|
|
| (146 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | *[[Talk:John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon/Archive 1|Archive 1]] - from Creation to Protection. | + | *[[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 16, 2008. |
| | | | |
| − | ==Protection== | + | == A new beginning == |
| − | This article has been reverted and protected. Please place all suggested changes on this Talk page, where sysops can incorporate them into the article. — by [[User:Pistevo|<font color="green">Pιs</font><font color="gold">τévο</font>]] <sup>''[[User talk:Pistevo|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|<font color="red">complaints</font>]]''</sup> at 13:32, March 6, 2008 (PST)
| + | Friends, I've gone through the archives for the talk page here and made some comments, and also adjusted the text of the article a little bit. I think we're at a pretty good point here -- the article gives a short summary of the Metropolitan's life and work, hits on the basics of his writings, and includes some of the back and forth and how it has been received. Of course, many points could be expanded, and a few things could be cleaned up, but overall I think the "neutrality" is pretty good -- it seems to me that the article as it currently stands neither denigrates Met. John and his work nor exalts him. |
| | | | |
| − | : You reverting before protection reveal your siding with one side in the dispute. Such a behavior is inappropriate for a sysop. Current version of the article is not acceptable for the following reasons:
| + | I've received numerous requests to be more active in moderation here. I've wanted to give everyone some time to settle down a bit. I am pretty tired of all the personal invective, accusations, etc. Let me give a strong warning here: if those who have participated in these talk pages continue to deal disrespectfully with other sysops or members of the wiki and attack them personally rather than just their ideas, they will be banned. Because of the history of this article, I'm also asking that changes be discussed on this page first. Thank you. — [[User:FrJohn|<b>FrJohn</b>]] ([http://orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit§ion=new talk]) 03:08, May 21, 2008 (UTC) |
| | | | |
| − | # No valid academic reasons for denouncing the article of the Italian magazine were provided. All reasoning mentioned were private in nature, and do not represent valid academic basis for removal.
| + | == Criticisms section == |
| − | # Article of Mr. Leithart appears to be twofold:
| |
| − | ## Study of the work of J.Z.
| |
| − | ## Implied criticism as it points to differences between theologies of Prof. Lossky and J.Z. Both aspects of the article should be mentioned on the page. How? I am open to suggestions. I have tried two approaches, and both were rejected by the other party. I will let the other party propose the way of mentioning the second aspect...
| |
| − | # There is a need for minor change on the sentence that is trying to minimize the criticisms with inappropriate wording that is POV in nature.
| |
| | | | |
| − | [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 05:29, March 7, 2008 (PST) | + | Mention of the '''Leithart article''' in the "Criticisms" section is problematic in that the article is not at all a criticism of Metropolitan John, nor does the author understand it as a criticism (personal communication). It can only be described as an "implicit criticism" if one buys the fallacious idea that to differ from V. Lossky is to depart from patristic theology. I also think it odd to elevate a reference in a '''letter by an Old Calendarist bishop''' to Metropolitan John and the late Fr John Meyendorff as "Westernized" theologians to the level of encyclpedic criticism. There is no argument made in the letter, no appeal to a text by either the Metropolitan or Meyendorff as evidence, simply the dismisal of two mainstream Orthodox theologians by a decidedly out of the mainstream bishop who is not in communion with the autocephalous Churches. The '''piece by Hieromonk Patapios''' has the same problem as the piece by Archbishop Chrysostomos -- an out of the mainstream opinion without any argument or appeal to a text by the Metropolitan. There is a reference to '''a 1971 article''' attacking dialogues with non-Chalcedonians that refers to Metropolitan John as a "muddled theologian." This is another example of an Old Calendarist criticism that I don't think belongs on a mainstream Orthodox encyclopedia. As to '''non-Orthodox influences''' on his thought (if this is to remain in the article) this sentence needs to be revised: "Some are concerned by his reliance of non-Orthodox sources on his thought ...." As the Metropolitan is quite specific that he does not rely on these non-Orthodox sources and points out how all of them cannot produce a true theology of personhood, it is wrong to refer to "his reliance" as if that is a fact. And, as it has been pointed out before, whether or not someone is "influenced" by a non-Orthodox writer should not be an issue -- V. Lossky was certainly influenced by non-Orthodox writers. The question is whether it can be shown that such influence has had the effect of determining a heterodox result in a theologian's position. Even Turcescu, who criticizes Metropolitan John on personhood and mentions the influence of non-Orthodox writers on the Metropolitan, does not make the claim that this influence results in heterodoxy. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 14:45, May 21, 2008 (UTC) |
| | | | |
| − | There is no implied criticism in Pastor Leithart's article. There are not two "aspects." Lossky is not the standard for evaluating all other work. There have been a number of important 20th century Orthodox theologians, and they disagreed on some matters -- Lossky is different from Staniloae, who is different from Florovsky, who is different from Romanides, etc. All of these men were fully Orthodox and well-regarded. The kind of bizarre logic being used by Cebactokpatop would rate a flunking grade in my introduction to logic class, and it wouldn't pass muster for a peer-reviewed, academic journal. I'm thinking of both his attempt to spin a favorable article into a critical one (see my analogy about a book promoting Nicene orthodoxy) and his simplistic syllogistic reasoning -- 1. Lossky is THE synthesis of Orthodox patristic theology. 2. Zizioulas disagrees with Lossky about something. Therefore, 3. Zizioulas is heterodox. I can't decide which is worse -- the specious logic or the attempt to dress it up as somehow "academic." --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 05:41, March 7, 2008 (PST)
| + | : I'm in favor of removing references which are essentially just offhand remarks, especially those made by representatives of fringe groups. The "Criticisms" section should not essentially be "List of bad things anyone has ever said about Metr. John." It has to include criticisms of substance that understand themselves as criticisms, with more weight being given to MCB writers than those of non-MCBs. —[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">Fr. Andrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]] <font face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''')</font></small> 14:54, May 21, 2008 (UTC) |
| | | | |
| − | : Your attitude does not comply with academic attire. Your rhetoric either. Your focus on how to discredit my unworthy individual (person), instead on the subject of our dispute, reveals weakness in your argument. Your analogy you keep repeating is good for laughter only. My simplistic reasoning goes hand in hand with the reasoning Savior used in order to make his teaching so simple that even uneducated fishermen could understand him. And I do not have to pass muster for any academic journal. Simplicism I chose to use can not be accepted by Pharisees. They were always “too high” for simple fishermen. One thing I will teach you here... Florovsky made his mistakes. Staniloae too. Lossky too. All man made mistakes, but One. The difference between acceptance and rejection in the Church is not in the mistakes they have made, but in the overall harm those mistakes made in the Church. When mistakes amount to the level where man in question starts braking Church' canons, we know that he had went ashtray, without need to read any of his writings. | + | ::I've moved the Leithart reference to the "studies" section and marked the Old Calendarist schismatics as such. Not sure what to do with them, although I think we must admit that they are part of the larger conversation here, which is, of course, much larger than Met. John. — [[User:FrJohn|<b>FrJohn</b>]] ([http://orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit§ion=new talk]) 18:09, May 21, 2008 (UTC) |
| | | | |
| − | : I would propose you to start putting down valid academic reasons for your arguments rather than your personal opinion on what grade certain logic would have in your introductory classes. | + | :: I agree with Fr Andrew here. I think that, at the very least, a criticism has to consist of an ''argument'' against Metropolitan John's position, and not just a negative adjective or an unjustified assertion. The article shouldn't be a list of names Zizioulas has been called (or reportedly has been called). |
| | | | |
| − | : [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 11:34, March 7, 2008 (PST) | + | :: I suggest that we list thematically the studies and serious interactions with Metropolitan John's theology, giving short summaries of their conclusions. [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 21:17, May 21, 2008 (UTC) |
| − | | |
| − | Just a reminder that we are each approaching [[Forgiveness Sunday]]. Another difference from Wikipedia is that '''users of OrthodoxWiki are definitely urged to pray for one another''', especially in difficult and frustrating circumstances. Rather than attempt to delve into theology myself, or into the discussion of this page, in looking through some of the articles related to Metr. John's writings, I found some links which do not seem to be currently included in the article. I will include them here so that they may be considered for appropriate inclusion at a later time.
| |
| − | *[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3664/is_200210/ai_n9126351 Trinitarian Theology, West and East: Karl Barth, the Cappadocian Fathers, and John Zizioulas] by Douglas Farrow
| |
| − | *[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2065/is_1_56/ai_n5999103 John D. Zizioulas, Eucharist, Bishop, Church: the Unity of the Church in the Divine Eucharist and the Bishop during the First Three Centuries] by Andrew Louth
| |
| − | *[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2065/is_n1_v46/ai_14935606 The Eucharist Makes the Church: Henri de Lubac and John Zizioulas in Dialogue. - book reviews] by Mark E. Chapman
| |
| − | *[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3664/is_200107/ai_n9002866 Living Orthodoxy in the Modern World: Orthodox Christianity and Society] by John Chryssavgis
| |
| − | *[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2065/is_n3_v48/ai_18709948 Sacrament of Salvation: An Introduction to Eucharistic Ecclesiology. - book reviews] by Nathan D. Wilson
| |
| − | Additionally, I suggest that involved parties either take a break from editing on OrthodoxWiki, or focus their attentions on improving other articles. —[[User:Magda|<b>magda</b>]] ([[User_talk:Magda|talk]]) 12:23, March 7, 2008 (PST)
| |
| − | | |
| − | : <u>Let's see... </u>
| |
| − | | |
| − | : 1. Anglican
| |
| − | : 2. Orthodox?
| |
| − | : 3. Lutheran
| |
| − | : 4. Buddy who reports to the same chief - well known braker of the Church canons.
| |
| − | : 5. Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
| |
| − | | |
| − | : From this list we can see who praises his work. :)
| |
| − | | |
| − | : [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 11:42, March 13, 2008 (PDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | Fr Andrew Louth, in addition to being a distinguished patristics scholar, is a Russian Orthodox priest. When moderators are ready to modify the article, I wish to recommend adding a reply to the Turcescu article. It is Aristotle Papanikolaou, "Is John Zizioulas an Existentialist in Disguise? Response to Lucian Turcescu" in ''Modern Theology'' 20:4 (October 2004), 601-607. It argues that Metropolitan John's theology is consistent with that of the Fathers, and that Turescu has missed the mark by attacking Metrop. John on how to read St Gregory of Nyssa, whom the latter rarely cites. Instead, Metrop. John has relied more clearly on St Gregory the Theologian. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 14:41, March 13, 2008 (PDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | :''Vote for INCLUSION''. These are academic sources - I know that Frs Andrew Louth and John Chryssavgis are both highly qualified to speak academically (Fr Andrew, if memory recalls, is an Oxford professor; Fr John, an Oxford grad., lectures/ed at Holy Cross, and was the Sub-Dean at St Andrew's, Sydney). I would do it myself if I weren't, much to my distaste, named as being one of the 'parties' in this discussion... — by [[User:Pistevo|<font color="green">Pιs</font><font color="gold">τévο</font>]] <sup>''[[User talk:Pistevo|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|<font color="red">complaints</font>]]''</sup> at 14:47, March 13, 2008 (PDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | Fr Andrew is currently a professor at Durham, but did teach at London and Oxford. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 19:32, March 13, 2008 (PDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Oh sure... you will find here and there some Orthodox who fell into the pit, dug up by the man in question. Let’s add to the above list Mr. Leithart, yet another Protestant, who, you said, is praising his work...
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''One question for you folks'''... I was trying to find biography of J.Z. with the details like when he became monk, in which monastery has he served, when ordained to deaconate, priesthood and finally to episcopate... and failed. Do you know where that information can be found?
| |
| − | | |
| − | [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 05:54, March 14, 2008 (PDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | : A word of caution to [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]]: It seems pretty clear that you have an agenda to push with regard to Metr. John. In our experience on OrthodoxWiki, agendas are [[OrthodoxWiki:Frequently Asked Questions#What about controversial material and original research.3F|bad for the encyclopedia]]. The tone of your language, particularly the sarcasm and the seeming need that you have to discredit Metr. John, all seem to point in the agenda direction.
| |
| − | | |
| − | : The facts are that Metr. John is '''not''' generally regarded in Orthodox circles as holding heretical views. (Indeed, he is very highly regarded.) Now, whether he is a heretic or not is subject to the appropriate authorities (which OrthodoxWiki and its editors, including you, are not). In any event, if criticism of him is to be mentioned, it should only be as an ancillary portion of this article, since it really is only a minority, non-mainstream opinion.
| |
| − | | |
| − | : [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]], if you persist in the approach you've taken thus far on OrthodoxWiki to this article, I am afraid you will find yourself frustrated, since the management simply isn't going to give it free rein. I hope that's clear. —[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">Fr. Andrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]] <font face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''')</font></small> 06:38, March 14, 2008 (PDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | :: Agenda? Here you can read about the agenda of the man you are defending: [http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=interview&div=57 Metropolitan John of Pergamon is responsible for derailing Orthodox-Roman Catholic dialogue]
| |
| − | :: And here: [http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=interview&div=52 We respect the Patriarch of Constantinople as the first in honor, but we are against viewing him as ‘Pope of the East’]
| |
| − | | |
| − | :: Looks like you do not know where can be found real biography of the J.Z. Let's wait. Someone else may be able to help finding it.
| |
| − | | |
| − | :: [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 06:49, March 14, 2008 (PDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ::: That you think any of us are "defending" him is telling. That you cite the usual barbs from the Moscow Patriarchate (in its ongoing rivalry with Constantinople) is also telling (and hardly encyclopedic for this article). I also wonder why it is you insist on calling him "J.Z."
| |
| − | | |
| − | ::: In any event, I'm not sure what we're "waiting" for. Biographical information would certainly be welcome in this article, since it's decidedly short on it. And, yes, I do not know offhand where such information may be found. I hardly have a reference library handy in my office.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ::: In any event, consider yourself cautioned. Please take a different approach with this article. It may actually be of benefit if you were to work on some other articles instead, ones about which you may not have such strong personal feelings. —[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">Fr. Andrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]] <font face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''')</font></small> 07:13, March 14, 2008 (PDT)
| |
- Archive 1 - from article creation (2007) to end of March 2008.
- Archive 2 - from April 1 to May 16, 2008.
A new beginning
Friends, I've gone through the archives for the talk page here and made some comments, and also adjusted the text of the article a little bit. I think we're at a pretty good point here -- the article gives a short summary of the Metropolitan's life and work, hits on the basics of his writings, and includes some of the back and forth and how it has been received. Of course, many points could be expanded, and a few things could be cleaned up, but overall I think the "neutrality" is pretty good -- it seems to me that the article as it currently stands neither denigrates Met. John and his work nor exalts him.
I've received numerous requests to be more active in moderation here. I've wanted to give everyone some time to settle down a bit. I am pretty tired of all the personal invective, accusations, etc. Let me give a strong warning here: if those who have participated in these talk pages continue to deal disrespectfully with other sysops or members of the wiki and attack them personally rather than just their ideas, they will be banned. Because of the history of this article, I'm also asking that changes be discussed on this page first. Thank you. — FrJohn (talk) 03:08, May 21, 2008 (UTC)
Criticisms section
Mention of the Leithart article in the "Criticisms" section is problematic in that the article is not at all a criticism of Metropolitan John, nor does the author understand it as a criticism (personal communication). It can only be described as an "implicit criticism" if one buys the fallacious idea that to differ from V. Lossky is to depart from patristic theology. I also think it odd to elevate a reference in a letter by an Old Calendarist bishop to Metropolitan John and the late Fr John Meyendorff as "Westernized" theologians to the level of encyclpedic criticism. There is no argument made in the letter, no appeal to a text by either the Metropolitan or Meyendorff as evidence, simply the dismisal of two mainstream Orthodox theologians by a decidedly out of the mainstream bishop who is not in communion with the autocephalous Churches. The piece by Hieromonk Patapios has the same problem as the piece by Archbishop Chrysostomos -- an out of the mainstream opinion without any argument or appeal to a text by the Metropolitan. There is a reference to a 1971 article attacking dialogues with non-Chalcedonians that refers to Metropolitan John as a "muddled theologian." This is another example of an Old Calendarist criticism that I don't think belongs on a mainstream Orthodox encyclopedia. As to non-Orthodox influences on his thought (if this is to remain in the article) this sentence needs to be revised: "Some are concerned by his reliance of non-Orthodox sources on his thought ...." As the Metropolitan is quite specific that he does not rely on these non-Orthodox sources and points out how all of them cannot produce a true theology of personhood, it is wrong to refer to "his reliance" as if that is a fact. And, as it has been pointed out before, whether or not someone is "influenced" by a non-Orthodox writer should not be an issue -- V. Lossky was certainly influenced by non-Orthodox writers. The question is whether it can be shown that such influence has had the effect of determining a heterodox result in a theologian's position. Even Turcescu, who criticizes Metropolitan John on personhood and mentions the influence of non-Orthodox writers on the Metropolitan, does not make the claim that this influence results in heterodoxy. --Fr Lev 14:45, May 21, 2008 (UTC)
- I'm in favor of removing references which are essentially just offhand remarks, especially those made by representatives of fringe groups. The "Criticisms" section should not essentially be "List of bad things anyone has ever said about Metr. John." It has to include criticisms of substance that understand themselves as criticisms, with more weight being given to MCB writers than those of non-MCBs. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 14:54, May 21, 2008 (UTC)
- I've moved the Leithart reference to the "studies" section and marked the Old Calendarist schismatics as such. Not sure what to do with them, although I think we must admit that they are part of the larger conversation here, which is, of course, much larger than Met. John. — FrJohn (talk) 18:09, May 21, 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with Fr Andrew here. I think that, at the very least, a criticism has to consist of an argument against Metropolitan John's position, and not just a negative adjective or an unjustified assertion. The article shouldn't be a list of names Zizioulas has been called (or reportedly has been called).
- I suggest that we list thematically the studies and serious interactions with Metropolitan John's theology, giving short summaries of their conclusions. Seminarist 21:17, May 21, 2008 (UTC)
