances like myself? [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 03:20, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::::::And you don't see a problem with all disputes being about the same thing? This is (or endeavours to be, either/or) a ''Mainstream Chalcedonian Orthodox encyclopedia''. This is fairly explicit in intent and focus. The scholarly attacks on Metr. John provided have been more attack than scholarly (quite a number of them are mere citations or references to Metr. John, rather than any theological grappling), and the few scholars have willingly placed themselves outside of the Mainstream Chalcedonian Orthodoxy that we are ''explicitly'' putting forward.
::::::There have been others who have attempted to browbeat OW into submission for their own agendas - Ben Lomond and Western Rite talk pages are replete with arguments attempting to convince OW that it should not follow it's own ''explicit'' bias towards Mainstream Chalcedonian Orthodoxy. It's not like OW is claiming to be something that it's not. — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 01:49, May 5, 2008 (UTC)

::::::: I do not know what is "Chalcedonian Orthodoxy". I know what Orthodoxy is vs. heterodoxy, namely: Monophysitism, Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, etc. Can you, please, define the term you were using? Thanks. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 18:30, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

::::::::I can do better than that: OrthodoxWiki provides a definition of those terms in the [[OW:MCB|POV section of the Style Manual]]. ''You need to read this''. In short, the terms are used, not because of the existence or nonexistence of any non-Chalcedonian Orthodoxy (that's not actually the point) - rather, the point is of general usage. Many groups take the term Orthodox onto themselves when they are, at most, little-o orthodox (and usually far less), which pushes OW to be quite explicit in its terms. Hence, Mainstream (i.e. one of the 14/15 autocephalous Churches or their autonomous Churches), Chalcedonian (i.e. accepting of the Fourth Ecumenical Council) Orthodox. Whether the adjectives are tautological or otherwise is neither here nor there, but they serve to explain a concept. — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 12:17, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

::::::::: But that leads to the affirmation of their self proclaimed "orthodoxy". If you characterize Orthodoxy as "Chalcedonian", immediately, you affirm existence of other "orthodoxies", that are "slightly" different. Mainstream Orthodoxy has never been characterized in any way, at least, not in the East. In the West, we find characterizations like "Eastern Orthodox", that has geographical connotations, and not theological. I would suggest to OW not to try to distinguish itself from the "orthodox" by adding some "names", but rather, through the explanation of the teachings to make sure visitor understands that entire site is about Orthodoxy. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 12:37, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

== Just a thought ==

It seems to me that this article is basically supposed to be a biographical introduction to Metr. John. While mention of the variety of opinions expressed about his work can, and probably should, be mentioned, it seems to me that this is not the proper forum for a detailed discussion (and listing) of these opinions. Half of the article, as it stands, is concerned with criticism and responses to that criticism and that seems rather unbalanced for something that is trying to be an encyclopedic entry.

I am not sure where a discussion of all these opinions should take place, or even whether OrthodoxWiki is the right forum for such a discussion. It just seems to me that this particular page is not the place for it.

Just my two cents, and with this I leave this debate.

In the risen Christ,
[[User:Vandrona|Fr. Peter]]

:Hi Fr. Peter, Thanks for your comments on this. It is indeed a hard call, but I do think that part of the role OrthodoxWiki plays is precisely in pushing for an articulation of controversial issues in church life. Obviously, so many of the criticisms of Metropolitan John's work are not just about him, but are about a particular movement or trend within Orthodox theology. I really want to see as precise and accurate overview of this debate as possible. Again, I do think this itself is a good service to the community. I'm not interested in personal attacks or blanket condemnations, etc. but am very interested in thoughtful criticisms or defenses. I'm curious about what others think. — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk]) 09:27, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::Hello, Fr. John. I apologize for the lack of clarity in my original post, so I will try to briefly clarify what I was trying to say. First off, having thought about it and read your reply, it does make sense that the wiki is a good place to articulate controversial issues. In which case I meant to suggest following a Wikipedia approach: having a mention of the controversial issue on the biographical page with a link to an article specifically dedicated to the issue being debated (e.g., "Theology of John Zizioulas"). That way we can avoid the contentious section being longer than the rest of the article. We also get another page where all the relevant references can be quoted and noted (hopefully...), rather than simply having somewhat vague mentions in the vein of "Metr. John has addressed this criticism." [[User:Vandrona|Fr. Peter]]

I notice a minor edit "struggle" over the sentence someone wrote and I restored: "His article implies criticism, based on understanding of the certain Orthodox, who see work of [[Vladimir Lossky|Prof. Lossky]] as contemporary synthesis of the patristic theology. Thus, to differ from [[Vladimir Lossky|Prof. Lossky]], is to differ from patristic theology." This had been changed to "This article would be critical if seen through the ideology of [[Vladimir Lossky|Prof. Lossky]]'s work as being a contemporary synthesis of patristic theology." I think I understand the reason for this change -- the original sentence is rather vague and difficult to make sense of (it may be that the original author's primary language was not English), but I'm not sure the cleanup help makes the meaning any clearer. Perhaps somehow can expain this better, but for now I going to revert this again. — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk]) 09:27, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:Because the article is only a critical article if Lossky is held up as a synthesis of patristic theology. If the Lossky=Theology standpoint is not taken, the article is not critical at all, merely comparative. As I don't know how one would even go about justifying the Lossky=Theology standpoint, I don't think that the article is criticism at all, and shouldn't be there. — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 01:37, May 5, 2008 (UTC)

:: For that reason, sentence states: ''"based on understanding of the '''certain Orthodox''', who '''see work of [[Vladimir Lossky|Prof. Lossky]] as contemporary synthesis of the patristic theology'''"''. I think it is clearly explained, why and under what condition, article of Mr. Leithart is seen by ''"certain Orthodox"'' as criticism, unintentional though, but, still criticism. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 13:14, May 5, 2008 (UTC)

:::Sad irony: such a viewpoint of Lossky isn't Orthodox. We do not take any one author as being perfect, theologically or otherwise - which explains how Staniloae can disagree with Lossky and yet not be thrown out of the Church. The question is whether the article ''is'' critical, not whether it can be misinterpreted into criticism. — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 19:30, May 5, 2008 (UTC)

== Selective reading of Papankolaou ==

Cebactokpatop has attempted to make hay of Papanikolaou's statement (in a footnote) that Metropolitan John has acknowledged in a private converstion that the Metropolitan was "influenced" by some secular philosophers, as if this is a "proof text" of some sort. The first thing to say is that this is something the Metropolitan has acknowledged in his own writing. I somehow get the impression that Cebactokpatop saw Papanikolaou's statement as a "smoking gun." But if one reads the text of the page (159) that is footnoted, one sees Papanikolaou saying a couple of things that Cebactokpatop is intentionally ignoring. The ironic one is that fact that Papanikolaou notes that the same charge of being influenced by modern personalism has been made against Lossky, as well as Metropolitan John. Thus he cherry-picks a charge that Papanikolaou points out is made against Lossky, his ''sine qua non'' of Orthodoxy. And, of course, Papanikolaou acquits both theologians. He goes on to cite the differences between the Metropolitan and those modern philosophers and that, for the Metropolitan, only a Trinitarian theology that affirms the monarchy of the Father can provide an adequate theology of personhood. As Papanikolaou says, "[Zizioulas} and Lossky are no more superimposing a philosophical system on the Eastern patristic writers than did these same writers Hellenize the teachings of Jesus" (160). Metropolitan John and Lossky simply have done what the Fathers did -- "thinking about the authoritative texts of the tradition in light of the questions, challenges, and prevailing philosophical currents of their time" (ibid). {{unsigned|Fr Lev}}

== The influence of Buber ==

I have forgotten to mention that I've read in several places that Martin Buber, not to mention other Western philosophers, were important influences on the theology of [[Dumitru Staniloae]]. Turcescu mentions elsewhere that "In ''Dogmatics'', Staniloae tried to blend in a very creative fashion patristic insights with contemporary theology, both Western and Eastern" (in ''The Teachings of Modern Orthodox Christianity on Law, Politics, & Human Nature'', p. 300). --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 12:08, May 6, 2008 (UTC)

: I honestly don't see what's so damning about having non-Orthodox influence on one's thinking, particularly since it's obvious from even a cursory reading of the ancient Fathers that their thinking was profoundly influenced by not just heterodox, but ''pagan'' sources. In any event, it's pretty hard even to function in the world without some sort of non-Orthodox influence on one's thinking.

: The question is whether one's teaching is Orthodox or not (not who or what influenced it), and in our Tradition no ruling can be made on this question without episcopal (synodal, in the case of a bishop being in question) authority. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 12:28, May 6, 2008 (UTC)

:: I think that we can not separate the two. One's heterodox influences bring up next logical question - Has one's theology escaped from the captivity of the influences (sources)? Very good example of this question can be found in the criticism of Fr. Schmmemmann by Fr. Pomazansky. Answer to that question is decisive on whether one's theology is Orthodox or heterodox. In the book Being as Communion, there are numerous references to heterodox writings and many assertions of JZ are based on them. For example, on pages 164-165, JZ talks about "individualities" and "persons" referring to the M. Buber... who made clear distinction between the two, making them antonyms. However, as Turcescu already provided in his article, St. Gregory of Nyssa used both terms as synonyms. In this example, heterodox influence prevailed in the thought of JZ over the Orthodox, resulting in his thought being heterodox as well. If he were to follow Orthodox thought od St. Gregory, we would not have this dispute over his work. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 12:55, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

::: From the fact that Zizioulas borrows a conceptual distinction between persons and individuals from Martin Buber, it does not follow that his thought is heterodox. It is logically fallacious to argue that 'Since X borrows from Y; and since Y is heterodox; therefore X is heterodox.' At most, Turcescu's article establishes that Zizioulas uses some words in different ways than St Gregory of Nyssa. But that does not make Zizioulas heterodox.

::: Also, the claims made by Turscescu have been challenged (both by Zizioulas and others); as such, they cannot be appealed to as authoritative.

::: Moreover, as far as I can see, there is no dispute over the thought of Metropolitan John. All that exists is Cebactokpatop trying to insert anti-Zizioulas polemic into the article, with everyone else telling him that he is being unreasonable and incivil. [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 13:46, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

:::: It wouldn't follow under one condition - if it was not contrary to Orthodox. Since JZ adapted his thought to Buber's, whose definitions of terms "individual" and "person" are contrary to those of St. Gregory, his thought, consequently is based on foundations contrary to Orthodoxy. His direct adoption of heterodox definitions without revising them and providing content that is in line with Orthodoxy, pushed his thought outside to the sea of heterodoxy... [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 14:39, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

::::: Again you fail to understand the point. Zizioulas found a particular way of speaking (the distinction between person and individual) helpful in articulating Orthodox theology in dialogue with the concerns of existentialist thinking. He uses 'individual' as a shorthand for a human being whose mode of existence is selfish and in rejection of the love of God; he uses 'person' as a shorthand for a human being whose mode of existence is ecclesial. It is not heterodox to distinguish between these different modes of existence. Your failure to grasp this suggests that you do not understand Zizioulas' thought. [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 21:20, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

==The Neopatristic Revival==
One of the great ironies of this back and forth has been the characterization of a number of important Orthodox theologians in the West as “modernist” or under the influence of Jewish or Western philosophers. Perhaps the most important commonality of Lossky, Zizioulas, Yannaras, Meyendorff, Schmemann, Florovksy, Romanides, and Staniloae was/is their commitment to a “return to the Fathers.” For a great deal of time, Greek and Russian theology languished under a “western captivity” in which Orthodox theologians abandoned patristics in favor of Roman scholasticism. Of these, the most influential has always been Lossky, in whom I was initiated thirty years ago when I first read ''The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church''. (BTW, ‘Eastern’ was not part of Lossky’s original title but was inserted at the insistence of an editor.) As it has been described by Aidan Nichols, “This study, with its identification an existentialist and personalist slant to the patristic dogmatics of, especially, Gregory of Nyssa and Maximus Confessor, soon acquired the status of a classic.” --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 17:50, May 6, 2008 (UTC)

: Please do not mix Fr. Florovsky with the reas to of the "team". Although, several of his stances were problematic, he was Orthodox theologian, apart and far from those that came out of Paris school. The "team" misused him, and now many think how he is part of the "team". He is not. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 20:12, May 7, 2008 (UTC)

:: On the contrary, Florovsky is united with Lossky, Schmemann, Meyendorff, Romanides, Yannaras and Zizioulas in calling for a return to patristic theology, rather than to continue with the religious philosophy of Bulgakov and Berdiaev, or to acquiesce in the redundant repetition of nineteenth-century Russian seminary theology (cf. Pomazansky's ''Orthodox Dogmatic Theology''). [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 13:52, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

::: It is well known that names you mentioned (except Fr. Florovsky) use such "call" to disguise their inventions and parade them as patristic. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 14:32, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

:::: It is not well known, becuase it is not correct. Anyway, it is clear that you do not understand Orthodox theology well enough to be making such claims. [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 21:22, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

== revising the Lossky sentence ==

Clearly, Fr John was not himself claiming that "to differ from Lossky" is to differ from the Fathers; he was trying to state what the reviser believes. The statement before was ambiguous, so I have edited it to make clear Fr John's intent. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 18:57, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

: Oh Lord... He can read Fr. John's mind! [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 20:09, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

:: Cebactokpatop, please don't remove a {{fact}} tag without providing the reference. [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 21:09, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

I assume that Fr John is monitoring this page and that he will correct me if I have drawn a bad inference from his comments. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 23:16, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

== Who believes that 'to differ from Lossky is to differ from patristic theology'??? ==

Could someone please provide references of some individual or group within Orthodoxy who believes that to differ from Lossky's theology is to differ from patristic theology??? I am not aware of anyone who holds this ridiculous position except Cebactokpatop. If no-one except Cebactokpatop holds this view then this sentence should be struck from the article, as Orthodoxwiki is not about providing a platform for the idiosyncratic views of one editor. [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 21:14, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

== Turcescu's Misreading of Zizioulas ==

Turcescu criticizes the Metropolitan on the question of person versus individual by indicating that St Gregory of Nyssa sometime uses ἄτομον (''atomon'') “to express the notion of the person.” Of the Cappadocians, only St Gregory uses ''atomon'' as equivalent to ''hypostasis'' or ''prosopon''. So one could stop here and say that only one of the Cappadocians followed a usage contrary to the Metropolitan’s reading. But that would still leave a misimpression. For if one thought that St Gregory was saying atomon as predicated of human persons could be predicated of divine persons ''simpliciter'', we would be left with the heresy of tritheism. But St Gregory was not foolish, which is why he never said any such thing. The other Fathers (Cappadocian or otherwise) never run the risk of confusing someone (such as Turcescu and his fervent disciple, Cebactokpatop) by using ''atomon'' as equivalent to person. While we find the Orthodox confession of three ''hypostaseis'' or three ''prosopa'', nowhere in Orthodox theology do we find the confession of three ''atoma''. Thus Turcescu’s criticism of the Metropolitan’s refusal to equate ''atomon'' with either ''prosopon'' or ''hypostasis'' can only by employed in a defense of tritheism. While at no point on these pages has Cebactokpatop ever read someone else’s posts charitably, I will give him the benefit of the doubt and not infer that he is arguing for tritheism. And if I am right about his intent (I am no mind reader, as he pointed out), then he needs to consider revising his support of Turcescu’s argument. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 00:40, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

Talk:John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon

2008-05-09T12:37:32Z

Cebactokpatop: /* Should criticism be 'mainstream'? */

*[[Talk:John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon/Archive 1|Archive 1]] - from article creation (2007) to end of March 2008.
*[[Talk:John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon/Archive 2|Archive 2]] - from April 2008.

== Reversion ==

I've rolled back [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]]'s recent major changes (essentially for reasons detailed throughout this Talk page)—perhaps it was a mistake to unprotect the article again so soon. I'll leave it unprotected for now, hoping that Agenda-driven edits won't take over again. If they do, and especially if they're from [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]], it may be necessary to introduce a ban on that editor for a time. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:07, April 30, 2008 (UTC)

: Your revert without even reading the changes I put in is another proof that this website has no interest in expressing the reality that exists in The Church, but rather fictitious visions of several individuals claiming to be "fr". [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 18:30, April 30, 2008 (UTC)

:: Oh, trust me—I read them. Anyway, [[w:Talk:John Zizioulas]], along with your Agenda here, demonstrate that you're not interested in pursuing the editing of an encyclopedia in a calm manner. Indeed, your above condemnation of our many thousands of editors ''en masse'' is a pretty clear indication that you're not interested in good faith editing. As noted on your Talk page, your account has been banned. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:33, April 30, 2008 (UTC)

::: Your action against my account was illegal. It represented misjudgment on your side, which resulted in misuse of your sysops powers. Consequently, your error was reverted by Fr. John. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 18:21, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

:::: Illegal? Are you planning to sue me now? (In what court?) —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:25, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

== Enough ==

This is an Orthodox Website which for many people is a valuable source of knowledge. The attacks against His Eminence Metropolitan John of Pergamon, or any other hierarch of the Holy Orthodox Church, are not necessary on this forum. Whilst I don't share the same ecclesiological opinions as His Eminence, I have no right as a member of the Church to criticise him. Please, for the sake of those young people who use this website for edification, cease these attacks on the hierachy of the One, Holy Orthodox Church. - Peter Mav

:I also agree Peter, it would be a good idea if the discussion around this Father of the church is put on hold and indeed perhaps we should pray for the poor dear's soul as the amount of negativity emitted towards him is very unfair! I say, lets all work towards continuing to build Orthodox articles not critical defences to be used in a court of law. I dont even know why he is controversial :-) Like Mother Molania said in her talk from [[Ancient Faith Radio]], Insane people associating with insane people can not become sane ...only the Saints are "sane"! Chit chatting, keeps US in INSANITY! [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 09:32, May 1, 2008 (UTC)

:: That is precisely why all over the article of Metropolitan John and other contemporary Orthodox theologians we should print in big bold letters: “DO NOT BASE YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE ORTHODOXY ON WIRITINGS OF THIS CONTEMPORARIES WHOSE THEOLOGY IS NOT VERIFIED BY THE HISTORY YET. USE THEOLOGY OF THE HOLY FATHERS INSTEAD.”

:: We do not want to educate young people with the thought of the potentially problematic theologians like m. John (and fr. Schmmemmann, fr. Mayendorff, fr. Afanasiev, etc. – students of the “Paris school of Orthodoxy”). If you want to discuss it further, and you know more appropriate place (e.g. private forum), we can go there and continue.

:: [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 14:59, May 1, 2008 (UTC)

::: This is an encyclopedia, not a catechism. We're not in the business of putting big warning labels on articles about modern writers, especially those who are generally quite well-regarded throughout the Orthodox world, such as nearly everyone you mention.

::: That they are criticized by certain minority sectors of Orthodoxy is certainly a viable element for their respective articles, but that criticism should not be the dominant theme of the article, which would be undue weight. The impression a reader should get ought to be based on how the writer is regarded throughout the Orthodox Church, not on the idiosyncratic criticisms of a few, especially not regarding someone who's never even been accused by the proper authorities (much less condemned by them).

::: In any event, any general overview of Orthodoxy makes it plain that our theological emphasis is on the Scriptures and the Holy Fathers, not on any modern writer. If someone gets his entire impression of Orthodoxy or education in the faith from a single article on OrthodoxWiki, well, he's going about it wrong. One would hope that common sense would make that clear. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:31, May 1, 2008 (UTC)

I agree with some points raised by all who have responded. I am still concerned however, because I know a lot of youths use this website for introductory information and not having extensive knowledge or sometimes even the spiritual grounding can be scandalised. Obviously, mentioning that this hierarch's teachings are not accepted by some is good, encyclopaedic knowledge but some of the criticisms prior to their removal were not beneficial to the soul of anyone. I apologise if I have offended anyone. - Peter Mav

: In the above response of user Andrew we find the basis for the entire dispute. He is saying that Metropolitan John is ''"regarded throughout the Orthodox Church"'' and being ''"criticized by certain minority sectors of Orthodoxy"'', which is completely untrue/false/wrong/misguiding/misleading/etc. Vast majority of Orthodoxy exists beyond US shoreline, and even beyond English speaking world. Sooner that group of the individuals realize that, sooner we will get synergy in our actions. Such a fringe and perverted view of position of m. John in Orthodoxy is what user Andrew and couple of other individuals kept promoting, constantly trying to minimize the number and extent of the critics. It is best evident in the current version of the article, when in the criticism section they put reference to Bishop Ignjatije, who praises his work. What is that reference doing there? [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 12:54, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

I think that the user Fr Andrew is correct in his assessment. Lest anyone get the impression that the Serbian Church has somehow made a judgement that Metropolitan John is heterodox, I thought it worthwhile to note that a bishop and professor of theology in Serbia is a strong supporter of Metropolitan John's work. Anytime anyone disagrees with Cebactokpatop, he resorts to personal attack (both here and in the Wikipedia article). He has attacked and dismissed not only the other editors and Metropolitan John, but also:
*Bishop Kallistos Ware ("Ecumenist buddy of JZ")
*Christos Yannaras ("Ecumenist buddy of JZ")
*Fr John Meyendorff ("Heterodox", along with Schmmemann and Afanasiev)
*Fr Boris Bobrinskoy ("never heard of this guy"): I can't help it if Cebactokpatop hasn't heard of the dean of the St Sergius Institute in Paris, but then again, he dismisses the Paris school as "heterodox."
*Bishop Ignjatije Midić ("ecumenist... who can hardly be called a theologian, as he is almost not writing anything"): Well, in addition to being bishop of Branicevo, he is professor of dogmatics and ethics at the Serbian theological institute in Belgrade and is the author of a new book on dogmatics.
*Aristotle Papanikolaou ("Another buddy of JZ"), etc.

When I mentioned Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos, his only response was "Are you sure?" The answer to that is, Yes. If one checks the several references to Metropolitan John in Metropolitan Hierotheos' book on the person, one finds they are all very positive. On a personal note, having just finished reading ''Communion and Otherness'' and looking through ''Being as Communion'' again, I do not see how anyone who carefully read them could give any credence to the charges Cebactokpatop has made, not least of which is the absurd charge of heterodoxy. Aprt from the Serbian text he cites by Lazic and the interview with Archbishop Stylianos, NONE of the sources he cites as criticisms draw his conclusions. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 13:51, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

:: You are certainly entitled to support JZ and other individuals from Paris school of "orthodoxy". However, you are not entitled to personally dismiss me for providing valid academic resources that criticize JZ or any other product of mentioned school in Paris. From the list of the articles you contributed to, we can clearly see that your faith is in Paris. Orthodox who prefer to have their faith elswhere (e.g. Cappadocia), have a right to express their dissatisfaction with the innovations of Paris' school as well. You have done a great job in prizing JZ's work in the article. Now it is a time to balance it with the concerns of the Traditional Orthodox, Mr. Puhalo. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 17:43, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

::: Methinks you have Fr. Lev confused with Abp. [[Lazar (Puhalo) of Ottawa]]. They're not the same person. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:02, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

:::: Are you sure about that my friend? I am beyond reasonable doubts... they are the same person. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 18:10, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

::::: Based on what? The name "Lev"? —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:31, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

ROTFL! I have been accused of many things in my life, but never of being an archbishop! --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 19:12, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

: You are right. You are not an Archbishop. To become the one, it would require valid canonical ordination. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 19:14, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

Another personal attack -- ''quelle surprise''! I was "canonically" ordained, BTW, by a "canonical" bishop of a "canonical" patriarchal Church. I know who I am, but I have no idea who Cebactokpatop is. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 19:30, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

: Whatever. I am not interested in "canonicity" of your ordination (if any). What I am interested in, is making sure you understand that current version of the article is not balanced, as you intentionally (or not) tried to minimize criticisms of JZ. Do you understand that? If you do, it would be easier for me to go in and try to balance it so that readers do not get an impression that they have before them, article about some "saint". [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 20:12, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

::Ok, enough everyone with the personal back and forth. I agree that the article should also present criticisms fairly and rationally. Cebactokpatop, I am concerned by your personal attacks, which at least in some cases are totally unfounded, and to my mind, crazy (e.g. Fr Lev is not Archbp Lazar!). If this kind of stuff continues, I'm going to freeze this page. I've just edited the article to incorporate some of the material present in earlier drafts. — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk]) 21:17, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

:::I agree. While I normally say very little on Orthodoxwiki (I'm not a scholar of complex dogma or theology, nor do I wish or claim to be), I've been lurking around this discussion and reading what everyone has said. Cebactokpatop, I think it would behoove you to take a leaf from Frs. Andrew and John, as well as the other sysops and users here on Orthodoxwiki. They've been extremely charitable with you when they have received so very little from you in these discussions. When they indulge your vitriol, you reward them with ad hominem attacks, questioning their identities, and even going so far as to question the canonicity of people's ordinations with temerity (although you deny this, it is clearly evident that you do so). You ask readers and writers to address your edits with "proper academic attire." Yet, I have to ask the physician to heal himself with respect to your paranoia and derision. Fr. Andrew, specifically, has not only responded to you in a very Christ-like manner, but has been nothing short of a gentleman in dealing with you.

:::I ask, in the future, when you are a guest of other wikis and forums, you try to act in a similar manner.[[User:Mike|Mike]] 21:55, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

== Material for Inclusion ==

* [[Fr. John Behr]] in the aticle ''"The Trinitarian Being of the Church"'', argues that Zizioulas' use of The Three as an archetype for The Church, when he establishes communion of The Church as an image of the communion od The Three, ends up dismissing both - The Three and The Church. ''(St Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 48:1 (2004), 67-88)'' {{unsigned|Cebactokpatop}}

In reviewing Fr John Behr's essay, I don't see it saying anything to suggest that Metropolitan John's view ends us "dismissing" the Trinity and the Church. I'd like to see the quote and page number that is alleged to say that. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 22:54, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

: Any suggestions on how to reword Fr. Behr's criticism? Isn't this dismissal of The Church: ''"What is said of the Church is certainly based upon what is said of the Trinity, but the effect of speaking in this manner, paradoxically, is that the Church is separated from God, as a distinct entity reflecting the divine being."'' (page 68) Church without ties to God does not exist, even though, it may perfectly mimic the Three. At the same time, we do not know The Three without Their Church. It is The Church that is left behind to proclaim The Three. Disconnect JZ creates, dismisses The Church, and conequenly blind us from The Three, which equates to dismissal. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 03:43, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

== What counts as "academic criticism"? ==

Fr John, I find your floowing edit problematic: "Peter J. Leithart's article, Divine Energies and Orthodox Soteriology, cites the work of Papanikolaou, and points out where Vladimir Lossky and Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) differ on the issue of divine energies. His article implies criticism, based on understanding of the certain Orthodox, who see work of Prof. Lossky as contemporary synthesis of the patristic theology. Thus, to differ from Prof. Lossky, is to differ from patristic theology."

(1) Leithart in no way understands hie article to be critical of Metropolitan John. Not only is that clear from actually reading the article, but he has confirmed that in personal correspondence. (2) There is nothing here to indicate there is any substantive problem with what Metropolitan John says about the essence/energies distinction. (3) If an undergraduate wrote in an academic paper the sentence, "Thus, to differ from Prof. Lossky, is to differ from patristic theology", there wouldn't get a very good grade. Lossky is a personal theological hereo of mine, but I don't know any serious theologian who would judge him to be the sole criterion of Orthodoxy. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 23:13, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

: Indeed, no. Lossky himself has been criticized by major figures in the 20th century, e.g., Staniloae, who's no theological slouch himself. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 02:42, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:: Zizioulas and Meyendorff fell into the pit trying to criticise either Lossky or St. Gregory Palamas, as both of them are not capable of grasping what those two champions were writing about. Area related to the Holy Spirit is unknown and incomprehensible to these "eucharistic ecclesiologians" who understand bodily portion only, based on instructions from RCC theologians Mr. Congar and Mr. Lubac. In order to understand The Spirit, one has to now The Spirit of Orthodoxy. Paris school is so far from that Spirit that their theology consequently, can not be in the Spirit of Orthodoxy. In order to "bring closer" Orthodoxy to Rome (ecumenists), they have to introduce some other spirit - that is spirit of Rome. Orthodox Spirit can never get any closer to Rome than in past 1000 years. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 02:59, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::: An interesting analysis, but I fail to see how this is relevant to the task at hand, which is summarizing reliable secondary sources into an encyclopedia entry which represents the mainstream Chalcedonian viewpoint and takes minor note of other relevant viewpoints. Personal attacks are not really germane—how do you know what Meyendorff or Metr. John are "capable of grasping"? —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 03:08, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:::: That was my response on your assertion: "Lossky himself has been criticized" with my addition of Meyendorff and St. Gregory as another example of the same failure. JZ in his bible Being as Commununion "showed" how Lossky "was wrong". [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 03:15, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

== Should criticism be 'mainstream'? ==

I have read repeatedly that OrthoWiki is about "mainstream" Orthodoxy. Some of the criticism included here is, e.g., from Old Calendarists, who condemn most of the Churches represented here for using the Revised Julian calendar or for ecumenism. Nothing against Old Calendarist "resistance" synods and hyper-traditionalists, but what relevance should their criticism have in a minstream venue such as this? Given that they make the same criticisms of Bishop Kallistos, Fr Alexander Schmemann, Fr John Meyendorff, Christos Yannaras, etc., as they do of Metropolitan John, why should this be included? And all to satisfy one editor whose personal animus is clear? What will come next? When he became convinced "beyond reasonable doubts" that I am Abp Lazar Puhalo, he immediately went to the page on the Archbishop to write negative comments. I am waiting for him to add "criticism" sections to the articles on Bishop Kallistos, Fr Alexander Schmemann, et al., in which they, too, are denounced as heterodox ecumenists of the Paris School. What is to stop him? After all, he can find a blog or an online article by or quoting Heiromonk Patapios or Archbishop Chrysostomos casting aspersions on the orthodoxy of them all. He has dismissed Bishop Ignatije (Midic) of Pozarevac and Branicevo. Look what passes for "criticism" in the link he provided on that page -- a blog entry with a paragraph of Bishop Ignatije. No argument. Even the priest who wrote the blog wasn't sure that the paragraph was a true representation of Bishop Ignatije. This is the "criticism" that should be included in an encyclopedia article? --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 00:59, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

: I think your point is well made. The so-called "Traditionalist Orthodox" are explicitly not given a soapbox here, as per the [[OW:NPOV|MCB]]. If there seems to be a united front against the subject of an article from those sectors, it is enough to mention it briefly, but not to allow it to dominate an article.

: In any event, what is clear is that Metr. John is generally quite highly regarded throughout the Orthodox Church, which is explicitly defined on OrthodoxWiki as [[List of autocephalous and autonomous churches|this list]], i.e., the Mainstream Chalcedonian churches. Metr. John is not a controversial figure by any means, and the article should reflect that. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 02:37, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

: I dod not provide any link to Bishop Ignjatije. Please stop telling false stories. Also, "resistance" Orthodox are in dogmatics same as Orthodox, which makes them valid in their criticisms. What they differ about is heresy over all heresies - ecumenism, and masonic infux into Orthodoxy - [[Meletios IV (Metaxakis) of Constantinople]]. It appears that those who praise Paris school of "orthodoxy" support ecumenism, and logically, regard "reistance" Orthodox as lesser Orthodox than Vatican! [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 02:47, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:: If I am mistaken in how I read the OrthoWiki history page on the article, my apology. But it seems to say you created that link at 21:53 on May 2, 2008: http://orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Ignatije_%28Midic%29_of_Pozarevac_and_Branicevo&diff=65572&oldid=42851
--[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 02:54, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:: [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]], all of this is essentially irrelevant. The do-it-yourself "Celtic Orthodox" gent who lives near here and visits our church every so often is also quite likely "in dogmatics same as Orthodox," but I'm not about to interview him for this article.

:: The point is that what the "resistance/True/Genuine/Traditionalist/etc." groups think is only of relatively small importance on most OrthodoxWiki articles. Whatever one may think of the so-called "Paris School" (whatever that may mean—does that simply mean St. Sergius Institute?), it currently is part of and accepted by mainstream Orthodoxy, while by comparison the "resistance/True/Genuine/Traditionalist/etc." groups are fringe. Their opinions on Metr. John are irrelevant. Perhaps if one of them had engaged in some major debate with him, they might be relevant.

:: One doesn't have to be an "ecumenist" or a Freemason or an Ultramontanist sympathizer in order to see that giving undue weight to the opinions of such folks is essentially a violation of the explicit bias of OrthodoxWiki. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 02:57, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::: I repeat - I did not produce any link related to Bishop Ignjatije. All I did on his page was to convert section listing his writings from latin into cyrillic.

::: It appears to me that both of you want to minimize amount and extent of the criticisms for some reason. Can you provide a valid reason for your attempts to blind the public? [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 03:08, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:::: It's not a question of eliminating criticism (OrthodoxWiki articles are replete with descriptions of criticism, which is clear from even a cursory browsing of the site)—it's where it's coming from and how much is actually appropriate to represent the mainstream view on the subject matter. Piling an article high with criticisms from fringe sources is not consistent with the policies of OrthodoxWiki, nor does it do anyone a service. "The public" are not "blinded" by an attempt to write balanced articles consistent with OrthodoxWiki policies. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 03:11, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::::: I have a problem with your statements simply because all of the disputes I had here were about same thing - constant denial of the criticisms from several individuals who disguise their denial under the mask of "policies", "encyclopedia", "POV/NPOV", etc. What is balanced for you? To praise his work on two pages, and then mention critics in a mild form just to satisfy annoyances like myself? [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 03:20, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::::::And you don't see a problem with all disputes being about the same thing? This is (or endeavours to be, either/or) a ''Mainstream Chalcedonian Orthodox encyclopedia''. This is fairly explicit in intent and focus. The scholarly attacks on Metr. John provided have been more attack than scholarly (quite a number of them are mere citations or references to Metr. John, rather than any theological grappling), and the few scholars have willingly placed themselves outside of the Mainstream Chalcedonian Orthodoxy that we are ''explicitly'' putting forward.
::::::There have been others who have attempted to browbeat OW into submission for their own agendas - Ben Lomond and Western Rite talk pages are replete with arguments attempting to convince OW that it should not follow it's own ''explicit'' bias towards Mainstream Chalcedonian Orthodoxy. It's not like OW is claiming to be something that it's not. — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 01:49, May 5, 2008 (UTC)

::::::: I do not know what is "Chalcedonian Orthodoxy". I know what Orthodoxy is vs. heterodoxy, namely: Monophysitism, Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, etc. Can you, please, define the term you were using? Thanks. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 18:30, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

::::::::I can do better than that: OrthodoxWiki provides a definition of those terms in the [[OW:MCB|POV section of the Style Manual]]. ''You need to read this''. In short, the terms are used, not because of the existence or nonexistence of any non-Chalcedonian Orthodoxy (that's not actually the point) - rather, the point is of general usage. Many groups take the term Orthodox onto themselves when they are, at most, little-o orthodox (and usually far less), which pushes OW to be quite explicit in its terms. Hence, Mainstream (i.e. one of the 14/15 autocephalous Churches or their autonomous Churches), Chalcedonian (i.e. accepting of the Fourth Ecumenical Council) Orthodox. Whether the adjectives are tautological or otherwise is neither here nor there, but they serve to explain a concept. — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 12:17, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

:::::::: But that leads to the affirmation of their self proclaimed "orthodoxy". If you characterize Orthodoxy as "Chalcedonian", immediately, you affirm existence of other "orthodoxies", that are "slightly" different. Mainstream Orthodoxy has never been characterized in any way, at least, not in the East. In the West, we find characterizations like "Eastern Orthodox", that has geographical connotations, and not theological. I would suggest to OW not to try to distinguish itself from the "orthodox" by adding some "names", but rather, through the explanation of the teachings to make sure visitor understands that entire site is about Orthodoxy. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 12:37, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

== Just a thought ==

It seems to me that this article is basically supposed to be a biographical introduction to Metr. John. While mention of the variety of opinions expressed about his work can, and probably should, be mentioned, it seems to me that this is not the proper forum for a detailed discussion (and listing) of these opinions. Half of the article, as it stands, is concerned with criticism and responses to that criticism and that seems rather unbalanced for something that is trying to be an encyclopedic entry.

I am not sure where a discussion of all these opinions should take place, or even whether OrthodoxWiki is the right forum for such a discussion. It just seems to me that this particular page is not the place for it.

Just my two cents, and with this I leave this debate.

In the risen Christ,
[[User:Vandrona|Fr. Peter]]

:Hi Fr. Peter, Thanks for your comments on this. It is indeed a hard call, but I do think that part of the role OrthodoxWiki plays is precisely in pushing for an articulation of controversial issues in church life. Obviously, so many of the criticisms of Metropolitan John's work are not just about him, but are about a particular movement or trend within Orthodox theology. I really want to see as precise and accurate overview of this debate as possible. Again, I do think this itself is a good service to the community. I'm not interested in personal attacks or blanket condemnations, etc. but am very interested in thoughtful criticisms or defenses. I'm curious about what others think. — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk]) 09:27, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::Hello, Fr. John. I apologize for the lack of clarity in my original post, so I will try to briefly clarify what I was trying to say. First off, having thought about it and read your reply, it does make sense that the wiki is a good place to articulate controversial issues. In which case I meant to suggest following a Wikipedia approach: having a mention of the controversial issue on the biographical page with a link to an article specifically dedicated to the issue being debated (e.g., "Theology of John Zizioulas"). That way we can avoid the contentious section being longer than the rest of the article. We also get another page where all the relevant references can be quoted and noted (hopefully...), rather than simply having somewhat vague mentions in the vein of "Metr. John has addressed this criticism." [[User:Vandrona|Fr. Peter]]

I notice a minor edit "struggle" over the sentence someone wrote and I restored: "His article implies criticism, based on understanding of the certain Orthodox, who see work of [[Vladimir Lossky|Prof. Lossky]] as contemporary synthesis of the patristic theology. Thus, to differ from [[Vladimir Lossky|Prof. Lossky]], is to differ from patristic theology." This had been changed to "This article would be critical if seen through the ideology of [[Vladimir Lossky|Prof. Lossky]]'s work as being a contemporary synthesis of patristic theology." I think I understand the reason for this change -- the original sentence is rather vague and difficult to make sense of (it may be that the original author's primary language was not English), but I'm not sure the cleanup help makes the meaning any clearer. Perhaps somehow can expain this better, but for now I going to revert this again. — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk]) 09:27, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:Because the article is only a critical article if Lossky is held up as a synthesis of patristic theology. If the Lossky=Theology standpoint is not taken, the article is not critical at all, merely comparative. As I don't know how one would even go about justifying the Lossky=Theology standpoint, I don't think that the article is criticism at all, and shouldn't be there. — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 01:37, May 5, 2008 (UTC)

:: For that reason, sentence states: ''"based on understanding of the '''certain Orthodox''', who '''see work of [[Vladimir Lossky|Prof. Lossky]] as contemporary synthesis of the patristic theology'''"''. I think it is clearly explained, why and under what condition, article of Mr. Leithart is seen by ''"certain Orthodox"'' as criticism, unintentional though, but, still criticism. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 13:14, May 5, 2008 (UTC)

:::Sad irony: such a viewpoint of Lossky isn't Orthodox. We do not take any one author as being perfect, theologically or otherwise - which explains how Staniloae can disagree with Lossky and yet not be thrown out of the Church. The question is whether the article ''is'' critical, not whether it can be misinterpreted into criticism. — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 19:30, May 5, 2008 (UTC)

== Selective reading of Papankolaou ==

Cebactokpatop has attempted to make hay of Papanikolaou's statement (in a footnote) that Metropolitan John has acknowledged in a private converstion that the Metropolitan was "influenced" by some secular philosophers, as if this is a "proof text" of some sort. The first thing to say is that this is something the Metropolitan has acknowledged in his own writing. I somehow get the impression that Cebactokpatop saw Papanikolaou's statement as a "smoking gun." But if one reads the text of the page (159) that is footnoted, one sees Papanikolaou saying a couple of things that Cebactokpatop is intentionally ignoring. The ironic one is that fact that Papanikolaou notes that the same charge of being influenced by modern personalism has been made against Lossky, as well as Metropolitan John. Thus he cherry-picks a charge that Papanikolaou points out is made against Lossky, his ''sine qua non'' of Orthodoxy. And, of course, Papanikolaou acquits both theologians. He goes on to cite the differences between the Metropolitan and those modern philosophers and that, for the Metropolitan, only a Trinitarian theology that affirms the monarchy of the Father can provide an adequate theology of personhood. As Papanikolaou says, "[Zizioulas} and Lossky are no more superimposing a philosophical system on the Eastern patristic writers than did these same writers Hellenize the teachings of Jesus" (160). Metropolitan John and Lossky simply have done what the Fathers did -- "thinking about the authoritative texts of the tradition in light of the questions, challenges, and prevailing philosophical currents of their time" (ibid). {{unsigned|Fr Lev}}

== The influence of Buber ==

I have forgotten to mention that I've read in several places that Martin Buber, not to mention other Western philosophers, were important influences on the theology of [[Dumitru Staniloae]]. Turcescu mentions elsewhere that "In ''Dogmatics'', Staniloae tried to blend in a very creative fashion patristic insights with contemporary theology, both Western and Eastern" (in ''The Teachings of Modern Orthodox Christianity on Law, Politics, & Human Nature'', p. 300). --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 12:08, May 6, 2008 (UTC)

: I honestly don't see what's so damning about having non-Orthodox influence on one's thinking, particularly since it's obvious from even a cursory reading of the ancient Fathers that their thinking was profoundly influenced by not just heterodox, but ''pagan'' sources. In any event, it's pretty hard even to function in the world without some sort of non-Orthodox influence on one's thinking.

: The question is whether one's teaching is Orthodox or not (not who or what influenced it), and in our Tradition no ruling can be made on this question without episcopal (synodal, in the case of a bishop being in question) authority. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 12:28, May 6, 2008 (UTC)

:: I think that we can not separate the two. One's heterodox influences bring up next logical question - Has one's theology escaped from the captivity of the influences (sources)? Very good example of this question can be found in the criticism of Fr. Schmmemmann by Fr. Pomazansky. Answer to that question is decisive on whether one's theology is Orthodox or heterodox. In the book Being as Communion, there are numerous references to heterodox writings and many assertions of JZ are based on them. For example, on pages 164-165, JZ talks about "individualities" and "persons" referring to the M. Buber... who made clear distinction between the two, making them antonyms. However, as Turcescu already provided in his article, St. Gregory of Nyssa used both terms as synonyms. In this example, heterodox influence prevailed in the thought of JZ over the Orthodox, resulting in his thought being heterodox as well. If he were to follow Orthodox thought od St. Gregory, we would not have this dispute over his work. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 12:55, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

::: From the fact that Zizioulas borrows a conceptual distinction between persons and individuals from Martin Buber, it does not follow that his thought is heterodox. It is logically fallacious to argue that 'Since X borrows from Y; and since Y is heterodox; therefore X is heterodox.' At most, Turcescu's article establishes that Zizioulas uses some words in different ways than St Gregory of Nyssa. But that does not make Zizioulas heterodox.

::: Also, the claims made by Turscescu have been challenged (both by Zizioulas and others); as such, they cannot be appealed to as authoritative.

::: Moreover, as far as I can see, there is no dispute over the thought of Metropolitan John. All that exists is Cebactokpatop trying to insert anti-Zizioulas polemic into the article, with everyone else telling him that he is being unreasonable and incivil. [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 13:46, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

:::: It wouldn't follow under one condition - if it was not contrary to Orthodox. Since JZ adapted his thought to Buber's, whose definitions of terms "individual" and "person" are contrary to those of St. Gregory, his thought, consequently is based on foundations contrary to Orthodoxy. His direct adoption of heterodox definitions without revising them and providing content that is in line with Orthodoxy, pushed his thought outside to the sea of heterodoxy... [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 14:39, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

::::: Again you fail to understand the point. Zizioulas found a particular way of speaking (the distinction between person and individual) helpful in articulating Orthodox theology in dialogue with the concerns of existentialist thinking. He uses 'individual' as a shorthand for a human being whose mode of existence is selfish and in rejection of the love of God; he uses 'person' as a shorthand for a human being whose mode of existence is ecclesial. It is not heterodox to distinguish between these different modes of existence. Your failure to grasp this suggests that you do not understand Zizioulas' thought. [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 21:20, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

==The Neopatristic Revival==
One of the great ironies of this back and forth has been the characterization of a number of important Orthodox theologians in the West as “modernist” or under the influence of Jewish or Western philosophers. Perhaps the most important commonality of Lossky, Zizioulas, Yannaras, Meyendorff, Schmemann, Florovksy, Romanides, and Staniloae was/is their commitment to a “return to the Fathers.” For a great deal of time, Greek and Russian theology languished under a “western captivity” in which Orthodox theologians abandoned patristics in favor of Roman scholasticism. Of these, the most influential has always been Lossky, in whom I was initiated thirty years ago when I first read ''The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church''. (BTW, ‘Eastern’ was not part of Lossky’s original title but was inserted at the insistence of an editor.) As it has been described by Aidan Nichols, “This study, with its identification an existentialist and personalist slant to the patristic dogmatics of, especially, Gregory of Nyssa and Maximus Confessor, soon acquired the status of a classic.” --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 17:50, May 6, 2008 (UTC)

: Please do not mix Fr. Florovsky with the reas to of the "team". Although, several of his stances were problematic, he was Orthodox theologian, apart and far from those that came out of Paris school. The "team" misused him, and now many think how he is part of the "team". He is not. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 20:12, May 7, 2008 (UTC)

:: On the contrary, Florovsky is united with Lossky, Schmemann, Meyendorff, Romanides, Yannaras and Zizioulas in calling for a return to patristic theology, rather than to continue with the religious philosophy of Bulgakov and Berdiaev, or to acquiesce in the redundant repetition of nineteenth-century Russian seminary theology (cf. Pomazansky's ''Orthodox Dogmatic Theology''). [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 13:52, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

::: It is well known that names you mentioned (except Fr. Florovsky) use such "call" to disguise their inventions and parade them as patristic. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 14:32, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

:::: It is not well known, becuase it is not correct. Anyway, it is clear that you do not understand Orthodox theology well enough to be making such claims. [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 21:22, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

== revising the Lossky sentence ==

Clearly, Fr John was not himself claiming that "to differ from Lossky" is to differ from the Fathers; he was trying to state what the reviser believes. The statement before was ambiguous, so I have edited it to make clear Fr John's intent. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 18:57, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

: Oh Lord... He can read Fr. John's mind! [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 20:09, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

:: Cebactokpatop, please don't remove a {{fact}} tag without providing the reference. [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 21:09, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

I assume that Fr John is monitoring this page and that he will correct me if I have drawn a bad inference from his comments. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 23:16, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

== Who believes that 'to differ from Lossky is to differ from patristic theology'??? ==

Could someone please provide references of some individual or group within Orthodoxy who believes that to differ from Lossky's theology is to differ from patristic theology??? I am not aware of anyone who holds this ridiculous position except Cebactokpatop. If no-one except Cebactokpatop holds this view then this sentence should be struck from the article, as Orthodoxwiki is not about providing a platform for the idiosyncratic views of one editor. [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 21:14, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

== Turcescu's Misreading of Zizioulas ==

Turcescu criticizes the Metropolitan on the question of person versus individual by indicating that St Gregory of Nyssa sometime uses ἄτομον (''atomon'') “to express the notion of the person.” Of the Cappadocians, only St Gregory uses ''atomon'' as equivalent to ''hypostasis'' or ''prosopon''. So one could stop here and say that only one of the Cappadocians followed a usage contrary to the Metropolitan’s reading. But that would still leave a misimpression. For if one thought that St Gregory was saying atomon as predicated of human persons could be predicated of divine persons ''simpliciter'', we would be left with the heresy of tritheism. But St Gregory was not foolish, which is why he never said any such thing. The other Fathers (Cappadocian or otherwise) never run the risk of confusing someone (such as Turcescu and his fervent disciple, Cebactokpatop) by using ''atomon'' as equivalent to person. While we find the Orthodox confession of three ''hypostaseis'' or three ''prosopa'', nowhere in Orthodox theology do we find the confession of three ''atoma''. Thus Turcescu’s criticism of the Metropolitan’s refusal to equate ''atomon'' with either ''prosopon'' or ''hypostasis'' can only by employed in a defense of tritheism. While at no point on these pages has Cebactokpatop ever read someone else’s posts charitably, I will give him the benefit of the doubt and not infer that he is arguing for tritheism. And if I am right about his intent (I am no mind reader, as he pointed out), then he needs to consider revising his support of Turcescu’s argument. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 00:40, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

Talk:John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon

2008-05-08T20:09:56Z

Cebactokpatop: /* revising the Lossky sentence */

*[[Talk:John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon/Archive 1|Archive 1]] - from Creation to Protection (Mar 6).
*[[Talk:John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon/Archive 2|Archive 2]] - from Protection to Unprotection (Apr 30).

== Reversion ==

I've rolled back [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]]'s recent major changes (essentially for reasons detailed throughout this Talk page)—perhaps it was a mistake to unprotect the article again so soon. I'll leave it unprotected for now, hoping that Agenda-driven edits won't take over again. If they do, and especially if they're from [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]], it may be necessary to introduce a ban on that editor for a time. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:07, April 30, 2008 (UTC)

: Your revert without even reading the changes I put in is another proof that this website has no interest in expressing the reality that exists in The Church, but rather fictitious visions of several individuals claiming to be "fr". [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 18:30, April 30, 2008 (UTC)

:: Oh, trust me—I read them. Anyway, [[w:Talk:John Zizioulas]], along with your Agenda here, demonstrate that you're not interested in pursuing the editing of an encyclopedia in a calm manner. Indeed, your above condemnation of our many thousands of editors ''en masse'' is a pretty clear indication that you're not interested in good faith editing. As noted on your Talk page, your account has been banned. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:33, April 30, 2008 (UTC)

::: Your action against my account was illegal. It represented misjudgment on your side, which resulted in misuse of your sysops powers. Consequently, your error was reverted by Fr. John. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 18:21, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

:::: Illegal? Are you planning to sue me now? (In what court?) —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:25, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

== Enough ==

This is an Orthodox Website which for many people is a valuable source of knowledge. The attacks against His Eminence Metropolitan John of Pergamon, or any other hierarch of the Holy Orthodox Church, are not necessary on this forum. Whilst I don't share the same ecclesiological opinions as His Eminence, I have no right as a member of the Church to criticise him. Please, for the sake of those young people who use this website for edification, cease these attacks on the hierachy of the One, Holy Orthodox Church. - Peter Mav

:I also agree Peter, it would be a good idea if the discussion around this Father of the church is put on hold and indeed perhaps we should pray for the poor dear's soul as the amount of negativity emitted towards him is very unfair! I say, lets all work towards continuing to build Orthodox articles not critical defences to be used in a court of law. I dont even know why he is controversial :-) Like Mother Molania said in her talk from [[Ancient Faith Radio]], Insane people associating with insane people can not become sane ...only the Saints are "sane"! Chit chatting, keeps US in INSANITY! [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 09:32, May 1, 2008 (UTC)

:: That is precisely why all over the article of Metropolitan John and other contemporary Orthodox theologians we should print in big bold letters: “DO NOT BASE YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE ORTHODOXY ON WIRITINGS OF THIS CONTEMPORARIES WHOSE THEOLOGY IS NOT VERIFIED BY THE HISTORY YET. USE THEOLOGY OF THE HOLY FATHERS INSTEAD.”

:: We do not want to educate young people with the thought of the potentially problematic theologians like m. John (and fr. Schmmemmann, fr. Mayendorff, fr. Afanasiev, etc. – students of the “Paris school of Orthodoxy”). If you want to discuss it further, and you know more appropriate place (e.g. private forum), we can go there and continue.

:: [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 14:59, May 1, 2008 (UTC)

::: This is an encyclopedia, not a catechism. We're not in the business of putting big warning labels on articles about modern writers, especially those who are generally quite well-regarded throughout the Orthodox world, such as nearly everyone you mention.

::: That they are criticized by certain minority sectors of Orthodoxy is certainly a viable element for their respective articles, but that criticism should not be the dominant theme of the article, which would be undue weight. The impression a reader should get ought to be based on how the writer is regarded throughout the Orthodox Church, not on the idiosyncratic criticisms of a few, especially not regarding someone who's never even been accused by the proper authorities (much less condemned by them).

::: In any event, any general overview of Orthodoxy makes it plain that our theological emphasis is on the Scriptures and the Holy Fathers, not on any modern writer. If someone gets his entire impression of Orthodoxy or education in the faith from a single article on OrthodoxWiki, well, he's going about it wrong. One would hope that common sense would make that clear. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:31, May 1, 2008 (UTC)

I agree with some points raised by all who have responded. I am still concerned however, because I know a lot of youths use this website for introductory information and not having extensive knowledge or sometimes even the spiritual grounding can be scandalised. Obviously, mentioning that this hierarch's teachings are not accepted by some is good, encyclopaedic knowledge but some of the criticisms prior to their removal were not beneficial to the soul of anyone. I apologise if I have offended anyone. - Peter Mav

: In the above response of user Andrew we find the basis for the entire dispute. He is saying that Metropolitan John is ''"regarded throughout the Orthodox Church"'' and being ''"criticized by certain minority sectors of Orthodoxy"'', which is completely untrue/false/wrong/misguiding/misleading/etc. Vast majority of Orthodoxy exists beyond US shoreline, and even beyond English speaking world. Sooner that group of the individuals realize that, sooner we will get synergy in our actions. Such a fringe and perverted view of position of m. John in Orthodoxy is what user Andrew and couple of other individuals kept promoting, constantly trying to minimize the number and extent of the critics. It is best evident in the current version of the article, when in the criticism section they put reference to Bishop Ignjatije, who praises his work. What is that reference doing there? [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 12:54, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

I think that the user Fr Andrew is correct in his assessment. Lest anyone get the impression that the Serbian Church has somehow made a judgement that Metropolitan John is heterodox, I thought it worthwhile to note that a bishop and professor of theology in Serbia is a strong supporter of Metropolitan John's work. Anytime anyone disagrees with Cebactokpatop, he resorts to personal attack (both here and in the Wikipedia article). He has attacked and dismissed not only the other editors and Metropolitan John, but also:
*Bishop Kallistos Ware ("Ecumenist buddy of JZ")
*Christos Yannaras ("Ecumenist buddy of JZ")
*Fr John Meyendorff ("Heterodox", along with Schmmemann and Afanasiev)
*Fr Boris Bobrinskoy ("never heard of this guy"): I can't help it if Cebactokpatop hasn't heard of the dean of the St Sergius Institute in Paris, but then again, he dismisses the Paris school as "heterodox."
*Bishop Ignjatije Midić ("ecumenist... who can hardly be called a theologian, as he is almost not writing anything"): Well, in addition to being bishop of Branicevo, he is professor of dogmatics and ethics at the Serbian theological institute in Belgrade and is the author of a new book on dogmatics.
*Aristotle Papanikolaou ("Another buddy of JZ"), etc.

When I mentioned Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos, his only response was "Are you sure?" The answer to that is, Yes. If one checks the several references to Metropolitan John in Metropolitan Hierotheos' book on the person, one finds they are all very positive. On a personal note, having just finished reading ''Communion and Otherness'' and looking through ''Being as Communion'' again, I do not see how anyone who carefully read them could give any credence to the charges Cebactokpatop has made, not least of which is the absurd charge of heterodoxy. Aprt from the Serbian text he cites by Lazic and the interview with Archbishop Stylianos, NONE of the sources he cites as criticisms draw his conclusions. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 13:51, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

:: You are certainly entitled to support JZ and other individuals from Paris school of "orthodoxy". However, you are not entitled to personally dismiss me for providing valid academic resources that criticize JZ or any other product of mentioned school in Paris. From the list of the articles you contributed to, we can clearly see that your faith is in Paris. Orthodox who prefer to have their faith elswhere (e.g. Cappadocia), have a right to express their dissatisfaction with the innovations of Paris' school as well. You have done a great job in prizing JZ's work in the article. Now it is a time to balance it with the concerns of the Traditional Orthodox, Mr. Puhalo. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 17:43, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

::: Methinks you have Fr. Lev confused with Abp. [[Lazar (Puhalo) of Ottawa]]. They're not the same person. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:02, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

:::: Are you sure about that my friend? I am beyond reasonable doubts... they are the same person. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 18:10, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

::::: Based on what? The name "Lev"? —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:31, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

ROTFL! I have been accused of many things in my life, but never of being an archbishop! --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 19:12, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

: You are right. You are not an Archbishop. To become the one, it would require valid canonical ordination. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 19:14, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

Another personal attack -- ''quelle surprise''! I was "canonically" ordained, BTW, by a "canonical" bishop of a "canonical" patriarchal Church. I know who I am, but I have no idea who Cebactokpatop is. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 19:30, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

: Whatever. I am not interested in "canonicity" of your ordination (if any). What I am interested in, is making sure you understand that current version of the article is not balanced, as you intentionally (or not) tried to minimize criticisms of JZ. Do you understand that? If you do, it would be easier for me to go in and try to balance it so that readers do not get an impression that they have before them, article about some "saint". [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 20:12, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

::Ok, enough everyone with the personal back and forth. I agree that the article should also present criticisms fairly and rationally. Cebactokpatop, I am concerned by your personal attacks, which at least in some cases are totally unfounded, and to my mind, crazy (e.g. Fr Lev is not Archbp Lazar!). If this kind of stuff continues, I'm going to freeze this page. I've just edited the article to incorporate some of the material present in earlier drafts. — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk]) 21:17, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

:::I agree. While I normally say very little on Orthodoxwiki (I'm not a scholar of complex dogma or theology, nor do I wish or claim to be), I've been lurking around this discussion and reading what everyone has said. Cebactokpatop, I think it would behoove you to take a leaf from Frs. Andrew and John, as well as the other sysops and users here on Orthodoxwiki. They've been extremely charitable with you when they have received so very little from you in these discussions. When they indulge your vitriol, you reward them with ad hominem attacks, questioning their identities, and even going so far as to question the canonicity of people's ordinations with temerity (although you deny this, it is clearly evident that you do so). You ask readers and writers to address your edits with "proper academic attire." Yet, I have to ask the physician to heal himself with respect to your paranoia and derision. Fr. Andrew, specifically, has not only responded to you in a very Christ-like manner, but has been nothing short of a gentleman in dealing with you.

:::I ask, in the future, when you are a guest of other wikis and forums, you try to act in a similar manner.[[User:Mike|Mike]] 21:55, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

== Material for Inclusion ==

* [[Fr. John Behr]] in the aticle ''"The Trinitarian Being of the Church"'', argues that Zizioulas' use of The Three as an archetype for The Church, when he establishes communion of The Church as an image of the communion od The Three, ends up dismissing both - The Three and The Church. ''(St Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 48:1 (2004), 67-88)'' {{unsigned|Cebactokpatop}}

In reviewing Fr John Behr's essay, I don't see it saying anything to suggest that Metropolitan John's view ends us "dismissing" the Trinity and the Church. I'd like to see the quote and page number that is alleged to say that. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 22:54, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

: Any suggestions on how to reword Fr. Behr's criticism? Isn't this dismissal of The Church: ''"What is said of the Church is certainly based upon what is said of the Trinity, but the effect of speaking in this manner, paradoxically, is that the Church is separated from God, as a distinct entity reflecting the divine being."'' (page 68) Church without ties to God does not exist, even though, it may perfectly mimic the Three. At the same time, we do not know The Three without Their Church. It is The Church that is left behind to proclaim The Three. Disconnect JZ creates, dismisses The Church, and conequenly blind us from The Three, which equates to dismissal. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 03:43, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

== What counts as "academic criticism"? ==

Fr John, I find your floowing edit problematic: "Peter J. Leithart's article, Divine Energies and Orthodox Soteriology, cites the work of Papanikolaou, and points out where Vladimir Lossky and Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) differ on the issue of divine energies. His article implies criticism, based on understanding of the certain Orthodox, who see work of Prof. Lossky as contemporary synthesis of the patristic theology. Thus, to differ from Prof. Lossky, is to differ from patristic theology."

(1) Leithart in no way understands hie article to be critical of Metropolitan John. Not only is that clear from actually reading the article, but he has confirmed that in personal correspondence. (2) There is nothing here to indicate there is any substantive problem with what Metropolitan John says about the essence/energies distinction. (3) If an undergraduate wrote in an academic paper the sentence, "Thus, to differ from Prof. Lossky, is to differ from patristic theology", there wouldn't get a very good grade. Lossky is a personal theological hereo of mine, but I don't know any serious theologian who would judge him to be the sole criterion of Orthodoxy. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 23:13, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

: Indeed, no. Lossky himself has been criticized by major figures in the 20th century, e.g., Staniloae, who's no theological slouch himself. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 02:42, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:: Zizioulas and Meyendorff fell into the pit trying to criticise either Lossky or St. Gregory Palamas, as both of them are not capable of grasping what those two champions were writing about. Area related to the Holy Spirit is unknown and incomprehensible to these "eucharistic ecclesiologians" who understand bodily portion only, based on instructions from RCC theologians Mr. Congar and Mr. Lubac. In order to understand The Spirit, one has to now The Spirit of Orthodoxy. Paris school is so far from that Spirit that their theology consequently, can not be in the Spirit of Orthodoxy. In order to "bring closer" Orthodoxy to Rome (ecumenists), they have to introduce some other spirit - that is spirit of Rome. Orthodox Spirit can never get any closer to Rome than in past 1000 years. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 02:59, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::: An interesting analysis, but I fail to see how this is relevant to the task at hand, which is summarizing reliable secondary sources into an encyclopedia entry which represents the mainstream Chalcedonian viewpoint and takes minor note of other relevant viewpoints. Personal attacks are not really germane—how do you know what Meyendorff or Metr. John are "capable of grasping"? —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 03:08, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:::: That was my response on your assertion: "Lossky himself has been criticized" with my addition of Meyendorff and St. Gregory as another example of the same failure. JZ in his bible Being as Commununion "showed" how Lossky "was wrong". [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 03:15, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

== Should criticism be 'mainstream'? ==

I have read repeatedly that OrthoWiki is about "mainstream" Orthodoxy. Some of the criticism included here is, e.g., from Old Calendarists, who condemn most of the Churches represented here for using the Revised Julian calendar or for ecumenism. Nothing against Old Calendarist "resistance" synods and hyper-traditionalists, but what relevance should their criticism have in a minstream venue such as this? Given that they make the same criticisms of Bishop Kallistos, Fr Alexander Schmemann, Fr John Meyendorff, Christos Yannaras, etc., as they do of Metropolitan John, why should this be included? And all to satisfy one editor whose personal animus is clear? What will come next? When he became convinced "beyond reasonable doubts" that I am Abp Lazar Puhalo, he immediately went to the page on the Archbishop to write negative comments. I am waiting for him to add "criticism" sections to the articles on Bishop Kallistos, Fr Alexander Schmemann, et al., in which they, too, are denounced as heterodox ecumenists of the Paris School. What is to stop him? After all, he can find a blog or an online article by or quoting Heiromonk Patapios or Archbishop Chrysostomos casting aspersions on the orthodoxy of them all. He has dismissed Bishop Ignatije (Midic) of Pozarevac and Branicevo. Look what passes for "criticism" in the link he provided on that page -- a blog entry with a paragraph of Bishop Ignatije. No argument. Even the priest who wrote the blog wasn't sure that the paragraph was a true representation of Bishop Ignatije. This is the "criticism" that should be included in an encyclopedia article? --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 00:59, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

: I think your point is well made. The so-called "Traditionalist Orthodox" are explicitly not given a soapbox here, as per the [[OW:NPOV|MCB]]. If there seems to be a united front against the subject of an article from those sectors, it is enough to mention it briefly, but not to allow it to dominate an article.

: In any event, what is clear is that Metr. John is generally quite highly regarded throughout the Orthodox Church, which is explicitly defined on OrthodoxWiki as [[List of autocephalous and autonomous churches|this list]], i.e., the Mainstream Chalcedonian churches. Metr. John is not a controversial figure by any means, and the article should reflect that. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 02:37, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

: I dod not provide any link to Bishop Ignjatije. Please stop telling false stories. Also, "resistance" Orthodox are in dogmatics same as Orthodox, which makes them valid in their criticisms. What they differ about is heresy over all heresies - ecumenism, and masonic infux into Orthodoxy - [[Meletios IV (Metaxakis) of Constantinople]]. It appears that those who praise Paris school of "orthodoxy" support ecumenism, and logically, regard "reistance" Orthodox as lesser Orthodox than Vatican! [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 02:47, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:: If I am mistaken in how I read the OrthoWiki history page on the article, my apology. But it seems to say you created that link at 21:53 on May 2, 2008: http://orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Ignatije_%28Midic%29_of_Pozarevac_and_Branicevo&diff=65572&oldid=42851
--[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 02:54, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:: [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]], all of this is essentially irrelevant. The do-it-yourself "Celtic Orthodox" gent who lives near here and visits our church every so often is also quite likely "in dogmatics same as Orthodox," but I'm not about to interview him for this article.

:: The point is that what the "resistance/True/Genuine/Traditionalist/etc." groups think is only of relatively small importance on most OrthodoxWiki articles. Whatever one may think of the so-called "Paris School" (whatever that may mean—does that simply mean St. Sergius Institute?), it currently is part of and accepted by mainstream Orthodoxy, while by comparison the "resistance/True/Genuine/Traditionalist/etc." groups are fringe. Their opinions on Metr. John are irrelevant. Perhaps if one of them had engaged in some major debate with him, they might be relevant.

:: One doesn't have to be an "ecumenist" or a Freemason or an Ultramontanist sympathizer in order to see that giving undue weight to the opinions of such folks is essentially a violation of the explicit bias of OrthodoxWiki. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 02:57, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::: I repeat - I did not produce any link related to Bishop Ignjatije. All I did on his page was to convert section listing his writings from latin into cyrillic.

::: It appears to me that both of you want to minimize amount and extent of the criticisms for some reason. Can you provide a valid reason for your attempts to blind the public? [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 03:08, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:::: It's not a question of eliminating criticism (OrthodoxWiki articles are replete with descriptions of criticism, which is clear from even a cursory browsing of the site)—it's where it's coming from and how much is actually appropriate to represent the mainstream view on the subject matter. Piling an article high with criticisms from fringe sources is not consistent with the policies of OrthodoxWiki, nor does it do anyone a service. "The public" are not "blinded" by an attempt to write balanced articles consistent with OrthodoxWiki policies. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 03:11, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::::: I have a problem with your statements simply because all of the disputes I had here were about same thing - constant denial of the criticisms from several individuals who disguise their denial under the mask of "policies", "encyclopedia", "POV/NPOV", etc. What is balanced for you? To praise his work on two pages, and then mention critics in a mild form just to satisfy annoyances like myself? [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 03:20, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::::::And you don't see a problem with all disputes being about the same thing? This is (or endeavours to be, either/or) a ''Mainstream Chalcedonian Orthodox encyclopedia''. This is fairly explicit in intent and focus. The scholarly attacks on Metr. John provided have been more attack than scholarly (quite a number of them are mere citations or references to Metr. John, rather than any theological grappling), and the few scholars have willingly placed themselves outside of the Mainstream Chalcedonian Orthodoxy that we are ''explicitly'' putting forward.
::::::There have been others who have attempted to browbeat OW into submission for their own agendas - Ben Lomond and Western Rite talk pages are replete with arguments attempting to convince OW that it should not follow it's own ''explicit'' bias towards Mainstream Chalcedonian Orthodoxy. It's not like OW is claiming to be something that it's not. — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 01:49, May 5, 2008 (UTC)

::::::: I do not know what is "Chalcedonian Orthodoxy". I know what Orthodoxy is vs. heterodoxy, namely: Monophysitism, Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, etc. Can you, please, define the term you were using? Thanks. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 18:30, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

== Just a thought ==

It seems to me that this article is basically supposed to be a biographical introduction to Metr. John. While mention of the variety of opinions expressed about his work can, and probably should, be mentioned, it seems to me that this is not the proper forum for a detailed discussion (and listing) of these opinions. Half of the article, as it stands, is concerned with criticism and responses to that criticism and that seems rather unbalanced for something that is trying to be an encyclopedic entry.

I am not sure where a discussion of all these opinions should take place, or even whether OrthodoxWiki is the right forum for such a discussion. It just seems to me that this particular page is not the place for it.

Just my two cents, and with this I leave this debate.

In the risen Christ,
[[User:Vandrona|Fr. Peter]]

:Hi Fr. Peter, Thanks for your comments on this. It is indeed a hard call, but I do think that part of the role OrthodoxWiki plays is precisely in pushing for an articulation of controversial issues in church life. Obviously, so many of the criticisms of Metropolitan John's work are not just about him, but are about a particular movement or trend within Orthodox theology. I really want to see as precise and accurate overview of this debate as possible. Again, I do think this itself is a good service to the community. I'm not interested in personal attacks or blanket condemnations, etc. but am very interested in thoughtful criticisms or defenses. I'm curious about what others think. — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk]) 09:27, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::Hello, Fr. John. I apologize for the lack of clarity in my original post, so I will try to briefly clarify what I was trying to say. First off, having thought about it and read your reply, it does make sense that the wiki is a good place to articulate controversial issues. In which case I meant to suggest following a Wikipedia approach: having a mention of the controversial issue on the biographical page with a link to an article specifically dedicated to the issue being debated (e.g., "Theology of John Zizioulas"). That way we can avoid the contentious section being longer than the rest of the article. We also get another page where all the relevant references can be quoted and noted (hopefully...), rather than simply having somewhat vague mentions in the vein of "Metr. John has addressed this criticism." [[User:Vandrona|Fr. Peter]]

I notice a minor edit "struggle" over the sentence someone wrote and I restored: "His article implies criticism, based on understanding of the certain Orthodox, who see work of [[Vladimir Lossky|Prof. Lossky]] as contemporary synthesis of the patristic theology. Thus, to differ from [[Vladimir Lossky|Prof. Lossky]], is to differ from patristic theology." This had been changed to "This article would be critical if seen through the ideology of [[Vladimir Lossky|Prof. Lossky]]'s work as being a contemporary synthesis of patristic theology." I think I understand the reason for this change -- the original sentence is rather vague and difficult to make sense of (it may be that the original author's primary language was not English), but I'm not sure the cleanup help makes the meaning any clearer. Perhaps somehow can expain this better, but for now I going to revert this again. — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk]) 09:27, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:Because the article is only a critical article if Lossky is held up as a synthesis of patristic theology. If the Lossky=Theology standpoint is not taken, the article is not critical at all, merely comparative. As I don't know how one would even go about justifying the Lossky=Theology standpoint, I don't think that the article is criticism at all, and shouldn't be there. — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 01:37, May 5, 2008 (UTC)

:: For that reason, sentence states: ''"based on understanding of the '''certain Orthodox''', who '''see work of [[Vladimir Lossky|Prof. Lossky]] as contemporary synthesis of the patristic theology'''"''. I think it is clearly explained, why and under what condition, article of Mr. Leithart is seen by ''"certain Orthodox"'' as criticism, unintentional though, but, still criticism. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 13:14, May 5, 2008 (UTC)

:::Sad irony: such a viewpoint of Lossky isn't Orthodox. We do not take any one author as being perfect, theologically or otherwise - which explains how Staniloae can disagree with Lossky and yet not be thrown out of the Church. The question is whether the article ''is'' critical, not whether it can be misinterpreted into criticism. — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 19:30, May 5, 2008 (UTC)

== Selective reading of Papankolaou ==

Cebactokpatop has attempted to make hay of Papanikolaou's statement (in a footnote) that Metropolitan John has acknowledged in a private converstion that the Metropolitan was "influenced" by some secular philosophers, as if this is a "proof text" of some sort. The first thing to say is that this is something the Metropolitan has acknowledged in his own writing. I somehow get the impression that Cebactokpatop saw Papanikolaou's statement as a "smoking gun." But if one reads the text of the page (159) that is footnoted, one sees Papanikolaou saying a couple of things that Cebactokpatop is intentionally ignoring. The ironic one is that fact that Papanikolaou notes that the same charge of being influenced by modern personalism has been made against Lossky, as well as Metropolitan John. Thus he cherry-picks a charge that Papanikolaou points out is made against Lossky, his ''sine qua non'' of Orthodoxy. And, of course, Papanikolaou acquits both theologians. He goes on to cite the differences between the Metropolitan and those modern philosophers and that, for the Metropolitan, only a Trinitarian theology that affirms the monarchy of the Father can provide an adequate theology of personhood. As Papanikolaou says, "[Zizioulas} and Lossky are no more superimposing a philosophical system on the Eastern patristic writers than did these same writers Hellenize the teachings of Jesus" (160). Metropolitan John and Lossky simply have done what the Fathers did -- "thinking about the authoritative texts of the tradition in light of the questions, challenges, and prevailing philosophical currents of their time" (ibid). {{unsigned|Fr Lev}}

== The influence of Buber ==

I have forgotten to mention that I've read in several places that Martin Buber, not to mention other Western philosophers, were important influences on the theology of [[Dumitru Staniloae]]. Turcescu mentions elsewhere that "In ''Dogmatics'', Staniloae tried to blend in a very creative fashion patristic insights with contemporary theology, both Western and Eastern" (in ''The Teachings of Modern Orthodox Christianity on Law, Politics, & Human Nature'', p. 300). --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 12:08, May 6, 2008 (UTC)

: I honestly don't see what's so damning about having non-Orthodox influence on one's thinking, particularly since it's obvious from even a cursory reading of the ancient Fathers that their thinking was profoundly influenced by not just heterodox, but ''pagan'' sources. In any event, it's pretty hard even to function in the world without some sort of non-Orthodox influence on one's thinking.

: The question is whether one's teaching is Orthodox or not (not who or what influenced it), and in our Tradition no ruling can be made on this question without episcopal (synodal, in the case of a bishop being in question) authority. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 12:28, May 6, 2008 (UTC)

:: I think that we can not separate the two. One's heterodox influences bring up next logical question - Has one's theology escaped from the captivity of the influences (sources)? Very good example of this question can be found in the criticism of Fr. Schmmemmann by Fr. Pomazansky. Answer to that question is decisive on whether one's theology is Orthodox or heterodox. In the book Being as Communion, there are numerous references to heterodox writings and many assertions of JZ are based on them. For example, on pages 164-165, JZ talks about "individualities" and "persons" referring to the M. Buber... who made clear distinction between the two, making them antonyms. However, as Turcescu already provided in his article, St. Gregory of Nyssa used both terms as synonyms. In this example, heterodox influence prevailed in the thought of JZ over the Orthodox, resulting in his thought being heterodox as well. If he were to follow Orthodox thought od St. Gregory, we would not have this dispute over his work. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 12:55, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

::: From the fact that Zizioulas borrows a conceptual distinction between persons and individuals from Martin Buber, it does not follow that his thought is heterodox. It is logically fallacious to argue that 'Since X borrows from Y; and since Y is heterodox; therefore X is heterodox.' At most, Turcescu's article establishes that Zizioulas uses some words in different ways than St Gregory of Nyssa. But that does not make Zizioulas heterodox.

::: Also, the claims made by Turscescu have been challenged (both by Zizioulas and others); as such, they cannot be appealed to as authoritative.

::: Moreover, as far as I can see, there is no dispute over the thought of Metropolitan John. All that exists is Cebactokpatop trying to insert anti-Zizioulas polemic into the article, with everyone else telling him that he is being unreasonable and incivil. [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 13:46, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

:::: It wouldn't follow under one condition - if it was not contrary to Orthodox. Since JZ adapted his thought to Buber's, whose definitions of terms "individual" and "person" are contrary to those of St. Gregory, his thought, consequently is based on foundations contrary to Orthodoxy. His direct adoption of heterodox definitions without revising them and providing content that is in line with Orthodoxy, pushed his thought outside to the sea of heterodoxy... [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 14:39, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

==The Neopatristic Revival==
One of the great ironies of this back and forth has been the characterization of a number of important Orthodox theologians in the West as “modernist” or under the influence of Jewish or Western philosophers. Perhaps the most important commonality of Lossky, Zizioulas, Yannaras, Meyendorff, Schmemann, Florovksy, Romanides, and Staniloae was/is their commitment to a “return to the Fathers.” For a great deal of time, Greek and Russian theology languished under a “western captivity” in which Orthodox theologians abandoned patristics in favor of Roman scholasticism. Of these, the most influential has always been Lossky, in whom I was initiated thirty years ago when I first read ''The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church''. (BTW, ‘Eastern’ was not part of Lossky’s original title but was inserted at the insistence of an editor.) As it has been described by Aidan Nichols, “This study, with its identification an existentialist and personalist slant to the patristic dogmatics of, especially, Gregory of Nyssa and Maximus Confessor, soon acquired the status of a classic.” --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 17:50, May 6, 2008 (UTC)

: Please do not mix Fr. Florovsky with the reas to of the "team". Although, several of his stances were problematic, he was Orthodox theologian, apart and far from those that came out of Paris school. The "team" misused him, and now many think how he is part of the "team". He is not. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 20:12, May 7, 2008 (UTC)

:: On the contrary, Florovsky is united with Lossky, Schmemann, Meyendorff, Romanides, Yannaras and Zizioulas in calling for a return to patristic theology, rather than to continue with the religious philosophy of Bulgakov and Berdiaev, or to acquiesce in the redundant repetition of nineteenth-century Russian seminary theology (cf. Pomazansky's ''Orthodox Dogmatic Theology''). [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 13:52, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

::: It is well known that names you mentioned (except Fr. Florovsky) use such "call" to disguise their inventions and parade them as patristic. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 14:32, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

== revising the Lossky sentence ==

Clearly, Fr John was not himself claiming that "to differ from Lossky" is to differ from the Fathers; he was trying to state what the reviser believes. The statement before was ambiguous, so I have edited it to make clear Fr John's intent. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 18:57, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

: Oh Lord... He can read Fr. John's mind! [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 20:09, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

Talk:John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon

2008-05-08T18:30:17Z

Cebactokpatop: /* Should criticism be 'mainstream'? */

Talk:John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon

2008-05-08T14:39:14Z

Cebactokpatop: /* The influence of Buber */

*[[Talk:John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon/Archive 1|Archive 1]] - from Creation to Protection (Mar 6).
*[[Talk:John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon/Archive 2|Archive 2]] - from Protection to Unprotection (Apr 30).

== Reversion ==

I've rolled back [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]]'s recent major changes (essentially for reasons detailed throughout this Talk page)—perhaps it was a mistake to unprotect the article again so soon. I'll leave it unprotected for now, hoping that Agenda-driven edits won't take over again. If they do, and especially if they're from [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]], it may be necessary to introduce a ban on that editor for a time. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:07, April 30, 2008 (UTC)

: Your revert without even reading the changes I put in is another proof that this website has no interest in expressing the reality that exists in The Church, but rather fictitious visions of several individuals claiming to be "fr". [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 18:30, April 30, 2008 (UTC)

:: Oh, trust me—I read them. Anyway, [[w:Talk:John Zizioulas]], along with your Agenda here, demonstrate that you're not interested in pursuing the editing of an encyclopedia in a calm manner. Indeed, your above condemnation of our many thousands of editors ''en masse'' is a pretty clear indication that you're not interested in good faith editing. As noted on your Talk page, your account has been banned. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:33, April 30, 2008 (UTC)

::: Your action against my account was illegal. It represented misjudgment on your side, which resulted in misuse of your sysops powers. Consequently, your error was reverted by Fr. John. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 18:21, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

:::: Illegal? Are you planning to sue me now? (In what court?) —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:25, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

== Enough ==

This is an Orthodox Website which for many people is a valuable source of knowledge. The attacks against His Eminence Metropolitan John of Pergamon, or any other hierarch of the Holy Orthodox Church, are not necessary on this forum. Whilst I don't share the same ecclesiological opinions as His Eminence, I have no right as a member of the Church to criticise him. Please, for the sake of those young people who use this website for edification, cease these attacks on the hierachy of the One, Holy Orthodox Church. - Peter Mav

:I also agree Peter, it would be a good idea if the discussion around this Father of the church is put on hold and indeed perhaps we should pray for the poor dear's soul as the amount of negativity emitted towards him is very unfair! I say, lets all work towards continuing to build Orthodox articles not critical defences to be used in a court of law. I dont even know why he is controversial :-) Like Mother Molania said in her talk from [[Ancient Faith Radio]], Insane people associating with insane people can not become sane ...only the Saints are "sane"! Chit chatting, keeps US in INSANITY! [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 09:32, May 1, 2008 (UTC)

:: That is precisely why all over the article of Metropolitan John and other contemporary Orthodox theologians we should print in big bold letters: “DO NOT BASE YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE ORTHODOXY ON WIRITINGS OF THIS CONTEMPORARIES WHOSE THEOLOGY IS NOT VERIFIED BY THE HISTORY YET. USE THEOLOGY OF THE HOLY FATHERS INSTEAD.”

:: We do not want to educate young people with the thought of the potentially problematic theologians like m. John (and fr. Schmmemmann, fr. Mayendorff, fr. Afanasiev, etc. – students of the “Paris school of Orthodoxy”). If you want to discuss it further, and you know more appropriate place (e.g. private forum), we can go there and continue.

:: [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 14:59, May 1, 2008 (UTC)

::: This is an encyclopedia, not a catechism. We're not in the business of putting big warning labels on articles about modern writers, especially those who are generally quite well-regarded throughout the Orthodox world, such as nearly everyone you mention.

::: That they are criticized by certain minority sectors of Orthodoxy is certainly a viable element for their respective articles, but that criticism should not be the dominant theme of the article, which would be undue weight. The impression a reader should get ought to be based on how the writer is regarded throughout the Orthodox Church, not on the idiosyncratic criticisms of a few, especially not regarding someone who's never even been accused by the proper authorities (much less condemned by them).

::: In any event, any general overview of Orthodoxy makes it plain that our theological emphasis is on the Scriptures and the Holy Fathers, not on any modern writer. If someone gets his entire impression of Orthodoxy or education in the faith from a single article on OrthodoxWiki, well, he's going about it wrong. One would hope that common sense would make that clear. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:31, May 1, 2008 (UTC)

I agree with some points raised by all who have responded. I am still concerned however, because I know a lot of youths use this website for introductory information and not having extensive knowledge or sometimes even the spiritual grounding can be scandalised. Obviously, mentioning that this hierarch's teachings are not accepted by some is good, encyclopaedic knowledge but some of the criticisms prior to their removal were not beneficial to the soul of anyone. I apologise if I have offended anyone. - Peter Mav

: In the above response of user Andrew we find the basis for the entire dispute. He is saying that Metropolitan John is ''"regarded throughout the Orthodox Church"'' and being ''"criticized by certain minority sectors of Orthodoxy"'', which is completely untrue/false/wrong/misguiding/misleading/etc. Vast majority of Orthodoxy exists beyond US shoreline, and even beyond English speaking world. Sooner that group of the individuals realize that, sooner we will get synergy in our actions. Such a fringe and perverted view of position of m. John in Orthodoxy is what user Andrew and couple of other individuals kept promoting, constantly trying to minimize the number and extent of the critics. It is best evident in the current version of the article, when in the criticism section they put reference to Bishop Ignjatije, who praises his work. What is that reference doing there? [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 12:54, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

I think that the user Fr Andrew is correct in his assessment. Lest anyone get the impression that the Serbian Church has somehow made a judgement that Metropolitan John is heterodox, I thought it worthwhile to note that a bishop and professor of theology in Serbia is a strong supporter of Metropolitan John's work. Anytime anyone disagrees with Cebactokpatop, he resorts to personal attack (both here and in the Wikipedia article). He has attacked and dismissed not only the other editors and Metropolitan John, but also:
*Bishop Kallistos Ware ("Ecumenist buddy of JZ")
*Christos Yannaras ("Ecumenist buddy of JZ")
*Fr John Meyendorff ("Heterodox", along with Schmmemann and Afanasiev)
*Fr Boris Bobrinskoy ("never heard of this guy"): I can't help it if Cebactokpatop hasn't heard of the dean of the St Sergius Institute in Paris, but then again, he dismisses the Paris school as "heterodox."
*Bishop Ignjatije Midić ("ecumenist... who can hardly be called a theologian, as he is almost not writing anything"): Well, in addition to being bishop of Branicevo, he is professor of dogmatics and ethics at the Serbian theological institute in Belgrade and is the author of a new book on dogmatics.
*Aristotle Papanikolaou ("Another buddy of JZ"), etc.

When I mentioned Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos, his only response was "Are you sure?" The answer to that is, Yes. If one checks the several references to Metropolitan John in Metropolitan Hierotheos' book on the person, one finds they are all very positive. On a personal note, having just finished reading ''Communion and Otherness'' and looking through ''Being as Communion'' again, I do not see how anyone who carefully read them could give any credence to the charges Cebactokpatop has made, not least of which is the absurd charge of heterodoxy. Aprt from the Serbian text he cites by Lazic and the interview with Archbishop Stylianos, NONE of the sources he cites as criticisms draw his conclusions. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 13:51, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

:: You are certainly entitled to support JZ and other individuals from Paris school of "orthodoxy". However, you are not entitled to personally dismiss me for providing valid academic resources that criticize JZ or any other product of mentioned school in Paris. From the list of the articles you contributed to, we can clearly see that your faith is in Paris. Orthodox who prefer to have their faith elswhere (e.g. Cappadocia), have a right to express their dissatisfaction with the innovations of Paris' school as well. You have done a great job in prizing JZ's work in the article. Now it is a time to balance it with the concerns of the Traditional Orthodox, Mr. Puhalo. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 17:43, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

::: Methinks you have Fr. Lev confused with Abp. [[Lazar (Puhalo) of Ottawa]]. They're not the same person. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:02, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

:::: Are you sure about that my friend? I am beyond reasonable doubts... they are the same person. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 18:10, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

::::: Based on what? The name "Lev"? —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:31, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

ROTFL! I have been accused of many things in my life, but never of being an archbishop! --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 19:12, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

: You are right. You are not an Archbishop. To become the one, it would require valid canonical ordination. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 19:14, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

Another personal attack -- ''quelle surprise''! I was "canonically" ordained, BTW, by a "canonical" bishop of a "canonical" patriarchal Church. I know who I am, but I have no idea who Cebactokpatop is. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 19:30, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

: Whatever. I am not interested in "canonicity" of your ordination (if any). What I am interested in, is making sure you understand that current version of the article is not balanced, as you intentionally (or not) tried to minimize criticisms of JZ. Do you understand that? If you do, it would be easier for me to go in and try to balance it so that readers do not get an impression that they have before them, article about some "saint". [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 20:12, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

::Ok, enough everyone with the personal back and forth. I agree that the article should also present criticisms fairly and rationally. Cebactokpatop, I am concerned by your personal attacks, which at least in some cases are totally unfounded, and to my mind, crazy (e.g. Fr Lev is not Archbp Lazar!). If this kind of stuff continues, I'm going to freeze this page. I've just edited the article to incorporate some of the material present in earlier drafts. — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk]) 21:17, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

:::I agree. While I normally say very little on Orthodoxwiki (I'm not a scholar of complex dogma or theology, nor do I wish or claim to be), I've been lurking around this discussion and reading what everyone has said. Cebactokpatop, I think it would behoove you to take a leaf from Frs. Andrew and John, as well as the other sysops and users here on Orthodoxwiki. They've been extremely charitable with you when they have received so very little from you in these discussions. When they indulge your vitriol, you reward them with ad hominem attacks, questioning their identities, and even going so far as to question the canonicity of people's ordinations with temerity (although you deny this, it is clearly evident that you do so). You ask readers and writers to address your edits with "proper academic attire." Yet, I have to ask the physician to heal himself with respect to your paranoia and derision. Fr. Andrew, specifically, has not only responded to you in a very Christ-like manner, but has been nothing short of a gentleman in dealing with you.

:::I ask, in the future, when you are a guest of other wikis and forums, you try to act in a similar manner.[[User:Mike|Mike]] 21:55, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

== Material for Inclusion ==

* [[Fr. John Behr]] in the aticle ''"The Trinitarian Being of the Church"'', argues that Zizioulas' use of The Three as an archetype for The Church, when he establishes communion of The Church as an image of the communion od The Three, ends up dismissing both - The Three and The Church. ''(St Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 48:1 (2004), 67-88)'' {{unsigned|Cebactokpatop}}

In reviewing Fr John Behr's essay, I don't see it saying anything to suggest that Metropolitan John's view ends us "dismissing" the Trinity and the Church. I'd like to see the quote and page number that is alleged to say that. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 22:54, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

: Any suggestions on how to reword Fr. Behr's criticism? Isn't this dismissal of The Church: ''"What is said of the Church is certainly based upon what is said of the Trinity, but the effect of speaking in this manner, paradoxically, is that the Church is separated from God, as a distinct entity reflecting the divine being."'' (page 68) Church without ties to God does not exist, even though, it may perfectly mimic the Three. At the same time, we do not know The Three without Their Church. It is The Church that is left behind to proclaim The Three. Disconnect JZ creates, dismisses The Church, and conequenly blind us from The Three, which equates to dismissal. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 03:43, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

== What counts as "academic criticism"? ==

Fr John, I find your floowing edit problematic: "Peter J. Leithart's article, Divine Energies and Orthodox Soteriology, cites the work of Papanikolaou, and points out where Vladimir Lossky and Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) differ on the issue of divine energies. His article implies criticism, based on understanding of the certain Orthodox, who see work of Prof. Lossky as contemporary synthesis of the patristic theology. Thus, to differ from Prof. Lossky, is to differ from patristic theology."

(1) Leithart in no way understands hie article to be critical of Metropolitan John. Not only is that clear from actually reading the article, but he has confirmed that in personal correspondence. (2) There is nothing here to indicate there is any substantive problem with what Metropolitan John says about the essence/energies distinction. (3) If an undergraduate wrote in an academic paper the sentence, "Thus, to differ from Prof. Lossky, is to differ from patristic theology", there wouldn't get a very good grade. Lossky is a personal theological hereo of mine, but I don't know any serious theologian who would judge him to be the sole criterion of Orthodoxy. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 23:13, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

: Indeed, no. Lossky himself has been criticized by major figures in the 20th century, e.g., Staniloae, who's no theological slouch himself. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 02:42, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:: Zizioulas and Meyendorff fell into the pit trying to criticise either Lossky or St. Gregory Palamas, as both of them are not capable of grasping what those two champions were writing about. Area related to the Holy Spirit is unknown and incomprehensible to these "eucharistic ecclesiologians" who understand bodily portion only, based on instructions from RCC theologians Mr. Congar and Mr. Lubac. In order to understand The Spirit, one has to now The Spirit of Orthodoxy. Paris school is so far from that Spirit that their theology consequently, can not be in the Spirit of Orthodoxy. In order to "bring closer" Orthodoxy to Rome (ecumenists), they have to introduce some other spirit - that is spirit of Rome. Orthodox Spirit can never get any closer to Rome than in past 1000 years. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 02:59, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::: An interesting analysis, but I fail to see how this is relevant to the task at hand, which is summarizing reliable secondary sources into an encyclopedia entry which represents the mainstream Chalcedonian viewpoint and takes minor note of other relevant viewpoints. Personal attacks are not really germane—how do you know what Meyendorff or Metr. John are "capable of grasping"? —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 03:08, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:::: That was my response on your assertion: "Lossky himself has been criticized" with my addition of Meyendorff and St. Gregory as another example of the same failure. JZ in his bible Being as Commununion "showed" how Lossky "was wrong". [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 03:15, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

== Should criticism be 'mainstream'? ==

I have read repeatedly that OrthoWiki is about "mainstream" Orthodoxy. Some of the criticism included here is, e.g., from Old Calendarists, who condemn most of the Churches represented here for using the Revised Julian calendar or for ecumenism. Nothing against Old Calendarist "resistance" synods and hyper-traditionalists, but what relevance should their criticism have in a minstream venue such as this? Given that they make the same criticisms of Bishop Kallistos, Fr Alexander Schmemann, Fr John Meyendorff, Christos Yannaras, etc., as they do of Metropolitan John, why should this be included? And all to satisfy one editor whose personal animus is clear? What will come next? When he became convinced "beyond reasonable doubts" that I am Abp Lazar Puhalo, he immediately went to the page on the Archbishop to write negative comments. I am waiting for him to add "criticism" sections to the articles on Bishop Kallistos, Fr Alexander Schmemann, et al., in which they, too, are denounced as heterodox ecumenists of the Paris School. What is to stop him? After all, he can find a blog or an online article by or quoting Heiromonk Patapios or Archbishop Chrysostomos casting aspersions on the orthodoxy of them all. He has dismissed Bishop Ignatije (Midic) of Pozarevac and Branicevo. Look what passes for "criticism" in the link he provided on that page -- a blog entry with a paragraph of Bishop Ignatije. No argument. Even the priest who wrote the blog wasn't sure that the paragraph was a true representation of Bishop Ignatije. This is the "criticism" that should be included in an encyclopedia article? --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 00:59, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

: I think your point is well made. The so-called "Traditionalist Orthodox" are explicitly not given a soapbox here, as per the [[OW:NPOV|MCB]]. If there seems to be a united front against the subject of an article from those sectors, it is enough to mention it briefly, but not to allow it to dominate an article.

: In any event, what is clear is that Metr. John is generally quite highly regarded throughout the Orthodox Church, which is explicitly defined on OrthodoxWiki as [[List of autocephalous and autonomous churches|this list]], i.e., the Mainstream Chalcedonian churches. Metr. John is not a controversial figure by any means, and the article should reflect that. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 02:37, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

: I dod not provide any link to Bishop Ignjatije. Please stop telling false stories. Also, "resistance" Orthodox are in dogmatics same as Orthodox, which makes them valid in their criticisms. What they differ about is heresy over all heresies - ecumenism, and masonic infux into Orthodoxy - [[Meletios IV (Metaxakis) of Constantinople]]. It appears that those who praise Paris school of "orthodoxy" support ecumenism, and logically, regard "reistance" Orthodox as lesser Orthodox than Vatican! [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 02:47, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:: If I am mistaken in how I read the OrthoWiki history page on the article, my apology. But it seems to say you created that link at 21:53 on May 2, 2008: http://orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Ignatije_%28Midic%29_of_Pozarevac_and_Branicevo&diff=65572&oldid=42851
--[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 02:54, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:: [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]], all of this is essentially irrelevant. The do-it-yourself "Celtic Orthodox" gent who lives near here and visits our church every so often is also quite likely "in dogmatics same as Orthodox," but I'm not about to interview him for this article.

:: The point is that what the "resistance/True/Genuine/Traditionalist/etc." groups think is only of relatively small importance on most OrthodoxWiki articles. Whatever one may think of the so-called "Paris School" (whatever that may mean—does that simply mean St. Sergius Institute?), it currently is part of and accepted by mainstream Orthodoxy, while by comparison the "resistance/True/Genuine/Traditionalist/etc." groups are fringe. Their opinions on Metr. John are irrelevant. Perhaps if one of them had engaged in some major debate with him, they might be relevant.

:: One doesn't have to be an "ecumenist" or a Freemason or an Ultramontanist sympathizer in order to see that giving undue weight to the opinions of such folks is essentially a violation of the explicit bias of OrthodoxWiki. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 02:57, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::: I repeat - I did not produce any link related to Bishop Ignjatije. All I did on his page was to convert section listing his writings from latin into cyrillic.

::: It appears to me that both of you want to minimize amount and extent of the criticisms for some reason. Can you provide a valid reason for your attempts to blind the public? [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 03:08, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:::: It's not a question of eliminating criticism (OrthodoxWiki articles are replete with descriptions of criticism, which is clear from even a cursory browsing of the site)—it's where it's coming from and how much is actually appropriate to represent the mainstream view on the subject matter. Piling an article high with criticisms from fringe sources is not consistent with the policies of OrthodoxWiki, nor does it do anyone a service. "The public" are not "blinded" by an attempt to write balanced articles consistent with OrthodoxWiki policies. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 03:11, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::::: I have a problem with your statements simply because all of the disputes I had here were about same thing - constant denial of the criticisms from several individuals who disguise their denial under the mask of "policies", "encyclopedia", "POV/NPOV", etc. What is balanced for you? To praise his work on two pages, and then mention critics in a mild form just to satisfy annoyances like myself? [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 03:20, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::::::And you don't see a problem with all disputes being about the same thing? This is (or endeavours to be, either/or) a ''Mainstream Chalcedonian Orthodox encyclopedia''. This is fairly explicit in intent and focus. The scholarly attacks on Metr. John provided have been more attack than scholarly (quite a number of them are mere citations or references to Metr. John, rather than any theological grappling), and the few scholars have willingly placed themselves outside of the Mainstream Chalcedonian Orthodoxy that we are ''explicitly'' putting forward.
::::::There have been others who have attempted to browbeat OW into submission for their own agendas - Ben Lomond and Western Rite talk pages are replete with arguments attempting to convince OW that it should not follow it's own ''explicit'' bias towards Mainstream Chalcedonian Orthodoxy. It's not like OW is claiming to be something that it's not. — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 01:49, May 5, 2008 (UTC)

== Just a thought ==

It seems to me that this article is basically supposed to be a biographical introduction to Metr. John. While mention of the variety of opinions expressed about his work can, and probably should, be mentioned, it seems to me that this is not the proper forum for a detailed discussion (and listing) of these opinions. Half of the article, as it stands, is concerned with criticism and responses to that criticism and that seems rather unbalanced for something that is trying to be an encyclopedic entry.

I am not sure where a discussion of all these opinions should take place, or even whether OrthodoxWiki is the right forum for such a discussion. It just seems to me that this particular page is not the place for it.

Just my two cents, and with this I leave this debate.

In the risen Christ,
[[User:Vandrona|Fr. Peter]]

:Hi Fr. Peter, Thanks for your comments on this. It is indeed a hard call, but I do think that part of the role OrthodoxWiki plays is precisely in pushing for an articulation of controversial issues in church life. Obviously, so many of the criticisms of Metropolitan John's work are not just about him, but are about a particular movement or trend within Orthodox theology. I really want to see as precise and accurate overview of this debate as possible. Again, I do think this itself is a good service to the community. I'm not interested in personal attacks or blanket condemnations, etc. but am very interested in thoughtful criticisms or defenses. I'm curious about what others think. — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk]) 09:27, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::Hello, Fr. John. I apologize for the lack of clarity in my original post, so I will try to briefly clarify what I was trying to say. First off, having thought about it and read your reply, it does make sense that the wiki is a good place to articulate controversial issues. In which case I meant to suggest following a Wikipedia approach: having a mention of the controversial issue on the biographical page with a link to an article specifically dedicated to the issue being debated (e.g., "Theology of John Zizioulas"). That way we can avoid the contentious section being longer than the rest of the article. We also get another page where all the relevant references can be quoted and noted (hopefully...), rather than simply having somewhat vague mentions in the vein of "Metr. John has addressed this criticism." [[User:Vandrona|Fr. Peter]]

I notice a minor edit "struggle" over the sentence someone wrote and I restored: "His article implies criticism, based on understanding of the certain Orthodox, who see work of [[Vladimir Lossky|Prof. Lossky]] as contemporary synthesis of the patristic theology. Thus, to differ from [[Vladimir Lossky|Prof. Lossky]], is to differ from patristic theology." This had been changed to "This article would be critical if seen through the ideology of [[Vladimir Lossky|Prof. Lossky]]'s work as being a contemporary synthesis of patristic theology." I think I understand the reason for this change -- the original sentence is rather vague and difficult to make sense of (it may be that the original author's primary language was not English), but I'm not sure the cleanup help makes the meaning any clearer. Perhaps somehow can expain this better, but for now I going to revert this again. — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk]) 09:27, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:Because the article is only a critical article if Lossky is held up as a synthesis of patristic theology. If the Lossky=Theology standpoint is not taken, the article is not critical at all, merely comparative. As I don't know how one would even go about justifying the Lossky=Theology standpoint, I don't think that the article is criticism at all, and shouldn't be there. — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 01:37, May 5, 2008 (UTC)

:: For that reason, sentence states: ''"based on understanding of the '''certain Orthodox''', who '''see work of [[Vladimir Lossky|Prof. Lossky]] as contemporary synthesis of the patristic theology'''"''. I think it is clearly explained, why and under what condition, article of Mr. Leithart is seen by ''"certain Orthodox"'' as criticism, unintentional though, but, still criticism. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 13:14, May 5, 2008 (UTC)

:::Sad irony: such a viewpoint of Lossky isn't Orthodox. We do not take any one author as being perfect, theologically or otherwise - which explains how Staniloae can disagree with Lossky and yet not be thrown out of the Church. The question is whether the article ''is'' critical, not whether it can be misinterpreted into criticism. — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 19:30, May 5, 2008 (UTC)

== Selective reading of Papankolaou ==

Cebactokpatop has attempted to make hay of Papanikolaou's statement (in a footnote) that Metropolitan John has acknowledged in a private converstion that the Metropolitan was "influenced" by some secular philosophers, as if this is a "proof text" of some sort. The first thing to say is that this is something the Metropolitan has acknowledged in his own writing. I somehow get the impression that Cebactokpatop saw Papanikolaou's statement as a "smoking gun." But if one reads the text of the page (159) that is footnoted, one sees Papanikolaou saying a couple of things that Cebactokpatop is intentionally ignoring. The ironic one is that fact that Papanikolaou notes that the same charge of being influenced by modern personalism has been made against Lossky, as well as Metropolitan John. Thus he cherry-picks a charge that Papanikolaou points out is made against Lossky, his ''sine qua non'' of Orthodoxy. And, of course, Papanikolaou acquits both theologians. He goes on to cite the differences between the Metropolitan and those modern philosophers and that, for the Metropolitan, only a Trinitarian theology that affirms the monarchy of the Father can provide an adequate theology of personhood. As Papanikolaou says, "[Zizioulas} and Lossky are no more superimposing a philosophical system on the Eastern patristic writers than did these same writers Hellenize the teachings of Jesus" (160). Metropolitan John and Lossky simply have done what the Fathers did -- "thinking about the authoritative texts of the tradition in light of the questions, challenges, and prevailing philosophical currents of their time" (ibid). {{unsigned|Fr Lev}}

== The influence of Buber ==

I have forgotten to mention that I've read in several places that Martin Buber, not to mention other Western philosophers, were important influences on the theology of [[Dumitru Staniloae]]. Turcescu mentions elsewhere that "In ''Dogmatics'', Staniloae tried to blend in a very creative fashion patristic insights with contemporary theology, both Western and Eastern" (in ''The Teachings of Modern Orthodox Christianity on Law, Politics, & Human Nature'', p. 300). --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 12:08, May 6, 2008 (UTC)

: I honestly don't see what's so damning about having non-Orthodox influence on one's thinking, particularly since it's obvious from even a cursory reading of the ancient Fathers that their thinking was profoundly influenced by not just heterodox, but ''pagan'' sources. In any event, it's pretty hard even to function in the world without some sort of non-Orthodox influence on one's thinking.

: The question is whether one's teaching is Orthodox or not (not who or what influenced it), and in our Tradition no ruling can be made on this question without episcopal (synodal, in the case of a bishop being in question) authority. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 12:28, May 6, 2008 (UTC)

:: I think that we can not separate the two. One's heterodox influences bring up next logical question - Has one's theology escaped from the captivity of the influences (sources)? Very good example of this question can be found in the criticism of Fr. Schmmemmann by Fr. Pomazansky. Answer to that question is decisive on whether one's theology is Orthodox or heterodox. In the book Being as Communion, there are numerous references to heterodox writings and many assertions of JZ are based on them. For example, on pages 164-165, JZ talks about "individualities" and "persons" referring to the M. Buber... who made clear distinction between the two, making them antonyms. However, as Turcescu already provided in his article, St. Gregory of Nyssa used both terms as synonyms. In this example, heterodox influence prevailed in the thought of JZ over the Orthodox, resulting in his thought being heterodox as well. If he were to follow Orthodox thought od St. Gregory, we would not have this dispute over his work. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 12:55, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

::: From the fact that Zizioulas borrows a conceptual distinction between persons and individuals from Martin Buber, it does not follow that his thought is heterodox. It is logically fallacious to argue that 'Since X borrows from Y; and since Y is heterodox; therefore X is heterodox.' At most, Turcescu's article establishes that Zizioulas uses some words in different ways than St Gregory of Nyssa. But that does not make Zizioulas heterodox.

::: Also, the claims made by Turscescu have been challenged (both by Zizioulas and others); as such, they cannot be appealed to as authoritative.

::: Moreover, as far as I can see, there is no dispute over the thought of Metropolitan John. All that exists is Cebactokpatop trying to insert anti-Zizioulas polemic into the article, with everyone else telling him that he is being unreasonable and incivil. [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 13:46, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

:::: It wouldn't follow under one condition - if it was not contrary to Orthodox. Since JZ adapted his thought to Buber's, whose definitions of terms "individual" and "person" are contrary to those of St. Gregory, his thought, consequently is based on foundations contrary to Orthodoxy. His direct adoption of heterodox definitions without revising them and providing content that is in line with Orthodoxy, pushed his thought outside to the sea of heterodoxy... [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 14:39, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

==The Neopatristic Revival==
One of the great ironies of this back and forth has been the characterization of a number of important Orthodox theologians in the West as “modernist” or under the influence of Jewish or Western philosophers. Perhaps the most important commonality of Lossky, Zizioulas, Yannaras, Meyendorff, Schmemann, Florovksy, Romanides, and Staniloae was/is their commitment to a “return to the Fathers.” For a great deal of time, Greek and Russian theology languished under a “western captivity” in which Orthodox theologians abandoned patristics in favor of Roman scholasticism. Of these, the most influential has always been Lossky, in whom I was initiated thirty years ago when I first read ''The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church''. (BTW, ‘Eastern’ was not part of Lossky’s original title but was inserted at the insistence of an editor.) As it has been described by Aidan Nichols, “This study, with its identification an existentialist and personalist slant to the patristic dogmatics of, especially, Gregory of Nyssa and Maximus Confessor, soon acquired the status of a classic.” --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 17:50, May 6, 2008 (UTC)

: Please do not mix Fr. Florovsky with the reas to of the "team". Although, several of his stances were problematic, he was Orthodox theologian, apart and far from those that came out of Paris school. The "team" misused him, and now many think how he is part of the "team". He is not. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 20:12, May 7, 2008 (UTC)

:: On the contrary, Florovsky is united with Lossky, Schmemann, Meyendorff, Romanides, Yannaras and Zizioulas in calling for a return to patristic theology, rather than to continue with the religious philosophy of Bulgakov and Berdiaev, or to acquiesce in the redundant repetition of nineteenth-century Russian seminary theology (cf. Pomazansky's ''Orthodox Dogmatic Theology''). [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 13:52, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

::: It is well known that names you mentioned (except Fr. Florovsky) use such "call" to disguise their inventions and parade them as patristic. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 14:32, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

Talk:John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon

2008-05-08T14:32:11Z

Cebactokpatop: /* The Neopatristic Revival */

*[[Talk:John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon/Archive 1|Archive 1]] - from Creation to Protection (Mar 6).
*[[Talk:John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon/Archive 2|Archive 2]] - from Protection to Unprotection (Apr 30).

== Reversion ==

I've rolled back [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]]'s recent major changes (essentially for reasons detailed throughout this Talk page)—perhaps it was a mistake to unprotect the article again so soon. I'll leave it unprotected for now, hoping that Agenda-driven edits won't take over again. If they do, and especially if they're from [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]], it may be necessary to introduce a ban on that editor for a time. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:07, April 30, 2008 (UTC)

: Your revert without even reading the changes I put in is another proof that this website has no interest in expressing the reality that exists in The Church, but rather fictitious visions of several individuals claiming to be "fr". [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 18:30, April 30, 2008 (UTC)

:: Oh, trust me—I read them. Anyway, [[w:Talk:John Zizioulas]], along with your Agenda here, demonstrate that you're not interested in pursuing the editing of an encyclopedia in a calm manner. Indeed, your above condemnation of our many thousands of editors ''en masse'' is a pretty clear indication that you're not interested in good faith editing. As noted on your Talk page, your account has been banned. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:33, April 30, 2008 (UTC)

::: Your action against my account was illegal. It represented misjudgment on your side, which resulted in misuse of your sysops powers. Consequently, your error was reverted by Fr. John. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 18:21, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

:::: Illegal? Are you planning to sue me now? (In what court?) —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:25, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

== Enough ==

This is an Orthodox Website which for many people is a valuable source of knowledge. The attacks against His Eminence Metropolitan John of Pergamon, or any other hierarch of the Holy Orthodox Church, are not necessary on this forum. Whilst I don't share the same ecclesiological opinions as His Eminence, I have no right as a member of the Church to criticise him. Please, for the sake of those young people who use this website for edification, cease these attacks on the hierachy of the One, Holy Orthodox Church. - Peter Mav

:I also agree Peter, it would be a good idea if the discussion around this Father of the church is put on hold and indeed perhaps we should pray for the poor dear's soul as the amount of negativity emitted towards him is very unfair! I say, lets all work towards continuing to build Orthodox articles not critical defences to be used in a court of law. I dont even know why he is controversial :-) Like Mother Molania said in her talk from [[Ancient Faith Radio]], Insane people associating with insane people can not become sane ...only the Saints are "sane"! Chit chatting, keeps US in INSANITY! [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 09:32, May 1, 2008 (UTC)

:: That is precisely why all over the article of Metropolitan John and other contemporary Orthodox theologians we should print in big bold letters: “DO NOT BASE YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE ORTHODOXY ON WIRITINGS OF THIS CONTEMPORARIES WHOSE THEOLOGY IS NOT VERIFIED BY THE HISTORY YET. USE THEOLOGY OF THE HOLY FATHERS INSTEAD.”

:: We do not want to educate young people with the thought of the potentially problematic theologians like m. John (and fr. Schmmemmann, fr. Mayendorff, fr. Afanasiev, etc. – students of the “Paris school of Orthodoxy”). If you want to discuss it further, and you know more appropriate place (e.g. private forum), we can go there and continue.

:: [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 14:59, May 1, 2008 (UTC)

::: This is an encyclopedia, not a catechism. We're not in the business of putting big warning labels on articles about modern writers, especially those who are generally quite well-regarded throughout the Orthodox world, such as nearly everyone you mention.

::: That they are criticized by certain minority sectors of Orthodoxy is certainly a viable element for their respective articles, but that criticism should not be the dominant theme of the article, which would be undue weight. The impression a reader should get ought to be based on how the writer is regarded throughout the Orthodox Church, not on the idiosyncratic criticisms of a few, especially not regarding someone who's never even been accused by the proper authorities (much less condemned by them).

::: In any event, any general overview of Orthodoxy makes it plain that our theological emphasis is on the Scriptures and the Holy Fathers, not on any modern writer. If someone gets his entire impression of Orthodoxy or education in the faith from a single article on OrthodoxWiki, well, he's going about it wrong. One would hope that common sense would make that clear. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:31, May 1, 2008 (UTC)

I agree with some points raised by all who have responded. I am still concerned however, because I know a lot of youths use this website for introductory information and not having extensive knowledge or sometimes even the spiritual grounding can be scandalised. Obviously, mentioning that this hierarch's teachings are not accepted by some is good, encyclopaedic knowledge but some of the criticisms prior to their removal were not beneficial to the soul of anyone. I apologise if I have offended anyone. - Peter Mav

: In the above response of user Andrew we find the basis for the entire dispute. He is saying that Metropolitan John is ''"regarded throughout the Orthodox Church"'' and being ''"criticized by certain minority sectors of Orthodoxy"'', which is completely untrue/false/wrong/misguiding/misleading/etc. Vast majority of Orthodoxy exists beyond US shoreline, and even beyond English speaking world. Sooner that group of the individuals realize that, sooner we will get synergy in our actions. Such a fringe and perverted view of position of m. John in Orthodoxy is what user Andrew and couple of other individuals kept promoting, constantly trying to minimize the number and extent of the critics. It is best evident in the current version of the article, when in the criticism section they put reference to Bishop Ignjatije, who praises his work. What is that reference doing there? [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 12:54, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

I think that the user Fr Andrew is correct in his assessment. Lest anyone get the impression that the Serbian Church has somehow made a judgement that Metropolitan John is heterodox, I thought it worthwhile to note that a bishop and professor of theology in Serbia is a strong supporter of Metropolitan John's work. Anytime anyone disagrees with Cebactokpatop, he resorts to personal attack (both here and in the Wikipedia article). He has attacked and dismissed not only the other editors and Metropolitan John, but also:
*Bishop Kallistos Ware ("Ecumenist buddy of JZ")
*Christos Yannaras ("Ecumenist buddy of JZ")
*Fr John Meyendorff ("Heterodox", along with Schmmemann and Afanasiev)
*Fr Boris Bobrinskoy ("never heard of this guy"): I can't help it if Cebactokpatop hasn't heard of the dean of the St Sergius Institute in Paris, but then again, he dismisses the Paris school as "heterodox."
*Bishop Ignjatije Midić ("ecumenist... who can hardly be called a theologian, as he is almost not writing anything"): Well, in addition to being bishop of Branicevo, he is professor of dogmatics and ethics at the Serbian theological institute in Belgrade and is the author of a new book on dogmatics.
*Aristotle Papanikolaou ("Another buddy of JZ"), etc.

When I mentioned Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos, his only response was "Are you sure?" The answer to that is, Yes. If one checks the several references to Metropolitan John in Metropolitan Hierotheos' book on the person, one finds they are all very positive. On a personal note, having just finished reading ''Communion and Otherness'' and looking through ''Being as Communion'' again, I do not see how anyone who carefully read them could give any credence to the charges Cebactokpatop has made, not least of which is the absurd charge of heterodoxy. Aprt from the Serbian text he cites by Lazic and the interview with Archbishop Stylianos, NONE of the sources he cites as criticisms draw his conclusions. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 13:51, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

:: You are certainly entitled to support JZ and other individuals from Paris school of "orthodoxy". However, you are not entitled to personally dismiss me for providing valid academic resources that criticize JZ or any other product of mentioned school in Paris. From the list of the articles you contributed to, we can clearly see that your faith is in Paris. Orthodox who prefer to have their faith elswhere (e.g. Cappadocia), have a right to express their dissatisfaction with the innovations of Paris' school as well. You have done a great job in prizing JZ's work in the article. Now it is a time to balance it with the concerns of the Traditional Orthodox, Mr. Puhalo. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 17:43, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

::: Methinks you have Fr. Lev confused with Abp. [[Lazar (Puhalo) of Ottawa]]. They're not the same person. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:02, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

:::: Are you sure about that my friend? I am beyond reasonable doubts... they are the same person. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 18:10, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

::::: Based on what? The name "Lev"? —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:31, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

ROTFL! I have been accused of many things in my life, but never of being an archbishop! --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 19:12, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

: You are right. You are not an Archbishop. To become the one, it would require valid canonical ordination. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 19:14, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

Another personal attack -- ''quelle surprise''! I was "canonically" ordained, BTW, by a "canonical" bishop of a "canonical" patriarchal Church. I know who I am, but I have no idea who Cebactokpatop is. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 19:30, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

: Whatever. I am not interested in "canonicity" of your ordination (if any). What I am interested in, is making sure you understand that current version of the article is not balanced, as you intentionally (or not) tried to minimize criticisms of JZ. Do you understand that? If you do, it would be easier for me to go in and try to balance it so that readers do not get an impression that they have before them, article about some "saint". [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 20:12, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

::Ok, enough everyone with the personal back and forth. I agree that the article should also present criticisms fairly and rationally. Cebactokpatop, I am concerned by your personal attacks, which at least in some cases are totally unfounded, and to my mind, crazy (e.g. Fr Lev is not Archbp Lazar!). If this kind of stuff continues, I'm going to freeze this page. I've just edited the article to incorporate some of the material present in earlier drafts. — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk]) 21:17, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

:::I agree. While I normally say very little on Orthodoxwiki (I'm not a scholar of complex dogma or theology, nor do I wish or claim to be), I've been lurking around this discussion and reading what everyone has said. Cebactokpatop, I think it would behoove you to take a leaf from Frs. Andrew and John, as well as the other sysops and users here on Orthodoxwiki. They've been extremely charitable with you when they have received so very little from you in these discussions. When they indulge your vitriol, you reward them with ad hominem attacks, questioning their identities, and even going so far as to question the canonicity of people's ordinations with temerity (although you deny this, it is clearly evident that you do so). You ask readers and writers to address your edits with "proper academic attire." Yet, I have to ask the physician to heal himself with respect to your paranoia and derision. Fr. Andrew, specifically, has not only responded to you in a very Christ-like manner, but has been nothing short of a gentleman in dealing with you.

:::I ask, in the future, when you are a guest of other wikis and forums, you try to act in a similar manner.[[User:Mike|Mike]] 21:55, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

== Material for Inclusion ==

* [[Fr. John Behr]] in the aticle ''"The Trinitarian Being of the Church"'', argues that Zizioulas' use of The Three as an archetype for The Church, when he establishes communion of The Church as an image of the communion od The Three, ends up dismissing both - The Three and The Church. ''(St Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 48:1 (2004), 67-88)'' {{unsigned|Cebactokpatop}}

In reviewing Fr John Behr's essay, I don't see it saying anything to suggest that Metropolitan John's view ends us "dismissing" the Trinity and the Church. I'd like to see the quote and page number that is alleged to say that. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 22:54, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

: Any suggestions on how to reword Fr. Behr's criticism? Isn't this dismissal of The Church: ''"What is said of the Church is certainly based upon what is said of the Trinity, but the effect of speaking in this manner, paradoxically, is that the Church is separated from God, as a distinct entity reflecting the divine being."'' (page 68) Church without ties to God does not exist, even though, it may perfectly mimic the Three. At the same time, we do not know The Three without Their Church. It is The Church that is left behind to proclaim The Three. Disconnect JZ creates, dismisses The Church, and conequenly blind us from The Three, which equates to dismissal. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 03:43, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

== What counts as "academic criticism"? ==

Fr John, I find your floowing edit problematic: "Peter J. Leithart's article, Divine Energies and Orthodox Soteriology, cites the work of Papanikolaou, and points out where Vladimir Lossky and Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) differ on the issue of divine energies. His article implies criticism, based on understanding of the certain Orthodox, who see work of Prof. Lossky as contemporary synthesis of the patristic theology. Thus, to differ from Prof. Lossky, is to differ from patristic theology."

(1) Leithart in no way understands hie article to be critical of Metropolitan John. Not only is that clear from actually reading the article, but he has confirmed that in personal correspondence. (2) There is nothing here to indicate there is any substantive problem with what Metropolitan John says about the essence/energies distinction. (3) If an undergraduate wrote in an academic paper the sentence, "Thus, to differ from Prof. Lossky, is to differ from patristic theology", there wouldn't get a very good grade. Lossky is a personal theological hereo of mine, but I don't know any serious theologian who would judge him to be the sole criterion of Orthodoxy. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 23:13, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

: Indeed, no. Lossky himself has been criticized by major figures in the 20th century, e.g., Staniloae, who's no theological slouch himself. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 02:42, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:: Zizioulas and Meyendorff fell into the pit trying to criticise either Lossky or St. Gregory Palamas, as both of them are not capable of grasping what those two champions were writing about. Area related to the Holy Spirit is unknown and incomprehensible to these "eucharistic ecclesiologians" who understand bodily portion only, based on instructions from RCC theologians Mr. Congar and Mr. Lubac. In order to understand The Spirit, one has to now The Spirit of Orthodoxy. Paris school is so far from that Spirit that their theology consequently, can not be in the Spirit of Orthodoxy. In order to "bring closer" Orthodoxy to Rome (ecumenists), they have to introduce some other spirit - that is spirit of Rome. Orthodox Spirit can never get any closer to Rome than in past 1000 years. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 02:59, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::: An interesting analysis, but I fail to see how this is relevant to the task at hand, which is summarizing reliable secondary sources into an encyclopedia entry which represents the mainstream Chalcedonian viewpoint and takes minor note of other relevant viewpoints. Personal attacks are not really germane—how do you know what Meyendorff or Metr. John are "capable of grasping"? —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 03:08, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:::: That was my response on your assertion: "Lossky himself has been criticized" with my addition of Meyendorff and St. Gregory as another example of the same failure. JZ in his bible Being as Commununion "showed" how Lossky "was wrong". [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 03:15, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

== Should criticism be 'mainstream'? ==

I have read repeatedly that OrthoWiki is about "mainstream" Orthodoxy. Some of the criticism included here is, e.g., from Old Calendarists, who condemn most of the Churches represented here for using the Revised Julian calendar or for ecumenism. Nothing against Old Calendarist "resistance" synods and hyper-traditionalists, but what relevance should their criticism have in a minstream venue such as this? Given that they make the same criticisms of Bishop Kallistos, Fr Alexander Schmemann, Fr John Meyendorff, Christos Yannaras, etc., as they do of Metropolitan John, why should this be included? And all to satisfy one editor whose personal animus is clear? What will come next? When he became convinced "beyond reasonable doubts" that I am Abp Lazar Puhalo, he immediately went to the page on the Archbishop to write negative comments. I am waiting for him to add "criticism" sections to the articles on Bishop Kallistos, Fr Alexander Schmemann, et al., in which they, too, are denounced as heterodox ecumenists of the Paris School. What is to stop him? After all, he can find a blog or an online article by or quoting Heiromonk Patapios or Archbishop Chrysostomos casting aspersions on the orthodoxy of them all. He has dismissed Bishop Ignatije (Midic) of Pozarevac and Branicevo. Look what passes for "criticism" in the link he provided on that page -- a blog entry with a paragraph of Bishop Ignatije. No argument. Even the priest who wrote the blog wasn't sure that the paragraph was a true representation of Bishop Ignatije. This is the "criticism" that should be included in an encyclopedia article? --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 00:59, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

: I think your point is well made. The so-called "Traditionalist Orthodox" are explicitly not given a soapbox here, as per the [[OW:NPOV|MCB]]. If there seems to be a united front against the subject of an article from those sectors, it is enough to mention it briefly, but not to allow it to dominate an article.

: In any event, what is clear is that Metr. John is generally quite highly regarded throughout the Orthodox Church, which is explicitly defined on OrthodoxWiki as [[List of autocephalous and autonomous churches|this list]], i.e., the Mainstream Chalcedonian churches. Metr. John is not a controversial figure by any means, and the article should reflect that. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 02:37, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

: I dod not provide any link to Bishop Ignjatije. Please stop telling false stories. Also, "resistance" Orthodox are in dogmatics same as Orthodox, which makes them valid in their criticisms. What they differ about is heresy over all heresies - ecumenism, and masonic infux into Orthodoxy - [[Meletios IV (Metaxakis) of Constantinople]]. It appears that those who praise Paris school of "orthodoxy" support ecumenism, and logically, regard "reistance" Orthodox as lesser Orthodox than Vatican! [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 02:47, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:: If I am mistaken in how I read the OrthoWiki history page on the article, my apology. But it seems to say you created that link at 21:53 on May 2, 2008: http://orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Ignatije_%28Midic%29_of_Pozarevac_and_Branicevo&diff=65572&oldid=42851
--[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 02:54, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:: [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]], all of this is essentially irrelevant. The do-it-yourself "Celtic Orthodox" gent who lives near here and visits our church every so often is also quite likely "in dogmatics same as Orthodox," but I'm not about to interview him for this article.

:: The point is that what the "resistance/True/Genuine/Traditionalist/etc." groups think is only of relatively small importance on most OrthodoxWiki articles. Whatever one may think of the so-called "Paris School" (whatever that may mean—does that simply mean St. Sergius Institute?), it currently is part of and accepted by mainstream Orthodoxy, while by comparison the "resistance/True/Genuine/Traditionalist/etc." groups are fringe. Their opinions on Metr. John are irrelevant. Perhaps if one of them had engaged in some major debate with him, they might be relevant.

:: One doesn't have to be an "ecumenist" or a Freemason or an Ultramontanist sympathizer in order to see that giving undue weight to the opinions of such folks is essentially a violation of the explicit bias of OrthodoxWiki. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 02:57, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::: I repeat - I did not produce any link related to Bishop Ignjatije. All I did on his page was to convert section listing his writings from latin into cyrillic.

::: It appears to me that both of you want to minimize amount and extent of the criticisms for some reason. Can you provide a valid reason for your attempts to blind the public? [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 03:08, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:::: It's not a question of eliminating criticism (OrthodoxWiki articles are replete with descriptions of criticism, which is clear from even a cursory browsing of the site)—it's where it's coming from and how much is actually appropriate to represent the mainstream view on the subject matter. Piling an article high with criticisms from fringe sources is not consistent with the policies of OrthodoxWiki, nor does it do anyone a service. "The public" are not "blinded" by an attempt to write balanced articles consistent with OrthodoxWiki policies. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 03:11, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::::: I have a problem with your statements simply because all of the disputes I had here were about same thing - constant denial of the criticisms from several individuals who disguise their denial under the mask of "policies", "encyclopedia", "POV/NPOV", etc. What is balanced for you? To praise his work on two pages, and then mention critics in a mild form just to satisfy annoyances like myself? [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 03:20, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::::::And you don't see a problem with all disputes being about the same thing? This is (or endeavours to be, either/or) a ''Mainstream Chalcedonian Orthodox encyclopedia''. This is fairly explicit in intent and focus. The scholarly attacks on Metr. John provided have been more attack than scholarly (quite a number of them are mere citations or references to Metr. John, rather than any theological grappling), and the few scholars have willingly placed themselves outside of the Mainstream Chalcedonian Orthodoxy that we are ''explicitly'' putting forward.
::::::There have been others who have attempted to browbeat OW into submission for their own agendas - Ben Lomond and Western Rite talk pages are replete with arguments attempting to convince OW that it should not follow it's own ''explicit'' bias towards Mainstream Chalcedonian Orthodoxy. It's not like OW is claiming to be something that it's not. — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 01:49, May 5, 2008 (UTC)

== Just a thought ==

It seems to me that this article is basically supposed to be a biographical introduction to Metr. John. While mention of the variety of opinions expressed about his work can, and probably should, be mentioned, it seems to me that this is not the proper forum for a detailed discussion (and listing) of these opinions. Half of the article, as it stands, is concerned with criticism and responses to that criticism and that seems rather unbalanced for something that is trying to be an encyclopedic entry.

I am not sure where a discussion of all these opinions should take place, or even whether OrthodoxWiki is the right forum for such a discussion. It just seems to me that this particular page is not the place for it.

Just my two cents, and with this I leave this debate.

In the risen Christ,
[[User:Vandrona|Fr. Peter]]

:Hi Fr. Peter, Thanks for your comments on this. It is indeed a hard call, but I do think that part of the role OrthodoxWiki plays is precisely in pushing for an articulation of controversial issues in church life. Obviously, so many of the criticisms of Metropolitan John's work are not just about him, but are about a particular movement or trend within Orthodox theology. I really want to see as precise and accurate overview of this debate as possible. Again, I do think this itself is a good service to the community. I'm not interested in personal attacks or blanket condemnations, etc. but am very interested in thoughtful criticisms or defenses. I'm curious about what others think. — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk]) 09:27, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::Hello, Fr. John. I apologize for the lack of clarity in my original post, so I will try to briefly clarify what I was trying to say. First off, having thought about it and read your reply, it does make sense that the wiki is a good place to articulate controversial issues. In which case I meant to suggest following a Wikipedia approach: having a mention of the controversial issue on the biographical page with a link to an article specifically dedicated to the issue being debated (e.g., "Theology of John Zizioulas"). That way we can avoid the contentious section being longer than the rest of the article. We also get another page where all the relevant references can be quoted and noted (hopefully...), rather than simply having somewhat vague mentions in the vein of "Metr. John has addressed this criticism." [[User:Vandrona|Fr. Peter]]

I notice a minor edit "struggle" over the sentence someone wrote and I restored: "His article implies criticism, based on understanding of the certain Orthodox, who see work of [[Vladimir Lossky|Prof. Lossky]] as contemporary synthesis of the patristic theology. Thus, to differ from [[Vladimir Lossky|Prof. Lossky]], is to differ from patristic theology." This had been changed to "This article would be critical if seen through the ideology of [[Vladimir Lossky|Prof. Lossky]]'s work as being a contemporary synthesis of patristic theology." I think I understand the reason for this change -- the original sentence is rather vague and difficult to make sense of (it may be that the original author's primary language was not English), but I'm not sure the cleanup help makes the meaning any clearer. Perhaps somehow can expain this better, but for now I going to revert this again. — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk]) 09:27, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:Because the article is only a critical article if Lossky is held up as a synthesis of patristic theology. If the Lossky=Theology standpoint is not taken, the article is not critical at all, merely comparative. As I don't know how one would even go about justifying the Lossky=Theology standpoint, I don't think that the article is criticism at all, and shouldn't be there. — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 01:37, May 5, 2008 (UTC)

:: For that reason, sentence states: ''"based on understanding of the '''certain Orthodox''', who '''see work of [[Vladimir Lossky|Prof. Lossky]] as contemporary synthesis of the patristic theology'''"''. I think it is clearly explained, why and under what condition, article of Mr. Leithart is seen by ''"certain Orthodox"'' as criticism, unintentional though, but, still criticism. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 13:14, May 5, 2008 (UTC)

:::Sad irony: such a viewpoint of Lossky isn't Orthodox. We do not take any one author as being perfect, theologically or otherwise - which explains how Staniloae can disagree with Lossky and yet not be thrown out of the Church. The question is whether the article ''is'' critical, not whether it can be misinterpreted into criticism. — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 19:30, May 5, 2008 (UTC)

== Selective reading of Papankolaou ==

Cebactokpatop has attempted to make hay of Papanikolaou's statement (in a footnote) that Metropolitan John has acknowledged in a private converstion that the Metropolitan was "influenced" by some secular philosophers, as if this is a "proof text" of some sort. The first thing to say is that this is something the Metropolitan has acknowledged in his own writing. I somehow get the impression that Cebactokpatop saw Papanikolaou's statement as a "smoking gun." But if one reads the text of the page (159) that is footnoted, one sees Papanikolaou saying a couple of things that Cebactokpatop is intentionally ignoring. The ironic one is that fact that Papanikolaou notes that the same charge of being influenced by modern personalism has been made against Lossky, as well as Metropolitan John. Thus he cherry-picks a charge that Papanikolaou points out is made against Lossky, his ''sine qua non'' of Orthodoxy. And, of course, Papanikolaou acquits both theologians. He goes on to cite the differences between the Metropolitan and those modern philosophers and that, for the Metropolitan, only a Trinitarian theology that affirms the monarchy of the Father can provide an adequate theology of personhood. As Papanikolaou says, "[Zizioulas} and Lossky are no more superimposing a philosophical system on the Eastern patristic writers than did these same writers Hellenize the teachings of Jesus" (160). Metropolitan John and Lossky simply have done what the Fathers did -- "thinking about the authoritative texts of the tradition in light of the questions, challenges, and prevailing philosophical currents of their time" (ibid). {{unsigned|Fr Lev}}

== The influence of Buber ==

I have forgotten to mention that I've read in several places that Martin Buber, not to mention other Western philosophers, were important influences on the theology of [[Dumitru Staniloae]]. Turcescu mentions elsewhere that "In ''Dogmatics'', Staniloae tried to blend in a very creative fashion patristic insights with contemporary theology, both Western and Eastern" (in ''The Teachings of Modern Orthodox Christianity on Law, Politics, & Human Nature'', p. 300). --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 12:08, May 6, 2008 (UTC)

: I honestly don't see what's so damning about having non-Orthodox influence on one's thinking, particularly since it's obvious from even a cursory reading of the ancient Fathers that their thinking was profoundly influenced by not just heterodox, but ''pagan'' sources. In any event, it's pretty hard even to function in the world without some sort of non-Orthodox influence on one's thinking.

: The question is whether one's teaching is Orthodox or not (not who or what influenced it), and in our Tradition no ruling can be made on this question without episcopal (synodal, in the case of a bishop being in question) authority. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 12:28, May 6, 2008 (UTC)

:: I think that we can not separate the two. One's heterodox influences bring up next logical question - Has one's theology escaped from the captivity of the influences (sources)? Very good example of this question can be found in the criticism of Fr. Schmmemmann by Fr. Pomazansky. Answer to that question is decisive on whether one's theology is Orthodox or heterodox. In the book Being as Communion, there are numerous references to heterodox writings and many assertions of JZ are based on them. For example, on pages 164-165, JZ talks about "individualities" and "persons" referring to the M. Buber... who made clear distinction between the two, making them antonyms. However, as Turcescu already provided in his article, St. Gregory of Nyssa used both terms as synonyms. In this example, heterodox influence prevailed in the thought of JZ over the Orthodox, resulting in his thought being heterodox as well. If he were to follow Orthodox thought od St. Gregory, we would not have this dispute over his work. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 12:55, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

::: From the fact that Zizioulas borrows a conceptual distinction between persons and individuals from Martin Buber, it does not follow that his thought is heterodox. It is logically fallacious to argue that 'Since X borrows from Y; and since Y is heterodox; therefore X is heterodox.' At most, Turcescu's article establishes that Zizioulas uses some words in different ways than St Gregory of Nyssa. But that does not make Zizioulas heterodox.

::: Also, the claims made by Turscescu have been challenged (both by Zizioulas and others); as such, they cannot be appealed to as authoritative.

::: Moreover, as far as I can see, there is no dispute over the thought of Metropolitan John. All that exists is Cebactokpatop trying to insert anti-Zizioulas polemic into the article, with everyone else telling him that he is being unreasonable and incivil. [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 13:46, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

==The Neopatristic Revival==
One of the great ironies of this back and forth has been the characterization of a number of important Orthodox theologians in the West as “modernist” or under the influence of Jewish or Western philosophers. Perhaps the most important commonality of Lossky, Zizioulas, Yannaras, Meyendorff, Schmemann, Florovksy, Romanides, and Staniloae was/is their commitment to a “return to the Fathers.” For a great deal of time, Greek and Russian theology languished under a “western captivity” in which Orthodox theologians abandoned patristics in favor of Roman scholasticism. Of these, the most influential has always been Lossky, in whom I was initiated thirty years ago when I first read ''The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church''. (BTW, ‘Eastern’ was not part of Lossky’s original title but was inserted at the insistence of an editor.) As it has been described by Aidan Nichols, “This study, with its identification an existentialist and personalist slant to the patristic dogmatics of, especially, Gregory of Nyssa and Maximus Confessor, soon acquired the status of a classic.” --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 17:50, May 6, 2008 (UTC)

: Please do not mix Fr. Florovsky with the reas to of the "team". Although, several of his stances were problematic, he was Orthodox theologian, apart and far from those that came out of Paris school. The "team" misused him, and now many think how he is part of the "team". He is not. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 20:12, May 7, 2008 (UTC)

:: On the contrary, Florovsky is united with Lossky, Schmemann, Meyendorff, Romanides, Yannaras and Zizioulas in calling for a return to patristic theology, rather than to continue with the religious philosophy of Bulgakov and Berdiaev, or to acquiesce in the redundant repetition of nineteenth-century Russian seminary theology (cf. Pomazansky's ''Orthodox Dogmatic Theology''). [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 13:52, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

::: It is well known that names you mentioned (except Fr. Florovsky) use such "call" to disguise their inventions and parade them as patristic. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 14:32, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon

2008-05-08T14:27:30Z

Cebactokpatop: Undo revision 65907 by Seminarist (Talk) Restoring original sentence of Fr. John

[[Image:Zizioulas1.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon]]
His Excellency the Most Reverend '''John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon''' (b. 1931) is a modern [[theologian]] and [[titular bishop|titular]] [[Metropolitan]] of Pergamon, under the [[Ecumenical Patriarchate]] of Constantinople.

==Life==
The future metropolitan was born [[January 10]], 1931. He began his studies at the University of Thessaloniki but took his first theology degree from the University of Athens in 1955. He studied patristics under Father Georges Florovsky at Harvard Divinity School, receiving his M.T.S. in 1956, and his doctorate in theology from the University of Athens in 1965. He was professor of theology for 14 years at the University of Glasgow and the University of Edinburgh, and has been a visiting professor at the University of Geneva, Gregorian University, and King's College, London. He was consecrated as a bishop on [[June 22]], 1986 and named Metropolitan of Pergamon.

==Theology and significance==
Metropolitan John is one of the most important Christian theologians alive today, influencing theologians in the Roman Catholic and Protestant communions as well in the Orthodox Church. Some have suggested that his 1985 book, ''Being as Communion'', is perhaps the most significant theological book of the late 20th century.

The principle themes in Metropolitan John’s theology are freedom and otherness, both human and divine. Grounding his work in the Cappadocian Fathers and St Maximus Confessor in particular, he articulates a relational ontology in which neither unity nor plurality have priority. His ''Being as Communion'' (1985) addressed the theme from the importance of communion for unity, while his later ''Communion and Otherness'' (2007) is a complementary analysis of the importance of otherness for communion. He thus takes up the ancient philosophical problem of reconciling the One and the Many, which he examines with respect to divinity (the three Persons of the Trinity and the ''monarchia'' of the Father), humanity (theological anthropology), and the Church (ecclesiology). The philosophical implications of the book extend to the human and social sciences. A further theme of the two studies is the eschatological ontology he derives from St Maximus the Confessor, in which the truly real is that which is real at the ''eschaton''. This is the subject of a new book by the Metropolitan to be released in summer 2008, ''Remembering the Future: An Eschatological Ontology''.

His first book was his doctoral dissertation in 1965, only recently published in English as ''Eucharist, Bishop, Church: The Unity of the Church in the Divine Eucharist and the Bishop During the First Three Centuries'' (2001). It was an early and significant contribution to the development of ‘eucharistic ecclesiology’, associated with [[Nicholas Afanasiev]], that focused on the essential role of the bishop as the presider of the Church’s Divine Liturgy.

Metropolitan John has become a key figure in major ecumenical dialogues between the Orthodox Church and other Christian traditions, and in 2006 succeeded Archbishop [[Stylianos (Harkianakis) of Australia|Stylianos of Australia]] as president of the Commission of Orthodox in the Dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church. Metropolitan John is also well-known for his work on the environment, particularly for his lecture series, ‘Preserving God’s Creation.’

==Books==
*''L'Être ecclésial'' (Paris: Labor et Fides, 1981). ISBN 978-2830901801.
*''E Ktise os eucharistia'' (Athens: Akritas, 1992). ISBN 978-9607006981. This would be rendered in English as ''Creation as Eucharist''.
*''Being and Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church'' (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimirs Seminary Press, 1997). ISBN 978-0881410297.
*''Eucharist, Bishop, Church: The Unity of the Church in the Divine Eucharist and the Bishop During the First Three Centuries'' (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross, 2001). ISBN 978-1885652515.
*''Ellenismos kai Christianismos: H Synantese ton duo Kosmon'' (Athens: ApostolikeDiakonia, 2003). This would be renderd in English as ''Hellenism and Christianity: The Meeting of Two Worlds''.
*''Communion & Otherness: Further Studies in Personhood and the Church'' (London: T & T Clark, 2007). ISBN 978-0567031488.
*''Remembering the Future: An Eschatological Ontology'' (London: T&T Clark, 2008). ISBN 978-0567032355.
*''Lectures in Christian Dogmatics'' (London: T&T Clark, 2009). ISBN 978-0567033154.

==Studies==
*Fox, Patricia A. ''God as Communion: John Zizioulas, Elizabeth Johnson, and the Retrieval of the Symbol of the Triune God'' (Michael Glazer, 2001). ISBN 978-0814650820.
*Knight, Douglas, ed. ''The Theology of John Zizioulas: Personhood and the Church'' (Ashgate, 2007). ISBN 978-0754654308.
*McPartlan, Paul. ''The Eucharist Makes the Church: Henri du Lubac and John Zizioulas in Dialogue''. Eastern Christian Publications, 2006. ISBN 978-1892278616.
*Papanikolaou, Aristotle. ''Being with God: Trinity, Apophaticism, and Divine-Human Communion'' (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2006). ISBN 978-0268038304.

==Criticisms==
Like many theologians, particularly those involved in theological dialogues, Metropolitan John has undergone criticism for his theological works, particularly in the areas of the patristic roots of his theology of personhood, and his ecclesiology and perspective on ecumenical relations.

===Theology of Personhood===
*Lucian Turcescu argues in ''[http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1468-0025.00202 Person versus Individual and Other Modern Misreadings of Gregory of Nyssa]'' that there are differences between patristic theology and the theology of John Zizioulas. Specifically, Turcescu argues that "Zizioulas is ... in error when he contends that the Cappadocians did not understand a person as an individual or when he credits them with having had the same concerns we moderns have when combating individualism today."2
:*These criticisms have been answered by Aristotle Papanikolaou in the same journal 3 and by Metropolitan John himself.4

* Rodoljub Lazic, in his book, ''Innovatory Theology of Metropolitan Zizioulas'' ([http://www.pravoslavlje.net/texts/InovatorskoBogoslovlje.html In Serbian], ATOS - Missionary Center, Belgrade 2002), explains why he believes the work of Zizioulas differs from traditional Orthodoxy and argues that there is a connection between Zizioulas' [[Ecumenism|ecumenical]] orientation and his theology.

* In [http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/her_saints.aspx a letter], Archbishop [http://www.synodinresistance.org/Administration_en/ChrysostomosEtna.html Chrysostomos of Etna] states that Fr [[John Meyendorff]] and Metr. John (Zizioulas) were Westernized theologians, in contrast with Fr [[Georges Florovsky]] (a teacher of Metr. John's).

* Denial of the representation of the Orthodoxy by John Zizioulas can be found in the article published by the editorial staff of the magazine [http://www.italiaortodossa.it Italia Ortodossa], a magazine of Orthodox faithful in Italy: [http://digilander.libero.it/ortodossia/Zizioulas.htm Is the Theologian Ioannis Zizioulas proclaiming Orthodoxy?]

* Peter J. Leithart's article, [http://www.leithart.com/archives/002006.php ''Divine Energies and Orthodox Soteriology''], cites the work of Papanikolaou, and points out where [[Vladimir Lossky]] and Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) differ on the issue of [[divine energies]]. His article implies criticism, based on understanding of the certain Orthodox, who see work of [[Vladimir Lossky|Prof. Lossky]] as contemporary synthesis of the patristic theology. Thus, to differ from [[Vladimir Lossky|Prof. Lossky]], is to differ from patristic theology.

===Ecclesiology and Ecumenical Relations===
*Rodoljub Lazić's booklet, "Innovatory Theology of Metropolitan Zizioulas" ([http://www.pravoslavlje.net/index.php?title=%D0%9D%D0%BE%D0%B2%28%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%81%D0%BA%29%D0%BE_%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%99%D0%B5_%D0%9C%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B0_%D0%97%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%98%D1%83%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%B0 in Serbian]), argues that the Metropolitan's work differs from "traditional" Orthodoxy and that there is a connection between the Metropolitan's [[Ecumenism|ecumenical]] orientation and his theology.
:*However, a former student and supporter of Metropolitan John is [[Ignatije (Midic) of Pozarevac and Branicevo|Bishop Ignjatije Midić]], Bishop of Branicevo and professor in dogmatics and ethics at the Serbian-Orthodox Theological Faculty in Belgrade.

* In an [http://www.greekorthodox.org.au/downloads/files/english/vema/2006/10bVEMA06E.doc interview with Maria Antoniadou], Archbishop [[Stylianos (Harkianakis) of Australia|Stylianos of Australia]] criticizes John Zizioulas for his stance on [[Uniatism]], questioning his status as a systematic theologian.6

* Hieromonk Patapios, in his article, [http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/review_toc.aspx ''A Traditionalist Critique of The Orthodox Church''], criticized ecumenistic [http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/methierotheos_baptism.aspx Baptismal theology] as espoused by Metr. John.

*The 1971 article, ''[http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/mono_2.aspx Concerning the Approaching Orthodox – Monophysite Union]'', gives Metr. John as an example of a "muddled theologian" in his views on Severus of Antioch.

*Some are concerned by his reliance of non-Orthodox sources on his thought in both areas, pointing out the influence of French Catholic theologians [[w:Henri de Lubac|Henri de Lubac]] and [[w:Yves Congar|Yves Congar]], as well as [[w:Martin Buber|Martin Buber]] and [[w:John Macmurray|John Macmurray]]. 3

== Notes ==
1 ''Modern Theology'' 18:4, October 2002, 527-539.

2 ''Ibid'', p.537.

3 "Is John Zizioulas an Existentialist in Disguise? Response to Lucian Turcescu," ''Modern Theology'' 20:4, October 2004, pp. 601-607).

4 In ''Communion and Otherness'', pp. 171-177.

5 ATOS Missionary Center, Belgrade, 2002.

6 In an [http://www.greekorthodox.org.au/downloads/files/english/vema/2006/10bVEMA06E.doc interview with Maria Antoniadou].

==External links==
*[http://www.google.com/notebook/public/12711690312044536402/BDQpBQwoQsNvyxpsi List of Works by John of Pergamon]
*[http://orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/resources/hierarchs/constantinople/currenta.htm#john_metr_pergamon His Eminence John, Metropolitan of Pergamon] from the Orthodox Research Institute
*[http://www.oodegr.com/english/dogmatiki1/perieh.htm Dogmatics notes] - "These are the notes that were taken from the lessons of Professor I. Zizioulas (current Metropolitan of Pergamus and Chairman of the Athens Academy) at the Poemantic Division of the Thessaloniki University's School of Theology, during the academic year 1984-1985. They are published with the blessing and the permission of the reverend Metropolitan."
*[[:Wikipedia:John Zizioulas|John Zizioulas (Wikipedia)]]
*[http://www.resourcesforchristiantheology.org/?cat=11 Resources for Christian Theology: John Zizioulas]

{{Start box}}
{{succession|
before=?|
title=Metropolitan of Pergamon|
years=1986 - present|
after=—}}
{{End box}}

[[Category:Bishops]]
[[Category:Modern Writers]]

Talk:John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon

2008-05-08T12:55:12Z

Cebactokpatop: /* The influence of Buber */

*[[Talk:John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon/Archive 1|Archive 1]] - from Creation to Protection (Mar 6).
*[[Talk:John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon/Archive 2|Archive 2]] - from Protection to Unprotection (Apr 30).

== Reversion ==

I've rolled back [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]]'s recent major changes (essentially for reasons detailed throughout this Talk page)—perhaps it was a mistake to unprotect the article again so soon. I'll leave it unprotected for now, hoping that Agenda-driven edits won't take over again. If they do, and especially if they're from [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]], it may be necessary to introduce a ban on that editor for a time. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:07, April 30, 2008 (UTC)

: Your revert without even reading the changes I put in is another proof that this website has no interest in expressing the reality that exists in The Church, but rather fictitious visions of several individuals claiming to be "fr". [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 18:30, April 30, 2008 (UTC)

:: Oh, trust me—I read them. Anyway, [[w:Talk:John Zizioulas]], along with your Agenda here, demonstrate that you're not interested in pursuing the editing of an encyclopedia in a calm manner. Indeed, your above condemnation of our many thousands of editors ''en masse'' is a pretty clear indication that you're not interested in good faith editing. As noted on your Talk page, your account has been banned. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:33, April 30, 2008 (UTC)

::: Your action against my account was illegal. It represented misjudgment on your side, which resulted in misuse of your sysops powers. Consequently, your error was reverted by Fr. John. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 18:21, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

:::: Illegal? Are you planning to sue me now? (In what court?) —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:25, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

== Enough ==

This is an Orthodox Website which for many people is a valuable source of knowledge. The attacks against His Eminence Metropolitan John of Pergamon, or any other hierarch of the Holy Orthodox Church, are not necessary on this forum. Whilst I don't share the same ecclesiological opinions as His Eminence, I have no right as a member of the Church to criticise him. Please, for the sake of those young people who use this website for edification, cease these attacks on the hierachy of the One, Holy Orthodox Church. - Peter Mav

:I also agree Peter, it would be a good idea if the discussion around this Father of the church is put on hold and indeed perhaps we should pray for the poor dear's soul as the amount of negativity emitted towards him is very unfair! I say, lets all work towards continuing to build Orthodox articles not critical defences to be used in a court of law. I dont even know why he is controversial :-) Like Mother Molania said in her talk from [[Ancient Faith Radio]], Insane people associating with insane people can not become sane ...only the Saints are "sane"! Chit chatting, keeps US in INSANITY! [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 09:32, May 1, 2008 (UTC)

:: That is precisely why all over the article of Metropolitan John and other contemporary Orthodox theologians we should print in big bold letters: “DO NOT BASE YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE ORTHODOXY ON WIRITINGS OF THIS CONTEMPORARIES WHOSE THEOLOGY IS NOT VERIFIED BY THE HISTORY YET. USE THEOLOGY OF THE HOLY FATHERS INSTEAD.”

:: We do not want to educate young people with the thought of the potentially problematic theologians like m. John (and fr. Schmmemmann, fr. Mayendorff, fr. Afanasiev, etc. – students of the “Paris school of Orthodoxy”). If you want to discuss it further, and you know more appropriate place (e.g. private forum), we can go there and continue.

:: [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 14:59, May 1, 2008 (UTC)

::: This is an encyclopedia, not a catechism. We're not in the business of putting big warning labels on articles about modern writers, especially those who are generally quite well-regarded throughout the Orthodox world, such as nearly everyone you mention.

::: That they are criticized by certain minority sectors of Orthodoxy is certainly a viable element for their respective articles, but that criticism should not be the dominant theme of the article, which would be undue weight. The impression a reader should get ought to be based on how the writer is regarded throughout the Orthodox Church, not on the idiosyncratic criticisms of a few, especially not regarding someone who's never even been accused by the proper authorities (much less condemned by them).

::: In any event, any general overview of Orthodoxy makes it plain that our theological emphasis is on the Scriptures and the Holy Fathers, not on any modern writer. If someone gets his entire impression of Orthodoxy or education in the faith from a single article on OrthodoxWiki, well, he's going about it wrong. One would hope that common sense would make that clear. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:31, May 1, 2008 (UTC)

I agree with some points raised by all who have responded. I am still concerned however, because I know a lot of youths use this website for introductory information and not having extensive knowledge or sometimes even the spiritual grounding can be scandalised. Obviously, mentioning that this hierarch's teachings are not accepted by some is good, encyclopaedic knowledge but some of the criticisms prior to their removal were not beneficial to the soul of anyone. I apologise if I have offended anyone. - Peter Mav

: In the above response of user Andrew we find the basis for the entire dispute. He is saying that Metropolitan John is ''"regarded throughout the Orthodox Church"'' and being ''"criticized by certain minority sectors of Orthodoxy"'', which is completely untrue/false/wrong/misguiding/misleading/etc. Vast majority of Orthodoxy exists beyond US shoreline, and even beyond English speaking world. Sooner that group of the individuals realize that, sooner we will get synergy in our actions. Such a fringe and perverted view of position of m. John in Orthodoxy is what user Andrew and couple of other individuals kept promoting, constantly trying to minimize the number and extent of the critics. It is best evident in the current version of the article, when in the criticism section they put reference to Bishop Ignjatije, who praises his work. What is that reference doing there? [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 12:54, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

I think that the user Fr Andrew is correct in his assessment. Lest anyone get the impression that the Serbian Church has somehow made a judgement that Metropolitan John is heterodox, I thought it worthwhile to note that a bishop and professor of theology in Serbia is a strong supporter of Metropolitan John's work. Anytime anyone disagrees with Cebactokpatop, he resorts to personal attack (both here and in the Wikipedia article). He has attacked and dismissed not only the other editors and Metropolitan John, but also:
*Bishop Kallistos Ware ("Ecumenist buddy of JZ")
*Christos Yannaras ("Ecumenist buddy of JZ")
*Fr John Meyendorff ("Heterodox", along with Schmmemann and Afanasiev)
*Fr Boris Bobrinskoy ("never heard of this guy"): I can't help it if Cebactokpatop hasn't heard of the dean of the St Sergius Institute in Paris, but then again, he dismisses the Paris school as "heterodox."
*Bishop Ignjatije Midić ("ecumenist... who can hardly be called a theologian, as he is almost not writing anything"): Well, in addition to being bishop of Branicevo, he is professor of dogmatics and ethics at the Serbian theological institute in Belgrade and is the author of a new book on dogmatics.
*Aristotle Papanikolaou ("Another buddy of JZ"), etc.

When I mentioned Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos, his only response was "Are you sure?" The answer to that is, Yes. If one checks the several references to Metropolitan John in Metropolitan Hierotheos' book on the person, one finds they are all very positive. On a personal note, having just finished reading ''Communion and Otherness'' and looking through ''Being as Communion'' again, I do not see how anyone who carefully read them could give any credence to the charges Cebactokpatop has made, not least of which is the absurd charge of heterodoxy. Aprt from the Serbian text he cites by Lazic and the interview with Archbishop Stylianos, NONE of the sources he cites as criticisms draw his conclusions. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 13:51, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

:: You are certainly entitled to support JZ and other individuals from Paris school of "orthodoxy". However, you are not entitled to personally dismiss me for providing valid academic resources that criticize JZ or any other product of mentioned school in Paris. From the list of the articles you contributed to, we can clearly see that your faith is in Paris. Orthodox who prefer to have their faith elswhere (e.g. Cappadocia), have a right to express their dissatisfaction with the innovations of Paris' school as well. You have done a great job in prizing JZ's work in the article. Now it is a time to balance it with the concerns of the Traditional Orthodox, Mr. Puhalo. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 17:43, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

::: Methinks you have Fr. Lev confused with Abp. [[Lazar (Puhalo) of Ottawa]]. They're not the same person. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:02, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

:::: Are you sure about that my friend? I am beyond reasonable doubts... they are the same person. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 18:10, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

::::: Based on what? The name "Lev"? —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:31, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

ROTFL! I have been accused of many things in my life, but never of being an archbishop! --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 19:12, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

: You are right. You are not an Archbishop. To become the one, it would require valid canonical ordination. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 19:14, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

Another personal attack -- ''quelle surprise''! I was "canonically" ordained, BTW, by a "canonical" bishop of a "canonical" patriarchal Church. I know who I am, but I have no idea who Cebactokpatop is. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 19:30, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

: Whatever. I am not interested in "canonicity" of your ordination (if any). What I am interested in, is making sure you understand that current version of the article is not balanced, as you intentionally (or not) tried to minimize criticisms of JZ. Do you understand that? If you do, it would be easier for me to go in and try to balance it so that readers do not get an impression that they have before them, article about some "saint". [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 20:12, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

::Ok, enough everyone with the personal back and forth. I agree that the article should also present criticisms fairly and rationally. Cebactokpatop, I am concerned by your personal attacks, which at least in some cases are totally unfounded, and to my mind, crazy (e.g. Fr Lev is not Archbp Lazar!). If this kind of stuff continues, I'm going to freeze this page. I've just edited the article to incorporate some of the material present in earlier drafts. — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk]) 21:17, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

:::I agree. While I normally say very little on Orthodoxwiki (I'm not a scholar of complex dogma or theology, nor do I wish or claim to be), I've been lurking around this discussion and reading what everyone has said. Cebactokpatop, I think it would behoove you to take a leaf from Frs. Andrew and John, as well as the other sysops and users here on Orthodoxwiki. They've been extremely charitable with you when they have received so very little from you in these discussions. When they indulge your vitriol, you reward them with ad hominem attacks, questioning their identities, and even going so far as to question the canonicity of people's ordinations with temerity (although you deny this, it is clearly evident that you do so). You ask readers and writers to address your edits with "proper academic attire." Yet, I have to ask the physician to heal himself with respect to your paranoia and derision. Fr. Andrew, specifically, has not only responded to you in a very Christ-like manner, but has been nothing short of a gentleman in dealing with you.

:::I ask, in the future, when you are a guest of other wikis and forums, you try to act in a similar manner.[[User:Mike|Mike]] 21:55, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

== Material for Inclusion ==

* [[Fr. John Behr]] in the aticle ''"The Trinitarian Being of the Church"'', argues that Zizioulas' use of The Three as an archetype for The Church, when he establishes communion of The Church as an image of the communion od The Three, ends up dismissing both - The Three and The Church. ''(St Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 48:1 (2004), 67-88)'' {{unsigned|Cebactokpatop}}

In reviewing Fr John Behr's essay, I don't see it saying anything to suggest that Metropolitan John's view ends us "dismissing" the Trinity and the Church. I'd like to see the quote and page number that is alleged to say that. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 22:54, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

: Any suggestions on how to reword Fr. Behr's criticism? Isn't this dismissal of The Church: ''"What is said of the Church is certainly based upon what is said of the Trinity, but the effect of speaking in this manner, paradoxically, is that the Church is separated from God, as a distinct entity reflecting the divine being."'' (page 68) Church without ties to God does not exist, even though, it may perfectly mimic the Three. At the same time, we do not know The Three without Their Church. It is The Church that is left behind to proclaim The Three. Disconnect JZ creates, dismisses The Church, and conequenly blind us from The Three, which equates to dismissal. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 03:43, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

== What counts as "academic criticism"? ==

Fr John, I find your floowing edit problematic: "Peter J. Leithart's article, Divine Energies and Orthodox Soteriology, cites the work of Papanikolaou, and points out where Vladimir Lossky and Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) differ on the issue of divine energies. His article implies criticism, based on understanding of the certain Orthodox, who see work of Prof. Lossky as contemporary synthesis of the patristic theology. Thus, to differ from Prof. Lossky, is to differ from patristic theology."

(1) Leithart in no way understands hie article to be critical of Metropolitan John. Not only is that clear from actually reading the article, but he has confirmed that in personal correspondence. (2) There is nothing here to indicate there is any substantive problem with what Metropolitan John says about the essence/energies distinction. (3) If an undergraduate wrote in an academic paper the sentence, "Thus, to differ from Prof. Lossky, is to differ from patristic theology", there wouldn't get a very good grade. Lossky is a personal theological hereo of mine, but I don't know any serious theologian who would judge him to be the sole criterion of Orthodoxy. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 23:13, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

: Indeed, no. Lossky himself has been criticized by major figures in the 20th century, e.g., Staniloae, who's no theological slouch himself. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 02:42, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:: Zizioulas and Meyendorff fell into the pit trying to criticise either Lossky or St. Gregory Palamas, as both of them are not capable of grasping what those two champions were writing about. Area related to the Holy Spirit is unknown and incomprehensible to these "eucharistic ecclesiologians" who understand bodily portion only, based on instructions from RCC theologians Mr. Congar and Mr. Lubac. In order to understand The Spirit, one has to now The Spirit of Orthodoxy. Paris school is so far from that Spirit that their theology consequently, can not be in the Spirit of Orthodoxy. In order to "bring closer" Orthodoxy to Rome (ecumenists), they have to introduce some other spirit - that is spirit of Rome. Orthodox Spirit can never get any closer to Rome than in past 1000 years. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 02:59, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::: An interesting analysis, but I fail to see how this is relevant to the task at hand, which is summarizing reliable secondary sources into an encyclopedia entry which represents the mainstream Chalcedonian viewpoint and takes minor note of other relevant viewpoints. Personal attacks are not really germane—how do you know what Meyendorff or Metr. John are "capable of grasping"? —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 03:08, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:::: That was my response on your assertion: "Lossky himself has been criticized" with my addition of Meyendorff and St. Gregory as another example of the same failure. JZ in his bible Being as Commununion "showed" how Lossky "was wrong". [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 03:15, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

== Should criticism be 'mainstream'? ==

I have read repeatedly that OrthoWiki is about "mainstream" Orthodoxy. Some of the criticism included here is, e.g., from Old Calendarists, who condemn most of the Churches represented here for using the Revised Julian calendar or for ecumenism. Nothing against Old Calendarist "resistance" synods and hyper-traditionalists, but what relevance should their criticism have in a minstream venue such as this? Given that they make the same criticisms of Bishop Kallistos, Fr Alexander Schmemann, Fr John Meyendorff, Christos Yannaras, etc., as they do of Metropolitan John, why should this be included? And all to satisfy one editor whose personal animus is clear? What will come next? When he became convinced "beyond reasonable doubts" that I am Abp Lazar Puhalo, he immediately went to the page on the Archbishop to write negative comments. I am waiting for him to add "criticism" sections to the articles on Bishop Kallistos, Fr Alexander Schmemann, et al., in which they, too, are denounced as heterodox ecumenists of the Paris School. What is to stop him? After all, he can find a blog or an online article by or quoting Heiromonk Patapios or Archbishop Chrysostomos casting aspersions on the orthodoxy of them all. He has dismissed Bishop Ignatije (Midic) of Pozarevac and Branicevo. Look what passes for "criticism" in the link he provided on that page -- a blog entry with a paragraph of Bishop Ignatije. No argument. Even the priest who wrote the blog wasn't sure that the paragraph was a true representation of Bishop Ignatije. This is the "criticism" that should be included in an encyclopedia article? --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 00:59, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

: I think your point is well made. The so-called "Traditionalist Orthodox" are explicitly not given a soapbox here, as per the [[OW:NPOV|MCB]]. If there seems to be a united front against the subject of an article from those sectors, it is enough to mention it briefly, but not to allow it to dominate an article.

: In any event, what is clear is that Metr. John is generally quite highly regarded throughout the Orthodox Church, which is explicitly defined on OrthodoxWiki as [[List of autocephalous and autonomous churches|this list]], i.e., the Mainstream Chalcedonian churches. Metr. John is not a controversial figure by any means, and the article should reflect that. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 02:37, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

: I dod not provide any link to Bishop Ignjatije. Please stop telling false stories. Also, "resistance" Orthodox are in dogmatics same as Orthodox, which makes them valid in their criticisms. What they differ about is heresy over all heresies - ecumenism, and masonic infux into Orthodoxy - [[Meletios IV (Metaxakis) of Constantinople]]. It appears that those who praise Paris school of "orthodoxy" support ecumenism, and logically, regard "reistance" Orthodox as lesser Orthodox than Vatican! [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 02:47, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:: If I am mistaken in how I read the OrthoWiki history page on the article, my apology. But it seems to say you created that link at 21:53 on May 2, 2008: http://orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Ignatije_%28Midic%29_of_Pozarevac_and_Branicevo&diff=65572&oldid=42851
--[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 02:54, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:: [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]], all of this is essentially irrelevant. The do-it-yourself "Celtic Orthodox" gent who lives near here and visits our church every so often is also quite likely "in dogmatics same as Orthodox," but I'm not about to interview him for this article.

:: The point is that what the "resistance/True/Genuine/Traditionalist/etc." groups think is only of relatively small importance on most OrthodoxWiki articles. Whatever one may think of the so-called "Paris School" (whatever that may mean—does that simply mean St. Sergius Institute?), it currently is part of and accepted by mainstream Orthodoxy, while by comparison the "resistance/True/Genuine/Traditionalist/etc." groups are fringe. Their opinions on Metr. John are irrelevant. Perhaps if one of them had engaged in some major debate with him, they might be relevant.

:: One doesn't have to be an "ecumenist" or a Freemason or an Ultramontanist sympathizer in order to see that giving undue weight to the opinions of such folks is essentially a violation of the explicit bias of OrthodoxWiki. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 02:57, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::: I repeat - I did not produce any link related to Bishop Ignjatije. All I did on his page was to convert section listing his writings from latin into cyrillic.

::: It appears to me that both of you want to minimize amount and extent of the criticisms for some reason. Can you provide a valid reason for your attempts to blind the public? [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 03:08, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:::: It's not a question of eliminating criticism (OrthodoxWiki articles are replete with descriptions of criticism, which is clear from even a cursory browsing of the site)—it's where it's coming from and how much is actually appropriate to represent the mainstream view on the subject matter. Piling an article high with criticisms from fringe sources is not consistent with the policies of OrthodoxWiki, nor does it do anyone a service. "The public" are not "blinded" by an attempt to write balanced articles consistent with OrthodoxWiki policies. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 03:11, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::::: I have a problem with your statements simply because all of the disputes I had here were about same thing - constant denial of the criticisms from several individuals who disguise their denial under the mask of "policies", "encyclopedia", "POV/NPOV", etc. What is balanced for you? To praise his work on two pages, and then mention critics in a mild form just to satisfy annoyances like myself? [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 03:20, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::::::And you don't see a problem with all disputes being about the same thing? This is (or endeavours to be, either/or) a ''Mainstream Chalcedonian Orthodox encyclopedia''. This is fairly explicit in intent and focus. The scholarly attacks on Metr. John provided have been more attack than scholarly (quite a number of them are mere citations or references to Metr. John, rather than any theological grappling), and the few scholars have willingly placed themselves outside of the Mainstream Chalcedonian Orthodoxy that we are ''explicitly'' putting forward.
::::::There have been others who have attempted to browbeat OW into submission for their own agendas - Ben Lomond and Western Rite talk pages are replete with arguments attempting to convince OW that it should not follow it's own ''explicit'' bias towards Mainstream Chalcedonian Orthodoxy. It's not like OW is claiming to be something that it's not. — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 01:49, May 5, 2008 (UTC)

== Just a thought ==

It seems to me that this article is basically supposed to be a biographical introduction to Metr. John. While mention of the variety of opinions expressed about his work can, and probably should, be mentioned, it seems to me that this is not the proper forum for a detailed discussion (and listing) of these opinions. Half of the article, as it stands, is concerned with criticism and responses to that criticism and that seems rather unbalanced for something that is trying to be an encyclopedic entry.

I am not sure where a discussion of all these opinions should take place, or even whether OrthodoxWiki is the right forum for such a discussion. It just seems to me that this particular page is not the place for it.

Just my two cents, and with this I leave this debate.

In the risen Christ,
[[User:Vandrona|Fr. Peter]]

:Hi Fr. Peter, Thanks for your comments on this. It is indeed a hard call, but I do think that part of the role OrthodoxWiki plays is precisely in pushing for an articulation of controversial issues in church life. Obviously, so many of the criticisms of Metropolitan John's work are not just about him, but are about a particular movement or trend within Orthodox theology. I really want to see as precise and accurate overview of this debate as possible. Again, I do think this itself is a good service to the community. I'm not interested in personal attacks or blanket condemnations, etc. but am very interested in thoughtful criticisms or defenses. I'm curious about what others think. — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk]) 09:27, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::Hello, Fr. John. I apologize for the lack of clarity in my original post, so I will try to briefly clarify what I was trying to say. First off, having thought about it and read your reply, it does make sense that the wiki is a good place to articulate controversial issues. In which case I meant to suggest following a Wikipedia approach: having a mention of the controversial issue on the biographical page with a link to an article specifically dedicated to the issue being debated (e.g., "Theology of John Zizioulas"). That way we can avoid the contentious section being longer than the rest of the article. We also get another page where all the relevant references can be quoted and noted (hopefully...), rather than simply having somewhat vague mentions in the vein of "Metr. John has addressed this criticism." [[User:Vandrona|Fr. Peter]]

I notice a minor edit "struggle" over the sentence someone wrote and I restored: "His article implies criticism, based on understanding of the certain Orthodox, who see work of [[Vladimir Lossky|Prof. Lossky]] as contemporary synthesis of the patristic theology. Thus, to differ from [[Vladimir Lossky|Prof. Lossky]], is to differ from patristic theology." This had been changed to "This article would be critical if seen through the ideology of [[Vladimir Lossky|Prof. Lossky]]'s work as being a contemporary synthesis of patristic theology." I think I understand the reason for this change -- the original sentence is rather vague and difficult to make sense of (it may be that the original author's primary language was not English), but I'm not sure the cleanup help makes the meaning any clearer. Perhaps somehow can expain this better, but for now I going to revert this again. — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk]) 09:27, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:Because the article is only a critical article if Lossky is held up as a synthesis of patristic theology. If the Lossky=Theology standpoint is not taken, the article is not critical at all, merely comparative. As I don't know how one would even go about justifying the Lossky=Theology standpoint, I don't think that the article is criticism at all, and shouldn't be there. — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 01:37, May 5, 2008 (UTC)

:: For that reason, sentence states: ''"based on understanding of the '''certain Orthodox''', who '''see work of [[Vladimir Lossky|Prof. Lossky]] as contemporary synthesis of the patristic theology'''"''. I think it is clearly explained, why and under what condition, article of Mr. Leithart is seen by ''"certain Orthodox"'' as criticism, unintentional though, but, still criticism. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 13:14, May 5, 2008 (UTC)

:::Sad irony: such a viewpoint of Lossky isn't Orthodox. We do not take any one author as being perfect, theologically or otherwise - which explains how Staniloae can disagree with Lossky and yet not be thrown out of the Church. The question is whether the article ''is'' critical, not whether it can be misinterpreted into criticism. — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 19:30, May 5, 2008 (UTC)

== Selective reading of Papankolaou ==

Cebactokpatop has attempted to make hay of Papanikolaou's statement (in a footnote) that Metropolitan John has acknowledged in a private converstion that the Metropolitan was "influenced" by some secular philosophers, as if this is a "proof text" of some sort. The first thing to say is that this is something the Metropolitan has acknowledged in his own writing. I somehow get the impression that Cebactokpatop saw Papanikolaou's statement as a "smoking gun." But if one reads the text of the page (159) that is footnoted, one sees Papanikolaou saying a couple of things that Cebactokpatop is intentionally ignoring. The ironic one is that fact that Papanikolaou notes that the same charge of being influenced by modern personalism has been made against Lossky, as well as Metropolitan John. Thus he cherry-picks a charge that Papanikolaou points out is made against Lossky, his ''sine qua non'' of Orthodoxy. And, of course, Papanikolaou acquits both theologians. He goes on to cite the differences between the Metropolitan and those modern philosophers and that, for the Metropolitan, only a Trinitarian theology that affirms the monarchy of the Father can provide an adequate theology of personhood. As Papanikolaou says, "[Zizioulas} and Lossky are no more superimposing a philosophical system on the Eastern patristic writers than did these same writers Hellenize the teachings of Jesus" (160). Metropolitan John and Lossky simply have done what the Fathers did -- "thinking about the authoritative texts of the tradition in light of the questions, challenges, and prevailing philosophical currents of their time" (ibid). {{unsigned|Fr Lev}}

== The influence of Buber ==

I have forgotten to mention that I've read in several places that Martin Buber, not to mention other Western philosophers, were important influences on the theology of [[Dumitru Staniloae]]. Turcescu mentions elsewhere that "In ''Dogmatics'', Staniloae tried to blend in a very creative fashion patristic insights with contemporary theology, both Western and Eastern" (in ''The Teachings of Modern Orthodox Christianity on Law, Politics, & Human Nature'', p. 300). --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 12:08, May 6, 2008 (UTC)

: I honestly don't see what's so damning about having non-Orthodox influence on one's thinking, particularly since it's obvious from even a cursory reading of the ancient Fathers that their thinking was profoundly influenced by not just heterodox, but ''pagan'' sources. In any event, it's pretty hard even to function in the world without some sort of non-Orthodox influence on one's thinking.

: The question is whether one's teaching is Orthodox or not (not who or what influenced it), and in our Tradition no ruling can be made on this question without episcopal (synodal, in the case of a bishop being in question) authority. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 12:28, May 6, 2008 (UTC)

:: I think that we can not separate the two. One's heterodox influences bring up next logical question - Has one's theology escaped from the captivity of the influences (sources)? Very good example of this question can be found in the criticism of Fr. Schmmemmann by Fr. Pomazansky. Answer to that question is decisive on whether one's theology is Orthodox or heterodox. In the book Being as Communion, there are numerous references to heterodox writings and many assertions of JZ are based on them. For example, on pages 164-165, JZ talks about "individualities" and "persons" referring to the M. Buber... who made clear distinction between the two, making them antonyms. However, as Turcescu already provided in his article, St. Gregory of Nyssa used both terms as synonyms. In this example, heterodox influence prevailed in the thought of JZ over the Orthodox, resulting in his thought being heterodox as well. If he were to follow Orthodox thought od St. Gregory, we would not have this dispute over his work. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 12:55, May 8, 2008 (UTC)

==The Neopatristic Revival==
One of the great ironies of this back and forth has been the characterization of a number of important Orthodox theologians in the West as “modernist” or under the influence of Jewish or Western philosophers. Perhaps the most important commonality of Lossky, Zizioulas, Yannaras, Meyendorff, Schmemann, Florovksy, Romanides, and Staniloae was/is their commitment to a “return to the Fathers.” For a great deal of time, Greek and Russian theology languished under a “western captivity” in which Orthodox theologians abandoned patristics in favor of Roman scholasticism. Of these, the most influential has always been Lossky, in whom I was initiated thirty years ago when I first read ''The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church''. (BTW, ‘Eastern’ was not part of Lossky’s original title but was inserted at the insistence of an editor.) As it has been described by Aidan Nichols, “This study, with its identification an existentialist and personalist slant to the patristic dogmatics of, especially, Gregory of Nyssa and Maximus Confessor, soon acquired the status of a classic.” --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 17:50, May 6, 2008 (UTC)

: Please do not mix Fr. Florovsky with the reas to of the "team". Although, several of his stances were problematic, he was Orthodox theologian, apart and far from those that came out of Paris school. The "team" misused him, and now many think how he is part of the "team". He is not. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 20:12, May 7, 2008 (UTC)

Talk:John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon

2008-05-07T20:12:33Z

Cebactokpatop: /* The Neopatristic Revival */

*[[Talk:John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon/Archive 1|Archive 1]] - from Creation to Protection (Mar 6).
*[[Talk:John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon/Archive 2|Archive 2]] - from Protection to Unprotection (Apr 30).

== Reversion ==

I've rolled back [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]]'s recent major changes (essentially for reasons detailed throughout this Talk page)—perhaps it was a mistake to unprotect the article again so soon. I'll leave it unprotected for now, hoping that Agenda-driven edits won't take over again. If they do, and especially if they're from [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]], it may be necessary to introduce a ban on that editor for a time. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:07, April 30, 2008 (UTC)

: Your revert without even reading the changes I put in is another proof that this website has no interest in expressing the reality that exists in The Church, but rather fictitious visions of several individuals claiming to be "fr". [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 18:30, April 30, 2008 (UTC)

:: Oh, trust me—I read them. Anyway, [[w:Talk:John Zizioulas]], along with your Agenda here, demonstrate that you're not interested in pursuing the editing of an encyclopedia in a calm manner. Indeed, your above condemnation of our many thousands of editors ''en masse'' is a pretty clear indication that you're not interested in good faith editing. As noted on your Talk page, your account has been banned. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:33, April 30, 2008 (UTC)

::: Your action against my account was illegal. It represented misjudgment on your side, which resulted in misuse of your sysops powers. Consequently, your error was reverted by Fr. John. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 18:21, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

:::: Illegal? Are you planning to sue me now? (In what court?) —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:25, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

== Enough ==

This is an Orthodox Website which for many people is a valuable source of knowledge. The attacks against His Eminence Metropolitan John of Pergamon, or any other hierarch of the Holy Orthodox Church, are not necessary on this forum. Whilst I don't share the same ecclesiological opinions as His Eminence, I have no right as a member of the Church to criticise him. Please, for the sake of those young people who use this website for edification, cease these attacks on the hierachy of the One, Holy Orthodox Church. - Peter Mav

:I also agree Peter, it would be a good idea if the discussion around this Father of the church is put on hold and indeed perhaps we should pray for the poor dear's soul as the amount of negativity emitted towards him is very unfair! I say, lets all work towards continuing to build Orthodox articles not critical defences to be used in a court of law. I dont even know why he is controversial :-) Like Mother Molania said in her talk from [[Ancient Faith Radio]], Insane people associating with insane people can not become sane ...only the Saints are "sane"! Chit chatting, keeps US in INSANITY! [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 09:32, May 1, 2008 (UTC)

:: That is precisely why all over the article of Metropolitan John and other contemporary Orthodox theologians we should print in big bold letters: “DO NOT BASE YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE ORTHODOXY ON WIRITINGS OF THIS CONTEMPORARIES WHOSE THEOLOGY IS NOT VERIFIED BY THE HISTORY YET. USE THEOLOGY OF THE HOLY FATHERS INSTEAD.”

:: We do not want to educate young people with the thought of the potentially problematic theologians like m. John (and fr. Schmmemmann, fr. Mayendorff, fr. Afanasiev, etc. – students of the “Paris school of Orthodoxy”). If you want to discuss it further, and you know more appropriate place (e.g. private forum), we can go there and continue.

:: [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 14:59, May 1, 2008 (UTC)

::: This is an encyclopedia, not a catechism. We're not in the business of putting big warning labels on articles about modern writers, especially those who are generally quite well-regarded throughout the Orthodox world, such as nearly everyone you mention.

::: That they are criticized by certain minority sectors of Orthodoxy is certainly a viable element for their respective articles, but that criticism should not be the dominant theme of the article, which would be undue weight. The impression a reader should get ought to be based on how the writer is regarded throughout the Orthodox Church, not on the idiosyncratic criticisms of a few, especially not regarding someone who's never even been accused by the proper authorities (much less condemned by them).

::: In any event, any general overview of Orthodoxy makes it plain that our theological emphasis is on the Scriptures and the Holy Fathers, not on any modern writer. If someone gets his entire impression of Orthodoxy or education in the faith from a single article on OrthodoxWiki, well, he's going about it wrong. One would hope that common sense would make that clear. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:31, May 1, 2008 (UTC)

I agree with some points raised by all who have responded. I am still concerned however, because I know a lot of youths use this website for introductory information and not having extensive knowledge or sometimes even the spiritual grounding can be scandalised. Obviously, mentioning that this hierarch's teachings are not accepted by some is good, encyclopaedic knowledge but some of the criticisms prior to their removal were not beneficial to the soul of anyone. I apologise if I have offended anyone. - Peter Mav

: In the above response of user Andrew we find the basis for the entire dispute. He is saying that Metropolitan John is ''"regarded throughout the Orthodox Church"'' and being ''"criticized by certain minority sectors of Orthodoxy"'', which is completely untrue/false/wrong/misguiding/misleading/etc. Vast majority of Orthodoxy exists beyond US shoreline, and even beyond English speaking world. Sooner that group of the individuals realize that, sooner we will get synergy in our actions. Such a fringe and perverted view of position of m. John in Orthodoxy is what user Andrew and couple of other individuals kept promoting, constantly trying to minimize the number and extent of the critics. It is best evident in the current version of the article, when in the criticism section they put reference to Bishop Ignjatije, who praises his work. What is that reference doing there? [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 12:54, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

I think that the user Fr Andrew is correct in his assessment. Lest anyone get the impression that the Serbian Church has somehow made a judgement that Metropolitan John is heterodox, I thought it worthwhile to note that a bishop and professor of theology in Serbia is a strong supporter of Metropolitan John's work. Anytime anyone disagrees with Cebactokpatop, he resorts to personal attack (both here and in the Wikipedia article). He has attacked and dismissed not only the other editors and Metropolitan John, but also:
*Bishop Kallistos Ware ("Ecumenist buddy of JZ")
*Christos Yannaras ("Ecumenist buddy of JZ")
*Fr John Meyendorff ("Heterodox", along with Schmmemann and Afanasiev)
*Fr Boris Bobrinskoy ("never heard of this guy"): I can't help it if Cebactokpatop hasn't heard of the dean of the St Sergius Institute in Paris, but then again, he dismisses the Paris school as "heterodox."
*Bishop Ignjatije Midić ("ecumenist... who can hardly be called a theologian, as he is almost not writing anything"): Well, in addition to being bishop of Branicevo, he is professor of dogmatics and ethics at the Serbian theological institute in Belgrade and is the author of a new book on dogmatics.
*Aristotle Papanikolaou ("Another buddy of JZ"), etc.

When I mentioned Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos, his only response was "Are you sure?" The answer to that is, Yes. If one checks the several references to Metropolitan John in Metropolitan Hierotheos' book on the person, one finds they are all very positive. On a personal note, having just finished reading ''Communion and Otherness'' and looking through ''Being as Communion'' again, I do not see how anyone who carefully read them could give any credence to the charges Cebactokpatop has made, not least of which is the absurd charge of heterodoxy. Aprt from the Serbian text he cites by Lazic and the interview with Archbishop Stylianos, NONE of the sources he cites as criticisms draw his conclusions. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 13:51, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

:: You are certainly entitled to support JZ and other individuals from Paris school of "orthodoxy". However, you are not entitled to personally dismiss me for providing valid academic resources that criticize JZ or any other product of mentioned school in Paris. From the list of the articles you contributed to, we can clearly see that your faith is in Paris. Orthodox who prefer to have their faith elswhere (e.g. Cappadocia), have a right to express their dissatisfaction with the innovations of Paris' school as well. You have done a great job in prizing JZ's work in the article. Now it is a time to balance it with the concerns of the Traditional Orthodox, Mr. Puhalo. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 17:43, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

::: Methinks you have Fr. Lev confused with Abp. [[Lazar (Puhalo) of Ottawa]]. They're not the same person. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:02, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

:::: Are you sure about that my friend? I am beyond reasonable doubts... they are the same person. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 18:10, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

::::: Based on what? The name "Lev"? —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:31, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

ROTFL! I have been accused of many things in my life, but never of being an archbishop! --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 19:12, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

: You are right. You are not an Archbishop. To become the one, it would require valid canonical ordination. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 19:14, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

Another personal attack -- ''quelle surprise''! I was "canonically" ordained, BTW, by a "canonical" bishop of a "canonical" patriarchal Church. I know who I am, but I have no idea who Cebactokpatop is. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 19:30, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

: Whatever. I am not interested in "canonicity" of your ordination (if any). What I am interested in, is making sure you understand that current version of the article is not balanced, as you intentionally (or not) tried to minimize criticisms of JZ. Do you understand that? If you do, it would be easier for me to go in and try to balance it so that readers do not get an impression that they have before them, article about some "saint". [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 20:12, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

::Ok, enough everyone with the personal back and forth. I agree that the article should also present criticisms fairly and rationally. Cebactokpatop, I am concerned by your personal attacks, which at least in some cases are totally unfounded, and to my mind, crazy (e.g. Fr Lev is not Archbp Lazar!). If this kind of stuff continues, I'm going to freeze this page. I've just edited the article to incorporate some of the material present in earlier drafts. — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk]) 21:17, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

:::I agree. While I normally say very little on Orthodoxwiki (I'm not a scholar of complex dogma or theology, nor do I wish or claim to be), I've been lurking around this discussion and reading what everyone has said. Cebactokpatop, I think it would behoove you to take a leaf from Frs. Andrew and John, as well as the other sysops and users here on Orthodoxwiki. They've been extremely charitable with you when they have received so very little from you in these discussions. When they indulge your vitriol, you reward them with ad hominem attacks, questioning their identities, and even going so far as to question the canonicity of people's ordinations with temerity (although you deny this, it is clearly evident that you do so). You ask readers and writers to address your edits with "proper academic attire." Yet, I have to ask the physician to heal himself with respect to your paranoia and derision. Fr. Andrew, specifically, has not only responded to you in a very Christ-like manner, but has been nothing short of a gentleman in dealing with you.

:::I ask, in the future, when you are a guest of other wikis and forums, you try to act in a similar manner.[[User:Mike|Mike]] 21:55, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

== Material for Inclusion ==

* [[Fr. John Behr]] in the aticle ''"The Trinitarian Being of the Church"'', argues that Zizioulas' use of The Three as an archetype for The Church, when he establishes communion of The Church as an image of the communion od The Three, ends up dismissing both - The Three and The Church. ''(St Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 48:1 (2004), 67-88)'' {{unsigned|Cebactokpatop}}

In reviewing Fr John Behr's essay, I don't see it saying anything to suggest that Metropolitan John's view ends us "dismissing" the Trinity and the Church. I'd like to see the quote and page number that is alleged to say that. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 22:54, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

: Any suggestions on how to reword Fr. Behr's criticism? Isn't this dismissal of The Church: ''"What is said of the Church is certainly based upon what is said of the Trinity, but the effect of speaking in this manner, paradoxically, is that the Church is separated from God, as a distinct entity reflecting the divine being."'' (page 68) Church without ties to God does not exist, even though, it may perfectly mimic the Three. At the same time, we do not know The Three without Their Church. It is The Church that is left behind to proclaim The Three. Disconnect JZ creates, dismisses The Church, and conequenly blind us from The Three, which equates to dismissal. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 03:43, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

== What counts as "academic criticism"? ==

Fr John, I find your floowing edit problematic: "Peter J. Leithart's article, Divine Energies and Orthodox Soteriology, cites the work of Papanikolaou, and points out where Vladimir Lossky and Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) differ on the issue of divine energies. His article implies criticism, based on understanding of the certain Orthodox, who see work of Prof. Lossky as contemporary synthesis of the patristic theology. Thus, to differ from Prof. Lossky, is to differ from patristic theology."

(1) Leithart in no way understands hie article to be critical of Metropolitan John. Not only is that clear from actually reading the article, but he has confirmed that in personal correspondence. (2) There is nothing here to indicate there is any substantive problem with what Metropolitan John says about the essence/energies distinction. (3) If an undergraduate wrote in an academic paper the sentence, "Thus, to differ from Prof. Lossky, is to differ from patristic theology", there wouldn't get a very good grade. Lossky is a personal theological hereo of mine, but I don't know any serious theologian who would judge him to be the sole criterion of Orthodoxy. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 23:13, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

: Indeed, no. Lossky himself has been criticized by major figures in the 20th century, e.g., Staniloae, who's no theological slouch himself. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 02:42, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:: Zizioulas and Meyendorff fell into the pit trying to criticise either Lossky or St. Gregory Palamas, as both of them are not capable of grasping what those two champions were writing about. Area related to the Holy Spirit is unknown and incomprehensible to these "eucharistic ecclesiologians" who understand bodily portion only, based on instructions from RCC theologians Mr. Congar and Mr. Lubac. In order to understand The Spirit, one has to now The Spirit of Orthodoxy. Paris school is so far from that Spirit that their theology consequently, can not be in the Spirit of Orthodoxy. In order to "bring closer" Orthodoxy to Rome (ecumenists), they have to introduce some other spirit - that is spirit of Rome. Orthodox Spirit can never get any closer to Rome than in past 1000 years. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 02:59, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::: An interesting analysis, but I fail to see how this is relevant to the task at hand, which is summarizing reliable secondary sources into an encyclopedia entry which represents the mainstream Chalcedonian viewpoint and takes minor note of other relevant viewpoints. Personal attacks are not really germane—how do you know what Meyendorff or Metr. John are "capable of grasping"? —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 03:08, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:::: That was my response on your assertion: "Lossky himself has been criticized" with my addition of Meyendorff and St. Gregory as another example of the same failure. JZ in his bible Being as Commununion "showed" how Lossky "was wrong". [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 03:15, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

== Should criticism be 'mainstream'? ==

I have read repeatedly that OrthoWiki is about "mainstream" Orthodoxy. Some of the criticism included here is, e.g., from Old Calendarists, who condemn most of the Churches represented here for using the Revised Julian calendar or for ecumenism. Nothing against Old Calendarist "resistance" synods and hyper-traditionalists, but what relevance should their criticism have in a minstream venue such as this? Given that they make the same criticisms of Bishop Kallistos, Fr Alexander Schmemann, Fr John Meyendorff, Christos Yannaras, etc., as they do of Metropolitan John, why should this be included? And all to satisfy one editor whose personal animus is clear? What will come next? When he became convinced "beyond reasonable doubts" that I am Abp Lazar Puhalo, he immediately went to the page on the Archbishop to write negative comments. I am waiting for him to add "criticism" sections to the articles on Bishop Kallistos, Fr Alexander Schmemann, et al., in which they, too, are denounced as heterodox ecumenists of the Paris School. What is to stop him? After all, he can find a blog or an online article by or quoting Heiromonk Patapios or Archbishop Chrysostomos casting aspersions on the orthodoxy of them all. He has dismissed Bishop Ignatije (Midic) of Pozarevac and Branicevo. Look what passes for "criticism" in the link he provided on that page -- a blog entry with a paragraph of Bishop Ignatije. No argument. Even the priest who wrote the blog wasn't sure that the paragraph was a true representation of Bishop Ignatije. This is the "criticism" that should be included in an encyclopedia article? --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 00:59, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

: I think your point is well made. The so-called "Traditionalist Orthodox" are explicitly not given a soapbox here, as per the [[OW:NPOV|MCB]]. If there seems to be a united front against the subject of an article from those sectors, it is enough to mention it briefly, but not to allow it to dominate an article.

: In any event, what is clear is that Metr. John is generally quite highly regarded throughout the Orthodox Church, which is explicitly defined on OrthodoxWiki as [[List of autocephalous and autonomous churches|this list]], i.e., the Mainstream Chalcedonian churches. Metr. John is not a controversial figure by any means, and the article should reflect that. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 02:37, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

: I dod not provide any link to Bishop Ignjatije. Please stop telling false stories. Also, "resistance" Orthodox are in dogmatics same as Orthodox, which makes them valid in their criticisms. What they differ about is heresy over all heresies - ecumenism, and masonic infux into Orthodoxy - [[Meletios IV (Metaxakis) of Constantinople]]. It appears that those who praise Paris school of "orthodoxy" support ecumenism, and logically, regard "reistance" Orthodox as lesser Orthodox than Vatican! [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 02:47, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:: If I am mistaken in how I read the OrthoWiki history page on the article, my apology. But it seems to say you created that link at 21:53 on May 2, 2008: http://orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Ignatije_%28Midic%29_of_Pozarevac_and_Branicevo&diff=65572&oldid=42851
--[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 02:54, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:: [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]], all of this is essentially irrelevant. The do-it-yourself "Celtic Orthodox" gent who lives near here and visits our church every so often is also quite likely "in dogmatics same as Orthodox," but I'm not about to interview him for this article.

:: The point is that what the "resistance/True/Genuine/Traditionalist/etc." groups think is only of relatively small importance on most OrthodoxWiki articles. Whatever one may think of the so-called "Paris School" (whatever that may mean—does that simply mean St. Sergius Institute?), it currently is part of and accepted by mainstream Orthodoxy, while by comparison the "resistance/True/Genuine/Traditionalist/etc." groups are fringe. Their opinions on Metr. John are irrelevant. Perhaps if one of them had engaged in some major debate with him, they might be relevant.

:: One doesn't have to be an "ecumenist" or a Freemason or an Ultramontanist sympathizer in order to see that giving undue weight to the opinions of such folks is essentially a violation of the explicit bias of OrthodoxWiki. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 02:57, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::: I repeat - I did not produce any link related to Bishop Ignjatije. All I did on his page was to convert section listing his writings from latin into cyrillic.

::: It appears to me that both of you want to minimize amount and extent of the criticisms for some reason. Can you provide a valid reason for your attempts to blind the public? [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 03:08, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:::: It's not a question of eliminating criticism (OrthodoxWiki articles are replete with descriptions of criticism, which is clear from even a cursory browsing of the site)—it's where it's coming from and how much is actually appropriate to represent the mainstream view on the subject matter. Piling an article high with criticisms from fringe sources is not consistent with the policies of OrthodoxWiki, nor does it do anyone a service. "The public" are not "blinded" by an attempt to write balanced articles consistent with OrthodoxWiki policies. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 03:11, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::::: I have a problem with your statements simply because all of the disputes I had here were about same thing - constant denial of the criticisms from several individuals who disguise their denial under the mask of "policies", "encyclopedia", "POV/NPOV", etc. What is balanced for you? To praise his work on two pages, and then mention critics in a mild form just to satisfy annoyances like myself? [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 03:20, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::::::And you don't see a problem with all disputes being about the same thing? This is (or endeavours to be, either/or) a ''Mainstream Chalcedonian Orthodox encyclopedia''. This is fairly explicit in intent and focus. The scholarly attacks on Metr. John provided have been more attack than scholarly (quite a number of them are mere citations or references to Metr. John, rather than any theological grappling), and the few scholars have willingly placed themselves outside of the Mainstream Chalcedonian Orthodoxy that we are ''explicitly'' putting forward.
::::::There have been others who have attempted to browbeat OW into submission for their own agendas - Ben Lomond and Western Rite talk pages are replete with arguments attempting to convince OW that it should not follow it's own ''explicit'' bias towards Mainstream Chalcedonian Orthodoxy. It's not like OW is claiming to be something that it's not. — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 01:49, May 5, 2008 (UTC)

== Just a thought ==

It seems to me that this article is basically supposed to be a biographical introduction to Metr. John. While mention of the variety of opinions expressed about his work can, and probably should, be mentioned, it seems to me that this is not the proper forum for a detailed discussion (and listing) of these opinions. Half of the article, as it stands, is concerned with criticism and responses to that criticism and that seems rather unbalanced for something that is trying to be an encyclopedic entry.

I am not sure where a discussion of all these opinions should take place, or even whether OrthodoxWiki is the right forum for such a discussion. It just seems to me that this particular page is not the place for it.

Just my two cents, and with this I leave this debate.

In the risen Christ,
[[User:Vandrona|Fr. Peter]]

:Hi Fr. Peter, Thanks for your comments on this. It is indeed a hard call, but I do think that part of the role OrthodoxWiki plays is precisely in pushing for an articulation of controversial issues in church life. Obviously, so many of the criticisms of Metropolitan John's work are not just about him, but are about a particular movement or trend within Orthodox theology. I really want to see as precise and accurate overview of this debate as possible. Again, I do think this itself is a good service to the community. I'm not interested in personal attacks or blanket condemnations, etc. but am very interested in thoughtful criticisms or defenses. I'm curious about what others think. — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk]) 09:27, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::Hello, Fr. John. I apologize for the lack of clarity in my original post, so I will try to briefly clarify what I was trying to say. First off, having thought about it and read your reply, it does make sense that the wiki is a good place to articulate controversial issues. In which case I meant to suggest following a Wikipedia approach: having a mention of the controversial issue on the biographical page with a link to an article specifically dedicated to the issue being debated (e.g., "Theology of John Zizioulas"). That way we can avoid the contentious section being longer than the rest of the article. We also get another page where all the relevant references can be quoted and noted (hopefully...), rather than simply having somewhat vague mentions in the vein of "Metr. John has addressed this criticism." [[User:Vandrona|Fr. Peter]]

I notice a minor edit "struggle" over the sentence someone wrote and I restored: "His article implies criticism, based on understanding of the certain Orthodox, who see work of [[Vladimir Lossky|Prof. Lossky]] as contemporary synthesis of the patristic theology. Thus, to differ from [[Vladimir Lossky|Prof. Lossky]], is to differ from patristic theology." This had been changed to "This article would be critical if seen through the ideology of [[Vladimir Lossky|Prof. Lossky]]'s work as being a contemporary synthesis of patristic theology." I think I understand the reason for this change -- the original sentence is rather vague and difficult to make sense of (it may be that the original author's primary language was not English), but I'm not sure the cleanup help makes the meaning any clearer. Perhaps somehow can expain this better, but for now I going to revert this again. — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk]) 09:27, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:Because the article is only a critical article if Lossky is held up as a synthesis of patristic theology. If the Lossky=Theology standpoint is not taken, the article is not critical at all, merely comparative. As I don't know how one would even go about justifying the Lossky=Theology standpoint, I don't think that the article is criticism at all, and shouldn't be there. — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 01:37, May 5, 2008 (UTC)

:: For that reason, sentence states: ''"based on understanding of the '''certain Orthodox''', who '''see work of [[Vladimir Lossky|Prof. Lossky]] as contemporary synthesis of the patristic theology'''"''. I think it is clearly explained, why and under what condition, article of Mr. Leithart is seen by ''"certain Orthodox"'' as criticism, unintentional though, but, still criticism. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 13:14, May 5, 2008 (UTC)

:::Sad irony: such a viewpoint of Lossky isn't Orthodox. We do not take any one author as being perfect, theologically or otherwise - which explains how Staniloae can disagree with Lossky and yet not be thrown out of the Church. The question is whether the article ''is'' critical, not whether it can be misinterpreted into criticism. — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 19:30, May 5, 2008 (UTC)

== Selective reading of Papankolaou ==

Cebactokpatop has attempted to make hay of Papanikolaou's statement (in a footnote) that Metropolitan John has acknowledged in a private converstion that the Metropolitan was "influenced" by some secular philosophers, as if this is a "proof text" of some sort. The first thing to say is that this is something the Metropolitan has acknowledged in his own writing. I somehow get the impression that Cebactokpatop saw Papanikolaou's statement as a "smoking gun." But if one reads the text of the page (159) that is footnoted, one sees Papanikolaou saying a couple of things that Cebactokpatop is intentionally ignoring. The ironic one is that fact that Papanikolaou notes that the same charge of being influenced by modern personalism has been made against Lossky, as well as Metropolitan John. Thus he cherry-picks a charge that Papanikolaou points out is made against Lossky, his ''sine qua non'' of Orthodoxy. And, of course, Papanikolaou acquits both theologians. He goes on to cite the differences between the Metropolitan and those modern philosophers and that, for the Metropolitan, only a Trinitarian theology that affirms the monarchy of the Father can provide an adequate theology of personhood. As Papanikolaou says, "[Zizioulas} and Lossky are no more superimposing a philosophical system on the Eastern patristic writers than did these same writers Hellenize the teachings of Jesus" (160). Metropolitan John and Lossky simply have done what the Fathers did -- "thinking about the authoritative texts of the tradition in light of the questions, challenges, and prevailing philosophical currents of their time" (ibid). {{unsigned|Fr Lev}}

== The influence of Buber ==

I have forgotten to mention that I've read in several places that Martin Buber, not to mention other Western philosophers, were important influences on the theology of [[Dumitru Staniloae]]. Turcescu mentions elsewhere that "In ''Dogmatics'', Staniloae tried to blend in a very creative fashion patristic insights with contemporary theology, both Western and Eastern" (in ''The Teachings of Modern Orthodox Christianity on Law, Politics, & Human Nature'', p. 300). --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 12:08, May 6, 2008 (UTC)

: I honestly don't see what's so damning about having non-Orthodox influence on one's thinking, particularly since it's obvious from even a cursory reading of the ancient Fathers that their thinking was profoundly influenced by not just heterodox, but ''pagan'' sources. In any event, it's pretty hard even to function in the world without some sort of non-Orthodox influence on one's thinking.

: The question is whether one's teaching is Orthodox or not (not who or what influenced it), and in our Tradition no ruling can be made on this question without episcopal (synodal, in the case of a bishop being in question) authority. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 12:28, May 6, 2008 (UTC)

==The Neopatristic Revival==
One of the great ironies of this back and forth has been the characterization of a number of important Orthodox theologians in the West as “modernist” or under the influence of Jewish or Western philosophers. Perhaps the most important commonality of Lossky, Zizioulas, Yannaras, Meyendorff, Schmemann, Florovksy, Romanides, and Staniloae was/is their commitment to a “return to the Fathers.” For a great deal of time, Greek and Russian theology languished under a “western captivity” in which Orthodox theologians abandoned patristics in favor of Roman scholasticism. Of these, the most influential has always been Lossky, in whom I was initiated thirty years ago when I first read ''The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church''. (BTW, ‘Eastern’ was not part of Lossky’s original title but was inserted at the insistence of an editor.) As it has been described by Aidan Nichols, “This study, with its identification an existentialist and personalist slant to the patristic dogmatics of, especially, Gregory of Nyssa and Maximus Confessor, soon acquired the status of a classic.” --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 17:50, May 6, 2008 (UTC)

: Please do not mix Fr. Florovsky with the reas to of the "team". Although, several of his stances were problematic, he was Orthodox theologian, apart and far from those that came out of Paris school. The "team" misused him, and now many think how he is part of the "team". He is not. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 20:12, May 7, 2008 (UTC)

Talk:John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon

2008-05-05T13:14:01Z

Cebactokpatop: /* Just a thought */

*[[Talk:John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon/Archive 1|Archive 1]] - from Creation to Protection (Mar 6).
*[[Talk:John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon/Archive 2|Archive 2]] - from Protection to Unprotection (Apr 30).

== Reversion ==

I've rolled back [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]]'s recent major changes (essentially for reasons detailed throughout this Talk page)—perhaps it was a mistake to unprotect the article again so soon. I'll leave it unprotected for now, hoping that Agenda-driven edits won't take over again. If they do, and especially if they're from [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]], it may be necessary to introduce a ban on that editor for a time. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:07, April 30, 2008 (UTC)

: Your revert without even reading the changes I put in is another proof that this website has no interest in expressing the reality that exists in The Church, but rather fictitious visions of several individuals claiming to be "fr". [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 18:30, April 30, 2008 (UTC)

:: Oh, trust me—I read them. Anyway, [[w:Talk:John Zizioulas]], along with your Agenda here, demonstrate that you're not interested in pursuing the editing of an encyclopedia in a calm manner. Indeed, your above condemnation of our many thousands of editors ''en masse'' is a pretty clear indication that you're not interested in good faith editing. As noted on your Talk page, your account has been banned. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:33, April 30, 2008 (UTC)

::: Your action against my account was illegal. It represented misjudgment on your side, which resulted in misuse of your sysops powers. Consequently, your error was reverted by Fr. John. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 18:21, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

:::: Illegal? Are you planning to sue me now? (In what court?) —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:25, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

== Enough ==

This is an Orthodox Website which for many people is a valuable source of knowledge. The attacks against His Eminence Metropolitan John of Pergamon, or any other hierarch of the Holy Orthodox Church, are not necessary on this forum. Whilst I don't share the same ecclesiological opinions as His Eminence, I have no right as a member of the Church to criticise him. Please, for the sake of those young people who use this website for edification, cease these attacks on the hierachy of the One, Holy Orthodox Church. - Peter Mav

:I also agree Peter, it would be a good idea if the discussion around this Father of the church is put on hold and indeed perhaps we should pray for the poor dear's soul as the amount of negativity emitted towards him is very unfair! I say, lets all work towards continuing to build Orthodox articles not critical defences to be used in a court of law. I dont even know why he is controversial :-) Like Mother Molania said in her talk from [[Ancient Faith Radio]], Insane people associating with insane people can not become sane ...only the Saints are "sane"! Chit chatting, keeps US in INSANITY! [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 09:32, May 1, 2008 (UTC)

:: That is precisely why all over the article of Metropolitan John and other contemporary Orthodox theologians we should print in big bold letters: “DO NOT BASE YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE ORTHODOXY ON WIRITINGS OF THIS CONTEMPORARIES WHOSE THEOLOGY IS NOT VERIFIED BY THE HISTORY YET. USE THEOLOGY OF THE HOLY FATHERS INSTEAD.”

:: We do not want to educate young people with the thought of the potentially problematic theologians like m. John (and fr. Schmmemmann, fr. Mayendorff, fr. Afanasiev, etc. – students of the “Paris school of Orthodoxy”). If you want to discuss it further, and you know more appropriate place (e.g. private forum), we can go there and continue.

:: [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 14:59, May 1, 2008 (UTC)

::: This is an encyclopedia, not a catechism. We're not in the business of putting big warning labels on articles about modern writers, especially those who are generally quite well-regarded throughout the Orthodox world, such as nearly everyone you mention.

::: That they are criticized by certain minority sectors of Orthodoxy is certainly a viable element for their respective articles, but that criticism should not be the dominant theme of the article, which would be undue weight. The impression a reader should get ought to be based on how the writer is regarded throughout the Orthodox Church, not on the idiosyncratic criticisms of a few, especially not regarding someone who's never even been accused by the proper authorities (much less condemned by them).

::: In any event, any general overview of Orthodoxy makes it plain that our theological emphasis is on the Scriptures and the Holy Fathers, not on any modern writer. If someone gets his entire impression of Orthodoxy or education in the faith from a single article on OrthodoxWiki, well, he's going about it wrong. One would hope that common sense would make that clear. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:31, May 1, 2008 (UTC)

I agree with some points raised by all who have responded. I am still concerned however, because I know a lot of youths use this website for introductory information and not having extensive knowledge or sometimes even the spiritual grounding can be scandalised. Obviously, mentioning that this hierarch's teachings are not accepted by some is good, encyclopaedic knowledge but some of the criticisms prior to their removal were not beneficial to the soul of anyone. I apologise if I have offended anyone. - Peter Mav

: In the above response of user Andrew we find the basis for the entire dispute. He is saying that Metropolitan John is ''"regarded throughout the Orthodox Church"'' and being ''"criticized by certain minority sectors of Orthodoxy"'', which is completely untrue/false/wrong/misguiding/misleading/etc. Vast majority of Orthodoxy exists beyond US shoreline, and even beyond English speaking world. Sooner that group of the individuals realize that, sooner we will get synergy in our actions. Such a fringe and perverted view of position of m. John in Orthodoxy is what user Andrew and couple of other individuals kept promoting, constantly trying to minimize the number and extent of the critics. It is best evident in the current version of the article, when in the criticism section they put reference to Bishop Ignjatije, who praises his work. What is that reference doing there? [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 12:54, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

I think that the user Fr Andrew is correct in his assessment. Lest anyone get the impression that the Serbian Church has somehow made a judgement that Metropolitan John is heterodox, I thought it worthwhile to note that a bishop and professor of theology in Serbia is a strong supporter of Metropolitan John's work. Anytime anyone disagrees with Cebactokpatop, he resorts to personal attack (both here and in the Wikipedia article). He has attacked and dismissed not only the other editors and Metropolitan John, but also:
*Bishop Kallistos Ware ("Ecumenist buddy of JZ")
*Christos Yannaras ("Ecumenist buddy of JZ")
*Fr John Meyendorff ("Heterodox", along with Schmmemann and Afanasiev)
*Fr Boris Bobrinskoy ("never heard of this guy"): I can't help it if Cebactokpatop hasn't heard of the dean of the St Sergius Institute in Paris, but then again, he dismisses the Paris school as "heterodox."
*Bishop Ignjatije Midić ("ecumenist... who can hardly be called a theologian, as he is almost not writing anything"): Well, in addition to being bishop of Branicevo, he is professor of dogmatics and ethics at the Serbian theological institute in Belgrade and is the author of a new book on dogmatics.
*Aristotle Papanikolaou ("Another buddy of JZ"), etc.

When I mentioned Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos, his only response was "Are you sure?" The answer to that is, Yes. If one checks the several references to Metropolitan John in Metropolitan Hierotheos' book on the person, one finds they are all very positive. On a personal note, having just finished reading ''Communion and Otherness'' and looking through ''Being as Communion'' again, I do not see how anyone who carefully read them could give any credence to the charges Cebactokpatop has made, not least of which is the absurd charge of heterodoxy. Aprt from the Serbian text he cites by Lazic and the interview with Archbishop Stylianos, NONE of the sources he cites as criticisms draw his conclusions. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 13:51, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

:: You are certainly entitled to support JZ and other individuals from Paris school of "orthodoxy". However, you are not entitled to personally dismiss me for providing valid academic resources that criticize JZ or any other product of mentioned school in Paris. From the list of the articles you contributed to, we can clearly see that your faith is in Paris. Orthodox who prefer to have their faith elswhere (e.g. Cappadocia), have a right to express their dissatisfaction with the innovations of Paris' school as well. You have done a great job in prizing JZ's work in the article. Now it is a time to balance it with the concerns of the Traditional Orthodox, Mr. Puhalo. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 17:43, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

::: Methinks you have Fr. Lev confused with Abp. [[Lazar (Puhalo) of Ottawa]]. They're not the same person. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:02, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

:::: Are you sure about that my friend? I am beyond reasonable doubts... they are the same person. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 18:10, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

::::: Based on what? The name "Lev"? —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:31, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

ROTFL! I have been accused of many things in my life, but never of being an archbishop! --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 19:12, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

: You are right. You are not an Archbishop. To become the one, it would require valid canonical ordination. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 19:14, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

Another personal attack -- ''quelle surprise''! I was "canonically" ordained, BTW, by a "canonical" bishop of a "canonical" patriarchal Church. I know who I am, but I have no idea who Cebactokpatop is. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 19:30, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

: Whatever. I am not interested in "canonicity" of your ordination (if any). What I am interested in, is making sure you understand that current version of the article is not balanced, as you intentionally (or not) tried to minimize criticisms of JZ. Do you understand that? If you do, it would be easier for me to go in and try to balance it so that readers do not get an impression that they have before them, article about some "saint". [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 20:12, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

::Ok, enough everyone with the personal back and forth. I agree that the article should also present criticisms fairly and rationally. Cebactokpatop, I am concerned by your personal attacks, which at least in some cases are totally unfounded, and to my mind, crazy (e.g. Fr Lev is not Archbp Lazar!). If this kind of stuff continues, I'm going to freeze this page. I've just edited the article to incorporate some of the material present in earlier drafts. — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk]) 21:17, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

:::I agree. While I normally say very little on Orthodoxwiki (I'm not a scholar of complex dogma or theology, nor do I wish or claim to be), I've been lurking around this discussion and reading what everyone has said. Cebactokpatop, I think it would behoove you to take a leaf from Frs. Andrew and John, as well as the other sysops and users here on Orthodoxwiki. They've been extremely charitable with you when they have received so very little from you in these discussions. When they indulge your vitriol, you reward them with ad hominem attacks, questioning their identities, and even going so far as to question the canonicity of people's ordinations with temerity (although you deny this, it is clearly evident that you do so). You ask readers and writers to address your edits with "proper academic attire." Yet, I have to ask the physician to heal himself with respect to your paranoia and derision. Fr. Andrew, specifically, has not only responded to you in a very Christ-like manner, but has been nothing short of a gentleman in dealing with you.

:::I ask, in the future, when you are a guest of other wikis and forums, you try to act in a similar manner.[[User:Mike|Mike]] 21:55, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

== Material for Inclusion ==

* [[Fr. John Behr]] in the aticle ''"The Trinitarian Being of the Church"'', argues that Zizioulas' use of The Three as an archetype for The Church, when he establishes communion of The Church as an image of the communion od The Three, ends up dismissing both - The Three and The Church. ''(St Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 48:1 (2004), 67-88)'' {{unsigned|Cebactokpatop}}

In reviewing Fr John Behr's essay, I don't see it saying anything to suggest that Metropolitan John's view ends us "dismissing" the Trinity and the Church. I'd like to see the quote and page number that is alleged to say that. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 22:54, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

: Any suggestions on how to reword Fr. Behr's criticism? Isn't this dismissal of The Church: ''"What is said of the Church is certainly based upon what is said of the Trinity, but the effect of speaking in this manner, paradoxically, is that the Church is separated from God, as a distinct entity reflecting the divine being."'' (page 68) Church without ties to God does not exist, even though, it may perfectly mimic the Three. At the same time, we do not know The Three without Their Church. It is The Church that is left behind to proclaim The Three. Disconnect JZ creates, dismisses The Church, and conequenly blind us from The Three, which equates to dismissal. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 03:43, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

== What counts as "academic criticism"? ==

Fr John, I find your floowing edit problematic: "Peter J. Leithart's article, Divine Energies and Orthodox Soteriology, cites the work of Papanikolaou, and points out where Vladimir Lossky and Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) differ on the issue of divine energies. His article implies criticism, based on understanding of the certain Orthodox, who see work of Prof. Lossky as contemporary synthesis of the patristic theology. Thus, to differ from Prof. Lossky, is to differ from patristic theology."

(1) Leithart in no way understands hie article to be critical of Metropolitan John. Not only is that clear from actually reading the article, but he has confirmed that in personal correspondence. (2) There is nothing here to indicate there is any substantive problem with what Metropolitan John says about the essence/energies distinction. (3) If an undergraduate wrote in an academic paper the sentence, "Thus, to differ from Prof. Lossky, is to differ from patristic theology", there wouldn't get a very good grade. Lossky is a personal theological hereo of mine, but I don't know any serious theologian who would judge him to be the sole criterion of Orthodoxy. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 23:13, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

: Indeed, no. Lossky himself has been criticized by major figures in the 20th century, e.g., Staniloae, who's no theological slouch himself. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 02:42, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:: Zizioulas and Meyendorff fell into the pit trying to criticise either Lossky or St. Gregory Palamas, as both of them are not capable of grasping what those two champions were writing about. Area related to the Holy Spirit is unknown and incomprehensible to these "eucharistic ecclesiologians" who understand bodily portion only, based on instructions from RCC theologians Mr. Congar and Mr. Lubac. In order to understand The Spirit, one has to now The Spirit of Orthodoxy. Paris school is so far from that Spirit that their theology consequently, can not be in the Spirit of Orthodoxy. In order to "bring closer" Orthodoxy to Rome (ecumenists), they have to introduce some other spirit - that is spirit of Rome. Orthodox Spirit can never get any closer to Rome than in past 1000 years. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 02:59, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::: An interesting analysis, but I fail to see how this is relevant to the task at hand, which is summarizing reliable secondary sources into an encyclopedia entry which represents the mainstream Chalcedonian viewpoint and takes minor note of other relevant viewpoints. Personal attacks are not really germane—how do you know what Meyendorff or Metr. John are "capable of grasping"? —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 03:08, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:::: That was my response on your assertion: "Lossky himself has been criticized" with my addition of Meyendorff and St. Gregory as another example of the same failure. JZ in his bible Being as Commununion "showed" how Lossky "was wrong". [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 03:15, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

== Should criticism be 'mainstream'? ==

I have read repeatedly that OrthoWiki is about "mainstream" Orthodoxy. Some of the criticism included here is, e.g., from Old Calendarists, who condemn most of the Churches represented here for using the Revised Julian calendar or for ecumenism. Nothing against Old Calendarist "resistance" synods and hyper-traditionalists, but what relevance should their criticism have in a minstream venue such as this? Given that they make the same criticisms of Bishop Kallistos, Fr Alexander Schmemann, Fr John Meyendorff, Christos Yannaras, etc., as they do of Metropolitan John, why should this be included? And all to satisfy one editor whose personal animus is clear? What will come next? When he became convinced "beyond reasonable doubts" that I am Abp Lazar Puhalo, he immediately went to the page on the Archbishop to write negative comments. I am waiting for him to add "criticism" sections to the articles on Bishop Kallistos, Fr Alexander Schmemann, et al., in which they, too, are denounced as heterodox ecumenists of the Paris School. What is to stop him? After all, he can find a blog or an online article by or quoting Heiromonk Patapios or Archbishop Chrysostomos casting aspersions on the orthodoxy of them all. He has dismissed Bishop Ignatije (Midic) of Pozarevac and Branicevo. Look what passes for "criticism" in the link he provided on that page -- a blog entry with a paragraph of Bishop Ignatije. No argument. Even the priest who wrote the blog wasn't sure that the paragraph was a true representation of Bishop Ignatije. This is the "criticism" that should be included in an encyclopedia article? --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 00:59, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

: I think your point is well made. The so-called "Traditionalist Orthodox" are explicitly not given a soapbox here, as per the [[OW:NPOV|MCB]]. If there seems to be a united front against the subject of an article from those sectors, it is enough to mention it briefly, but not to allow it to dominate an article.

: In any event, what is clear is that Metr. John is generally quite highly regarded throughout the Orthodox Church, which is explicitly defined on OrthodoxWiki as [[List of autocephalous and autonomous churches|this list]], i.e., the Mainstream Chalcedonian churches. Metr. John is not a controversial figure by any means, and the article should reflect that. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 02:37, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

: I dod not provide any link to Bishop Ignjatije. Please stop telling false stories. Also, "resistance" Orthodox are in dogmatics same as Orthodox, which makes them valid in their criticisms. What they differ about is heresy over all heresies - ecumenism, and masonic infux into Orthodoxy - [[Meletios IV (Metaxakis) of Constantinople]]. It appears that those who praise Paris school of "orthodoxy" support ecumenism, and logically, regard "reistance" Orthodox as lesser Orthodox than Vatican! [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 02:47, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:: If I am mistaken in how I read the OrthoWiki history page on the article, my apology. But it seems to say you created that link at 21:53 on May 2, 2008: http://orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Ignatije_%28Midic%29_of_Pozarevac_and_Branicevo&diff=65572&oldid=42851
--[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 02:54, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:: [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]], all of this is essentially irrelevant. The do-it-yourself "Celtic Orthodox" gent who lives near here and visits our church every so often is also quite likely "in dogmatics same as Orthodox," but I'm not about to interview him for this article.

:: The point is that what the "resistance/True/Genuine/Traditionalist/etc." groups think is only of relatively small importance on most OrthodoxWiki articles. Whatever one may think of the so-called "Paris School" (whatever that may mean—does that simply mean St. Sergius Institute?), it currently is part of and accepted by mainstream Orthodoxy, while by comparison the "resistance/True/Genuine/Traditionalist/etc." groups are fringe. Their opinions on Metr. John are irrelevant. Perhaps if one of them had engaged in some major debate with him, they might be relevant.

:: One doesn't have to be an "ecumenist" or a Freemason or an Ultramontanist sympathizer in order to see that giving undue weight to the opinions of such folks is essentially a violation of the explicit bias of OrthodoxWiki. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 02:57, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::: I repeat - I did not produce any link related to Bishop Ignjatije. All I did on his page was to convert section listing his writings from latin into cyrillic.

::: It appears to me that both of you want to minimize amount and extent of the criticisms for some reason. Can you provide a valid reason for your attempts to blind the public? [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 03:08, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:::: It's not a question of eliminating criticism (OrthodoxWiki articles are replete with descriptions of criticism, which is clear from even a cursory browsing of the site)—it's where it's coming from and how much is actually appropriate to represent the mainstream view on the subject matter. Piling an article high with criticisms from fringe sources is not consistent with the policies of OrthodoxWiki, nor does it do anyone a service. "The public" are not "blinded" by an attempt to write balanced articles consistent with OrthodoxWiki policies. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 03:11, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::::: I have a problem with your statements simply because all of the disputes I had here were about same thing - constant denial of the criticisms from several individuals who disguise their denial under the mask of "policies", "encyclopedia", "POV/NPOV", etc. What is balanced for you? To praise his work on two pages, and then mention critics in a mild form just to satisfy annoyances like myself? [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 03:20, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::::::And you don't see a problem with all disputes being about the same thing? This is (or endeavours to be, either/or) a ''Mainstream Chalcedonian Orthodox encyclopedia''. This is fairly explicit in intent and focus. The scholarly attacks on Metr. John provided have been more attack than scholarly (quite a number of them are mere citations or references to Metr. John, rather than any theological grappling), and the few scholars have willingly placed themselves outside of the Mainstream Chalcedonian Orthodoxy that we are ''explicitly'' putting forward.
::::::There have been others who have attempted to browbeat OW into submission for their own agendas - Ben Lomond and Western Rite talk pages are replete with arguments attempting to convince OW that it should not follow it's own ''explicit'' bias towards Mainstream Chalcedonian Orthodoxy. It's not like OW is claiming to be something that it's not. — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 01:49, May 5, 2008 (UTC)

== Just a thought ==

It seems to me that this article is basically supposed to be a biographical introduction to Metr. John. While mention of the variety of opinions expressed about his work can, and probably should, be mentioned, it seems to me that this is not the proper forum for a detailed discussion (and listing) of these opinions. Half of the article, as it stands, is concerned with criticism and responses to that criticism and that seems rather unbalanced for something that is trying to be an encyclopedic entry.

I am not sure where a discussion of all these opinions should take place, or even whether OrthodoxWiki is the right forum for such a discussion. It just seems to me that this particular page is not the place for it.

Just my two cents, and with this I leave this debate.

In the risen Christ,
[[User:Vandrona|Fr. Peter]]

:Hi Fr. Peter, Thanks for your comments on this. It is indeed a hard call, but I do think that part of the role OrthodoxWiki plays is precisely in pushing for an articulation of controversial issues in church life. Obviously, so many of the criticisms of Metropolitan John's work are not just about him, but are about a particular movement or trend within Orthodox theology. I really want to see as precise and accurate overview of this debate as possible. Again, I do think this itself is a good service to the community. I'm not interested in personal attacks or blanket condemnations, etc. but am very interested in thoughtful criticisms or defenses. I'm curious about what others think. — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk]) 09:27, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::Hello, Fr. John. I apologize for the lack of clarity in my original post, so I will try to briefly clarify what I was trying to say. First off, having thought about it and read your reply, it does make sense that the wiki is a good place to articulate controversial issues. In which case I meant to suggest following a Wikipedia approach: having a mention of the controversial issue on the biographical page with a link to an article specifically dedicated to the issue being debated (e.g., "Theology of John Zizioulas"). That way we can avoid the contentious section being longer than the rest of the article. We also get another page where all the relevant references can be quoted and noted (hopefully...), rather than simply having somewhat vague mentions in the vein of "Metr. John has addressed this criticism." [[User:Vandrona|Fr. Peter]]

I notice a minor edit "struggle" over the sentence someone wrote and I restored: "His article implies criticism, based on understanding of the certain Orthodox, who see work of [[Vladimir Lossky|Prof. Lossky]] as contemporary synthesis of the patristic theology. Thus, to differ from [[Vladimir Lossky|Prof. Lossky]], is to differ from patristic theology." This had been changed to "This article would be critical if seen through the ideology of [[Vladimir Lossky|Prof. Lossky]]'s work as being a contemporary synthesis of patristic theology." I think I understand the reason for this change -- the original sentence is rather vague and difficult to make sense of (it may be that the original author's primary language was not English), but I'm not sure the cleanup help makes the meaning any clearer. Perhaps somehow can expain this better, but for now I going to revert this again. — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk]) 09:27, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:Because the article is only a critical article if Lossky is held up as a synthesis of patristic theology. If the Lossky=Theology standpoint is not taken, the article is not critical at all, merely comparative. As I don't know how one would even go about justifying the Lossky=Theology standpoint, I don't think that the article is criticism at all, and shouldn't be there. — by [[User:Pistevo|Pιsτévο]] ''[[User talk:Pistevo|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|complaints]]'' at 01:37, May 5, 2008 (UTC)

:: For that reason, sentence states: ''"based on understanding of the '''certain Orthodox''', who '''see work of [[Vladimir Lossky|Prof. Lossky]] as contemporary synthesis of the patristic theology'''"''. I think it is clearly explained, why and under what condition, article of Mr. Leithart is seen by ''"certain Orthodox"'' as criticism, unintentional though, but, still criticism. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 13:14, May 5, 2008 (UTC)

John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon

2008-05-03T03:50:55Z

Cebactokpatop: /* Theology of Personhood */ Restoring original sentence of Fr. John

[[Image:Zizioulas1.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon]]
His Excellency the Most Reverend '''John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon''' (b. 1931) is a modern [[theologian]] and [[titular bishop|titular]] [[Metropolitan]] of Pergamon, under the [[Ecumenical Patriarchate]] of Constantinople.

==Life==
The future metropolitan was born [[January 10]], 1931. He began his studies at the University of Thessaloniki but took his first theology degree from the University of Athens in 1955. He studied patristics under Father Georges Florovsky at Harvard Divinity School, receiving his M.T.S. in 1956, and his doctorate in theology from the University of Athens in 1965. He was professor of theology for 14 years at the University of Glasgow and the University of Edinburgh, and has been a visiting professor at the University of Geneva, Gregorian University, and King's College, London. He was consecrated as a bishop on [[June 22]], 1986 and named Metropolitan of Pergamon.

==Theology and significance==
Metropolitan John is one of the most important Christian theologians alive today, influencing theologians in the Roman Catholic and Protestant communions as well in the Orthodox Church. Some have suggested that his 1985 book, ''Being as Communion'', is perhaps the most significant theological book of the late 20th century.

The principle themes in Metropolitan John’s theology are freedom and otherness, both human and divine. Grounding his work in the Cappadocian Fathers and St Maximus Confessor in particular, he articulates a relational ontology in which neither unity nor plurality have priority. His ''Being as Communion'' (1985) addressed the theme from the importance of communion for unity, while his later ''Communion and Otherness'' (2007) is a complementary analysis of the importance of otherness for communion. He thus takes up the ancient philosophical problem of reconciling the One and the Many, which he examines with respect to divinity (the three Persons of the Trinity and the ''monarchia'' of the Father), humanity (theological anthropology), and the Church (ecclesiology). The philosophical implications of the book extend to the human and social sciences. A further theme of the two studies is the eschatological ontology he derives from St Maximus the Confessor, in which the truly real is that which is real at the ''eschaton''. This is the subject of a new book by the Metropolitan to be released in summer 2008, ''Remembering the Future: An Eschatological Ontology''.

His first book was his doctoral dissertation in 1965, only recently published in English as ''Eucharist, Bishop, Church: The Unity of the Church in the Divine Eucharist and the Bishop During the First Three Centuries'' (2001). It was an early and significant contribution to the development of ‘eucharistic ecclesiology’, associated with [[Nicholas Afanasiev]], that focused on the essential role of the bishop as the presider of the Church’s Divine Liturgy.

Metropolitan John has become a key figure in major ecumenical dialogues between the Orthodox Church and other Christian traditions, and in 2006 succeeded Archbishop [[Stylianos (Harkianakis) of Australia|Stylianos of Australia]] as president of the Commission of Orthodox in the Dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church. Metropolitan John is also well-known for his work on the environment, particularly for his lecture series, ‘Preserving God’s Creation.’

==Books==
*''L'Être ecclésial'' (Paris: Labor et Fides, 1981). ISBN 978-2830901801.
*''E Ktise os eucharistia'' (Athens: Akritas, 1992). ISBN 978-9607006981. This would be rendered in English as ''Creation as Eucharist''.
*''Being and Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church'' (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimirs Seminary Press, 1997). ISBN 978-0881410297.
*''Eucharist, Bishop, Church: The Unity of the Church in the Divine Eucharist and the Bishop During the First Three Centuries'' (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross, 2001). ISBN 978-1885652515.
*''Ellenismos kai Christianismos: H Synantese ton duo Kosmon'' (Athens: ApostolikeDiakonia, 2003). This would be renderd in English as ''Hellenism and Christianity: The Meeting of Two Worlds''.
*''Communion & Otherness: Further Studies in Personhood and the Church'' (London: T & T Clark, 2007). ISBN 978-0567031488.
*''Remembering the Future: An Eschatological Ontology'' (London: T&T Clark, 2008). ISBN 978-0567032355.
*''Lectures in Christian Dogmatics'' (London: T&T Clark, 2009). ISBN 978-0567033154.

==Studies==
*Fox, Patricia A. ''God as Communion: John Zizioulas, Elizabeth Johnson, and the Retrieval of the Symbol of the Triune God'' (Michael Glazer, 2001). ISBN 978-0814650820.
*Knight, Douglas, ed. ''The Theology of John Zizioulas: Personhood and the Church'' (Ashgate, 2007). ISBN 978-0754654308.
*McPartlan, Paul. ''The Eucharist Makes the Church: Henri du Lubac and John Zizioulas in Dialogue''. Eastern Christian Publications, 2006. ISBN 978-1892278616.
*Papanikolaou, Aristotle. ''Being with God: Trinity, Apophaticism, and Divine-Human Communion'' (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2006). ISBN 978-0268038304.

==Criticisms==
Like many theologians, particularly those involved in theological dialogues, Metropolitan John has undergone criticism for his theological works, particularly in the areas of the patristic roots of his theology of personhood, and his ecclesiology and perspective on ecumenical relations.

===Theology of Personhood===
*Lucian Turcescu argues in ''[http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1468-0025.00202 Person versus Individual and Other Modern Misreadings of Gregory of Nyssa]'' that there are differences between patristic theology and the theology of John Zizioulas. Specifically, Turcescu argues that "Zizioulas is ... in error when he contends that the Cappadocians did not understand a person as an individual or when he credits them with having had the same concerns we moderns have when combating individualism today."2
:*These criticisms have been answered by Aristotle Papanikolaou in the same journal 3 and by Metropolitan John himself.4

* Rodoljub Lazic, in his book, ''Innovatory Theology of Metropolitan Zizioulas'' ([http://www.pravoslavlje.net/texts/InovatorskoBogoslovlje.html In Serbian], ATOS - Missionary Center, Belgrade 2002), explains why he believes the work of Zizioulas differs from traditional Orthodoxy and argues that there is a connection between Zizioulas' [[Ecumenism|ecumenical]] orientation and his theology.

* In [http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/her_saints.aspx a letter], Archbishop [http://www.synodinresistance.org/Administration_en/ChrysostomosEtna.html Chrysostomos of Etna] states that Fr [[John Meyendorff]] and Metr. John (Zizioulas) were Westernized theologians, in contrast with Fr [[Georges Florovsky]] (a teacher of Metr. John's).

* Denial of the representation of the Orthodoxy by John Zizioulas can be found in the article published by the editorial staff of the magazine [http://www.italiaortodossa.it Italia Ortodossa], a magazine of Orthodox faithful in Italy: [http://digilander.libero.it/ortodossia/Zizioulas.htm Is the Theologian Ioannis Zizioulas proclaiming Orthodoxy?]

* Peter J. Leithart's article, [http://www.leithart.com/archives/002006.php ''Divine Energies and Orthodox Soteriology''], cites the work of Papanikolaou, and points out where [[Vladimir Lossky]] and Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) differ on the issue of [[divine energies]]. His article implies criticism, based on understanding of the certain Orthodox, who see work of [[Vladimir Lossky|Prof. Lossky]] as contemporary synthesis of the patristic theology. Thus, to differ from [[Vladimir Lossky|Prof. Lossky]], is to differ from patristic theology.

===Ecclesiology and Ecumenical Relations===
*Rodoljub Lazić's booklet, "Innovatory Theology of Metropolitan Zizioulas" ([http://www.pravoslavlje.net/index.php?title=%D0%9D%D0%BE%D0%B2%28%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%81%D0%BA%29%D0%BE_%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%99%D0%B5_%D0%9C%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B0_%D0%97%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%98%D1%83%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%B0 in Serbian]), argues that the Metropolitan's work differs from "traditional" Orthodoxy and that there is a connection between the Metropolitan's [[Ecumenism|ecumenical]] orientation and his theology.
:*However, a former student and supporter of Metropolitan John is [[Ignatije (Midic) of Pozarevac and Branicevo|Bishop Ignjatije Midić]], Bishop of Branicevo and professor in dogmatics and ethics at the Serbian-Orthodox Theological Faculty in Belgrade.

* In an [http://www.greekorthodox.org.au/downloads/files/english/vema/2006/10bVEMA06E.doc interview with Maria Antoniadou], Archbishop [[Stylianos (Harkianakis) of Australia|Stylianos of Australia]] criticizes John Zizioulas for his stance on [[Uniatism]], questioning his status as a systematic theologian.6

* Hieromonk Patapios, in his article, [http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/review_toc.aspx ''A Traditionalist Critique of The Orthodox Church''], criticized ecumenistic [http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/methierotheos_baptism.aspx Baptismal theology] as espoused by Metr. John.

*The 1971 article, ''[http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/mono_2.aspx Concerning the Approaching Orthodox – Monophysite Union]'', gives Metr. John as an example of a "muddled theologian" in his views on Severus of Antioch.

*Some are concerned by his reliance of non-Orthodox sources on his thought in both areas, pointing out the influence of French Catholic theologians [[w:Henri de Lubac|Henri de Lubac]] and [[w:Yves Congar|Yves Congar]], as well as [[w:Martin Buber|Martin Buber]] and [[w:John Macmurray|John Macmurray]]. 3

== Notes ==
1 ''Modern Theology'' 18:4, October 2002, 527-539.

2 ''Ibid'', p.537.

3 "Is John Zizioulas an Existentialist in Disguise? Response to Lucian Turcescu," ''Modern Theology'' 20:4, October 2004, pp. 601-607).

4 In ''Communion and Otherness'', pp. 171-177.

5 ATOS Missionary Center, Belgrade, 2002.

6 In an [http://www.greekorthodox.org.au/downloads/files/english/vema/2006/10bVEMA06E.doc interview with Maria Antoniadou].

==External links==
*[http://www.google.com/notebook/public/12711690312044536402/BDQpBQwoQsNvyxpsi List of Works by John of Pergamon]
*[http://orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/resources/hierarchs/constantinople/currenta.htm#john_metr_pergamon His Eminence John, Metropolitan of Pergamon] from the Orthodox Research Institute
*[http://www.oodegr.com/english/dogmatiki1/perieh.htm Dogmatics notes] - "These are the notes that were taken from the lessons of Professor I. Zizioulas (current Metropolitan of Pergamus and Chairman of the Athens Academy) at the Poemantic Division of the Thessaloniki University's School of Theology, during the academic year 1984-1985. They are published with the blessing and the permission of the reverend Metropolitan."
*[[:Wikipedia:John Zizioulas|John Zizioulas (Wikipedia)]]
*[http://www.resourcesforchristiantheology.org/?cat=11 Resources for Christian Theology: John Zizioulas]

{{Start box}}
{{succession|
before=?|
title=Metropolitan of Pergamon|
years=1986 - present|
after=—}}
{{End box}}

[[Category:Bishops]]
[[Category:Modern Writers]]