This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I don't see how this deletion of the official teaching of the Pan-Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem and the Catechism of Philaret can be justified. Yet it has been removed with no attempt at explaining it. I am therefore restoring it, to facilitate discussion of it. Esoglou (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I reverted the unnecessary addition of the definition of the word Metousiosis and Transubstantiation to the article. As is already stated that issue is that the West should not be teaching the how the bread and blood are turned into the body of Christ. There no need to post on the definition of the word as there is obvious pressure on this talkpage to cut content from this article to make it comply to some arbitrary article size. And such a definition does nothing to clarify what the source stated in that the West should not be describing or rationalizing how this Sacrament changes the bread and wine to the body and the blood of Christ.[1] Again this is confusing and making a point of contention between the two churches unclear and obscuring what the Orthodox point about the issue actually is as Esoglou does not care about this article being clear about this issue and has well documented in his conduct here that Esoglou does not intend to make a clear and readable article for people to be informed about what is at issue. Esoglou would rather do damage control as Esoglou has yet to even acknowledge anything about what the Orthodox sources I posted are actually saying and provide Roman Catholic sources to address that. All Esoglou is doing to obscuring and wiki hounding. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

What you have now twice deleted (an action that, I take it, you do not consider to be edit-warring) is not a definition of the word "transubstantiation". It is a proof that the Eastern Orthodox Church too has taught transubstantiation, complete with the distinction between substance and accidents. It is undoubtedly pertinent in the context of blaming the West for teaching transubstantiation. Does its deletion ensure balance? (This is by no means the only section in which you are insisting on presenting a single strong POV.) Esoglou (talk) 17:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You have now twice added the content that fatten the article without explaining what was at conflict. Why are you obfuscating the point of contention? LoveMonkey (talk) 19:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The point of contention surely is whether in a context of blaming the West for teaching transubstantiation it is pertinent to mention that the East also has taught transubstantiation. Esoglou (talk) 19:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a point of contention and as it is pointed out it has nothing to do with if Transubstantiation is the same as Metousiosis. So the issue as you have presented it is a misrepresentation. [2] And just one more of example of how Esoglou's opinion is more important then Orthodox theologians in this case your distorting Khomyakov and Ivan Kireyevsky. You obviously do not care as this is all accepted to you and your opinion rather than what actual sources have to say on the matter. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Since the two sources cited do not use the word "metousiosis", there is no contention here about its meaning. There is no contention here on any point other than the one I mentioned. Esoglou (talk) 20:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Esoglou, as an outsider I am just going to focus on your verbs here and not even try to read the background. I also apologize upfront for that, and do not want either of you to take my comment as something about content, but rather about the style of debate here. I notice twice above you write as if "the issue", which would imply to me "what should be in the article" is concerning "blaming the West". Of course we Wikipedians should not be making it our issue at all to blame anyone, nor trying to develop responses to blames. We can just cite people who clearly blame, or cite people who clearly have a defense against a clear blame. And putting together sources which nearly do what we want is also not on. Be cautious of WP:SYNTH.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I consider you not an outsider, at least not as an interfering outsider, but as someone who is kindly offering contributions aimed at making progress here. By "the issue" I mean the issue raised in this subsection, which says that the East blames, faults, objects to, or whatever other verb is applicable, the West for a "tendency toward metaphysics" shown "in the articulation of this mystery (that of the change of the bread and wine in the Eucharist) by the West in the Western teaching of the Transubstantiation". Am I wrong in thinking that it is highly appropriate in this context to add that transubstantiation has been taught also by the East, both in a Pan-Orthodox Synod and in the Catechism of Philaret? I don't yet see what two elements are thereby thought to be synthesized so as to imply a third conclusion, in violation of the rule given in WP:SYNTH: "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." So I would be grateful for a fuller explanation.

Am I perhaps wrong in understanding as an Eastern objection against the West the subsection's not very clear statement, "This tendency toward metaphysics by the West to rationalize the mysteries of God, and sacraments, through metaphysical arguments is argued by the East in how the West presents ..."? I don't see how else to interpret it. Esoglou (talk) 06:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• It sounds like you have sourcing for someone authoritative doing this blaming in a clear way, correct? Is that sourcing being used already in the article and is that the context where you want to insert counter-evidence? (I am avoiding trying to judge it myself.)
• Then, concerning the counter evidence which you want to insert, do you have a source which presents this counter evidence as counter evidence; or is it you who is putting it together as a sort of reply to the blaming? If it is you then you need to be careful of WP:SYNTH to make sure that you do not present any argument you can not source. In some cases it seems to be acceptable to just present relevant facts without trying to add any interpretation.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course, I don't have sourcing for someone authoritative doing the blaming. It is LoveMonkey, not I, who inserted the statement that there is blaming. It is up to him to produce the sourcing, but I have not questioned and am not questioning the statement that there is blaming. I am not trying to insert any "counter-evidence", sourced or unsourced, to say that there is no blaming. I am not even claiming that what is blamed should not be blamed! All I am putting in is authoritatively-sourced information that what is said of the Western Church can be said of the Eastern too. Surely this is apposite in an article that is supposed to be about "theological differences" between the two. That is a "relevant fact" which I have presented "without trying to add any interpretation". Esoglou (talk) 10:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, when I said counter evidence I meant you seem to be looking for counter evidence not to show that there is no blaming, but rather in order to provide the raw material for the counter argument itself, right here on Wikipedia. That is a bit problematic. When does providing raw material for an argument become essentially making the counter argument, or in order words original work? It would be much better if you could provide a source which actually puts together the counter argument for you.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not providing evidence for any argument. What argument did you think I was preparing? If I am not making an argument, as I am not, how can I be asked to provide a source that puts together that supposed argument? And what is the argument that you thought I was looking for counter evidence against? Is there in fact some argument in the subsection? Admittedly, what LoveMonkey wrote lacks the desirable clarity. But what he wrote doesn't argue anything. It only informs that the East (more correct would be "some Easterners") argues something. I am in no way disputing the information that some Easterners do make the argument; and the subsection itself puts forward no argument for me to argue against or to seek counter-evidence against. The subsection only gives some information. I want to add more information, verifiably sourced information. Why should I not? I am not insinuating anything. What did you think I was insinuating? Esoglou (talk) 21:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I am just reading what you wrote above Esoglou. For example "I am not even claiming that what is blamed should not be blamed! All I am putting in is authoritatively-sourced information that what is said of the Western Church can be said of the Eastern too." I am saying this approach, depending on the context (and I am deliberately NOT trying to act as an expert looking at the context) could at least sometimes become debatably OR.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't what I wrote above confirm that neither in intention nor in fact am I taking issue with anything in the subsection? I am only adding related information. If, in an article on differences between the west and the east of Africa, a subsection said: "In the west of Africa there is a Portuguese-speaking country, Angola", and I added: "In the east of Africa there is a Portuguese-speaking country, Mozambique", would that be OR or Synthesis? The subsection informs about the use of transubstantiation terminology in the West; do you really think it illegitimate to mention also the use of transubstantiation terminology in the East? Esoglou (talk) 09:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it obviously depends on the particular example, and the obvious test of whether there is a problem, at least here on Wikipedia, is whether other people raise the alarm. There does seem to be some editing disputes here, or not?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

You have before you two particular examples, concrete ones, one hypothetical, the other actual. In an article on differences between the west and the east of Africa, what precise grounds of illegitimacy can you hypothesize against adding "In the east of Africa Portuguese is an official language in Mozambique" to the statement "In the west of Africa Portuguese is an official language". And in this actual article on theological differences between RCC and EOC, what precise grounds of illegitimacy are you still raising against adding "Transubstantiation terminology has been used in the EOC's Synod of Jerusalem" to the statement about the RCC using transubstantiation terminology? Neither addition requires synthesis, neither easily verified addition is original research. I submit that, in spite of what you have hitherto been saying, there are in the particular example here no grounds of synthesis or original research for objecting. Some other ground will have to be sought. Moreover, if such additions are made to statements meant, as part of "some editing dispute", to suggest, without actually saying so, that only in the west of Africa is Portuguese an official language or that only the RCC uses transubstantiation terminology, doesn't that make the additions all the more appropriate? Then, especially if the whole article is the object of editing dispute, is it not possible, not to say likely, that a desire to preserve the false suggestions may be behind opposition to the additions? Esoglou (talk) 13:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect I think the example you are using is not helpful for trying to discuss the details of the real example, and I think you already understood me anyway. You really need to try to understand what objections are being raised by other editors in the real case. There simply is no other good way of editing on WP. When other editors are happy, then the balance will be right.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to understand what your objection was. It seems I have failed. There also seems to be little hope of happiness on the part of one editor. But Cody, with whom a frank and open dialogue has always been possible, seems to be reasonably happy. Esoglou (talk) 09:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I am keeping out of the content discussion. I am just saying that it appears from your own account that (a) the existence of the blame itself outside of Wikipedia is non controversial (b) the response to the blame, by putting together certain particular facts to make a kind of answer to it, is your original work. If I was reading you correctly then this is not strictly according to WP policy. I think having said that, that it is common to see editors agree to put a few relevant facts into a section where readers MIGHT be led to see certain contrasts, but such agreements are borderline according to policy, and your own words make it sound like you see it yourself as you putting the case together, and you also seem to be saying that you don't need the agreement of others to do it. My practical concrete suggestion would be to be sensitive in your presentation of these facts.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I am unsure whether the existence of the blaming is non-controversial outside of Wikipedia, but it certainly is non-controversial within Wikipedia - at least I haven't contested it. And I didn't "put together certain particular facts" to make a kind of answer to the uncontested statement of its existence: I just added one simple fact in view of an implicit suggestion in another editor's text. That editor does seem to give little hope of his agreement to anything (in the past he systematically reverted everything I wrote), but I have full hope of getting the agreement of any other editor substantially involved. Unfortunately, that means, at present, Cody alone. Perhaps it is time for us two to end our attempts to understand each other and simply end this discussion. Agreed? Esoglou (talk) 12:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I just post Khomyakov and Prof E.S.John, Australia stating that the issue is not the word being metousiosis or Transubstantiation but the explaination as to what occurs. You are not reading the Orthodox sources you are just wiki hounding and arguing. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you denying that the Synod of Jerusalem said that, "after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, there no longer remains the substance of the bread and of the wine, but the Body Itself and the Blood of the Lord, under the species and form of bread and wine; that is to say, under the accidents of the bread"? Esoglou (talk) 20:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The following book claims that the Confession of Dositheos and the Catechism of Philaret ""cannot always be utilized, because at some points they illustrate a tendency of Orthodox teachers in their periods to utilize characteristically Western terminology (such as "transubstantiation" or " purgatory")" and that "even when the term "transubstantiation" is used by Orthodox, it is not understood in its distinctively Catholic sense", John Meyendorff also claims that these Confessions from the 17th century had "Latinizing tendencies", and this "Latinism is evidence, at least in the case of Dositheus, not of any particular sympathy for the Roman Church or for Latin scholasticism, but of the absence of an adequate theological training.", and the following book also claims that "by using the word transubstantiation they by no means intended to define, nor to allow any attempt to define, the manner of the change." (it appears that while the Confession of Dositheus is an important Orthodox document from its times, it is still not the most accurate source in representing Orthodox beliefs). Cody7777777 (talk) 11:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Cody, some question how authoritative these two documents are. But what documents more authoritative can be produced with regard to the subjects on which they make pronouncements? Your last quotation comes in fact from the Confession of Dositheus itself and is repeated in the Catechism of Philaret (question 340). It is in full accord with the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, which states that "how" the change in the bread and wine is brought about is unknown (it occurs "in a mysterious way"); its teaching is only about "what" is changed, namely the reality of the elements, while the appearances remain unaltered. I know of no Eastern Orthodox theologian in good standing with his church who says that the reality is not changed or that the appearances do not remain unaltered. Many of them, like many Protestant theologians also, interpret the use of the words "substance" and "accidents" as a consecration of Aristotelian metaphysics, an interpretation disowned by the Roman Catholic Church, and they themselves would avoid using these terms, but they don't deny what the Roman Catholic declares it intends by these words; and the important fact remains that these two terms have been used by no less than a Pan-Orthodox Synod. Esoglou (talk) 11:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Cody is correct here as the ecumenistic movement is not well received in Russia and Esoglou should know that. The whole movement is generally regarded by the Slavs as a heresy and even with Seraphim Rose trying to "balance" out both parties [3] he only ultimately got labeled an ecumenist himself (his toll-houses are seen as an attempt to graft into Eastern Christianity purgatory for example). The ecumenists are not considered the voice of the church and have never really gain ground as such just look at Patriarch Bekkos. This legal wrangling and forcing unification has just enraged people and the Orthodox see this in the things Esoglou is using here. The Orthodox ignore them and will continue to do so (this will get more ugly in the case of theologians whom do this kind of stuff in the future like Sergei Bulgakov) If the Roman Catholics want unification the Pope will have to be equal to the other patriarchs and Orthodox theology will have to be the theology of Western Christianity, no more of this Augustinian benevolent tyrant metaphysical Neoplatonic philosophy stuff. Its that simple and the rest will work itself out. The truth is so as it shows itself as so, it not a way of thinking or a proof in rationalization. It is a man called Jesus Christ and people are turning away from this truth because it's truth is no longer being taught. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Cody is indeed correct. He pointed out the objections that some have to the terminology used by the Pan-Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem and the Catechism of Saint Philaret. He did not make the strange suggestion that the Eastern Patriarchs and other Bishops who participated in the Synod of Jerusalem were ecumenists, long before ecumenism was invented. Nor did he say that they didn't say what they demonstrably said. No comprehensible reason has yet been advanced for excluding from this subsection of Wikipedia the statement made jointly by this group of the highest authorities of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Even if, as it seems, you disagree with these Patriarchs and Bishops of the Church, is that any reason why their statement should not even be mentioned? Esoglou (talk) 21:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes Cody is correct and yet Esoglou just stated in another part of the talkpage here that he thinks Cody is not correct [4] so is the Catechism of Saint Philaret as Cody says NOT APPROPRIATE? Or not? Esoglou also yet again attributed to me something I did not say. I did not say or imply anything about Saint Philaret as what Esoglou just implied. Note Esoglou will not make any contextualizing to the addition esoglou added to the article from Philaret. Esoglou just demonstrated that Esoglou will give lip service to valid reasons but will actually do no action to correct his distortions. As if people don't know or can't see when they are being patronized.LoveMonkey (talk) 04:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Unlike perhaps others, Cody is intelligent and balanced enough not to state the synthesizing conclusion that you attribute to him. At the Synod of Jerusalem, the Eastern Patriarchs did speak of the bread and wine as transubstantiated in the Eucharist. You may wish they hadn't. But they did.

(By the way, the link you gave does not lead to a statement by me that I think Cody is not correct; and I cannot identify above whatever you refer to by saying: "I did not say or imply anything about Saint Philaret as what Esoglou just implied.") Esoglou (talk) 07:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The old divide and conquer Esoglou. Could you just follow Wiki policy and knock off all arguing? LoveMonkey (talk) 12:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion with Cody

I did not really said anything special above, all I just done was to quote some sources. I'm not opposed to mentioning these statements regarding the Confession of Dositheus, but in that case, I think it should also mentioned that it adopted "latinized" terminology, and it might not mean exactly the same thing as in the West ("even when the term "transubstantiation" is used by Orthodox, it is not understood in its distinctively Catholic sense", and other sources claim that "But Orthodoxy does not agree with the Latin doctrine of transubstantiation that distinguishes the substance, which changes, from the accidents, which do not change"). (However, since the article is quite long, I have to say that it might not be really necessary to include the citation from Dositheus, as it does not seem to add too much about theological differences, at least in my opinion.) Cody7777777 (talk) 12:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Cody. Do you think that without the Synod of Jerusalem citation the article gives the impression that substance-and-accidents terminology has been used only in the Roman Catholic Church? Is there some other way of avoiding that false impression? Esoglou (talk) 09:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Including both citations from the Confession of Dositheus is more balanced than before, however, in my opinion, I still do not think it is really necessary to include these citations, since they do not seem to underline too much the theological differences (and it is also a primary source), but I have no problem if there is a mention, that the term "Transubstantiation" was used in some Orthodox documents (which were influenced by western terminology), but then it should also be mentioned that the EOC does not agree with the doctrine of "Transubstantiation" (as it is understood in the West), even if that term was sometimes used. Cody7777777 (talk) 13:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you again for being so contructive. I see a problem with saying that "the EOC does not agree with the doctrine of transubstantiation as it is understood in the West". It would be more exact to say that the Eastern Orthodox do not agree with the doctrine "as it is misunderstood in the East", but even that would be making a judgement on how it is in fact understood in the West. The teaching of transubstantiation propounded either by the Roman Catholic Church or the Synod of Jerusalem is misunderstood by those who take it to be a consecration of Aristotelian metaphysics. The West points out that "substance" was in ecclesiastical use long before Aristotle was accepted in the West as an important philosopher: the notion of substance (substantia) is even in the Latin version of the Nicene Creed. The Roman Catholic Church's official definition in this regard uses "substance" (substantia) in this pre- or non-Aristotelian sense, as shown also by the absence of the term "accidents" (accidentia) in the definition, which only speaks of "appearances" (species). Indeed, the Synod of Jerusalem, when adopting terminology used in the West, went further than the West's official definition of the teaching and did use the term "accidents". Citations such as "Orthodoxy does not agree with the Latin doctrine of transubstantiation that distinguishes the substance, which changes, from the accidents, which do not change" would have to be balanced by citations that disagree with this statement, saying instead that Orthodoxy holds that there is a change of reality, so that, after the consecration, what is on the altar is no longer bread and wine, as before the change, and that the appearance ("accidents", if you wish) of bread and wine do remain. But all this, apart from making this long article even longer, would be out of place in this article and should be dealt with instead in the Transubstantiation article.

I have made a few retouches in my proposed text, both by addition and by subtraction. Do you think it is an improvement? What more should be done? Is it perhaps good enough, though not perfect? Esoglou (talk) 14:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The current version is indeed an improvement (although, I'm not entirely sure if these citations are necessary, however, for me that's not really too problematic), but I still think it should've been mentioned more clearly that there are Orthodox theologians, who claim that the EOC understands this somewhat different than the west (the details on how this difference is seen, can be mentioned in the articles of Transubstantiation and Metousiosis). Cody7777777 (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

My new version does not give quotations from the Synod of Jerusalem, but only a reference to its Decree 17. It clearly distinguishes between 17th-century usage and that of today. It speaks of present-day Eastern Orthodox rejection of "the materialistic meaning attributed to the Latins", without saying (what would be false) that the Roman Catholic Church teaches that materialistic sense. Better? Good enough? Esoglou (talk) 10:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Your new version is indeed better, and in my opinion it is largely fine (I only made a minor addition, that the Confession also states that the manner of change cannot be explained, since this was underlined in some of the sources shown earlier). Cody7777777 (talk) 13:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you warmly for that (and also for the correction you made of something I hadn't noticed near the start of the article). Perhaps we can now consider this question closed. Esoglou (talk) 14:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Can we perhaps close the question (discussed above) about the alleged uniform Eastern Orthodox teaching on hell. The subsection Orthodox opinion that views separation of man from God as hell was created to show that the picture initially presented as the unique Eastern Orthodox view of hell is not the only one held by Eastern Orthodox. Over time, it has grown in response to continued claims that there was no Eastern Orthodox view on that matter other than the one initially presented. By now this subsection is longer than the subsection that presents the initial picture, and the reliable sources that it cites are more numerous. It is surely obvious that there is a certain variety of opinion among the Eastern Orthodox on the nature of hell. I am not proposing any particular view as the Eastern Orthodox view on hell. I am only asking that it be admitted that there are several Eastern Orthodox views on hell. Can we agree on that fact? Esoglou (talk) 12:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

the obvious issue

To make such a claim runs counter to the idea that this teaching of hell that is Orthodox is ancient and unchanged and one directly given by the first and ancient church. This view is a direct counter and comes from the Western innovations outlined in the various sources. The theological divide here is not simply a word or two. It is the idea that as outline by the Orthodox given that the Trinitarian God has been made into the very thing that the East was fighting the Pagans and what the Pagans stated of the Judeo-Christian God. It makes the God of Trinity a TYRANT. While the Roman Catholic church was waging a war on the Orthodox because they never understood any of this to begin with. The Orthodox church was deeply dug into a war with the old Pagan guard in the East in specific the Mystery Religions. The filioque is exactly this. That while the Pagans had started to make the Hebrew faith and the Christian faith nothing more than variations or plastic religions and cheat knock-offs of their metaphysical systems (putting the creator God two steps below or so of their patron deity etc etc) that the Orthodox where fighting the very essence of ancient Paganism - Fatalism i.e. primacy to the fates.

When the Nicene Creed was finalized it was finalized as a clarification that if the highest or primary substance, the highest category in any and all given ontologies (categories) was an uncreated hypostasis one could then by reason account for sentience in matter (there by finally destroying the castes with reason rejecting that material existence is evil by it's own manifestation). This is a direct rejection of metaphysics or more accurate a transcendence of them (noesis) into gnosiology. [5] Hypostasis could as the highest or primary substance more than a generic category of substance or the use of generalization (ousia), it could go to being specific enough (beyond being apophatically) to give people a correct understanding of their existence (being). The word person has too much modern day baggage to even try now and salvage for this. As a theological difference the only REAL justification the Roman Catholic church has for the filioque is the kick back to understanding of God as a generalized category (which makes God's being defined metaphysically (ontologically) saying the Father and Son are of the same essence and therefore to say from both is just no big deal and then quote bible passages that can be manipulated to make that appear legitimate. But here is the problem, people. Hell is a norse place, a pagan place. Just as the words that the fathers used were Greek and had a Greek pagan philosophical pedigree so to does these concepts that people are teaching as Western Christianity right now.

There is in Orthodoxy a direct refutation of the Pagan distortions of the times of the church fathers, not just in the words but also in context. For the Roman Catholic church to say that hell is a Christian place of punishment is very bad and very un-ancient church and very ancient un-Christian. For the Roman Catholic church to say that the essence of God is primary substance and to then define that as the church has done is very bad and very un-ancient church and very ancient un-Christian. It literally goes against the councils who where addressing the heresies in the church that where nothing more the theological compromises to convert Pagans to Christianity (at the expense of whatever specific theological tenet the said pagan group found unacceptable).

The underlying issues here are not being addressed and this so far is being treated not in the very heart of the issue(s) but as a surface argument that is rhetorical. So let me say what needs to be say and is being avoided. Christianity is in decline because the Pagan arguments that the Judeo-Christian God is nothing but a tyrant, is making ground. Making ground because those arguments are being validated in the incorrect teachings being disseminated by the Western Churches. If the Judeo-Christian God is a tyrant then that God is not the God of the ancient church (the Christian God is freedom his enemy is the tyrant) and if people follow the councils and the community they will encounter and understand the subtleties of this. Esoglou needs to stop edit warring and wiki hounding what he does not like, take a deep breath and read the River of Fire. [6] And if he has already read it, for the sake of this project and his supposed love of his Eastern Christian brothers (whom as I do to) believe that the Roman Catholics are in error and yet still are our brothers READ IT AGAIN. Esoglou for this needs to read and contemplate no matter how polemic the message is. What is actually being said. Esoglou is doing nothing but style over substance attacks now and this means he either does not get it and is missing the point or does not want to. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi LoveMonkey. Somewhere in there I am sure there is a straightforward answer to what Esoglou was asking but I apologize for being weak on this. I guess just from a practical point of view a key question is whether you think the article should mention any of the apparently heterodox writers currently being cited as individual examples of Orthodox theologians with this belief?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It is completely OK to post dissenting opinions. As long as Esoglou uses the right means to do that there is no objection. I have no objection to Sophrony or any of the ecumenists. But Esoglou must understand that if there is a council, the idea to teach that there is any place where God is not and or any language that could give that conception (directly or indirectly) it will get labeled heterodox. To teach that there is an outside of God and then give it any name (Hell, Disneyland whatever) is a big no no. As the Orthodox are not even satisfied with the pagan metaphysical category of panentheism as to Iamblichus or not it is just not satisfactory and there is no way that there is an outside or away from God in even that pagan category or ontology. Here in this fallen existence is the closest to that and that is created by the sarx which gives the illusion of no God by the in fusion of division or distinction into, onto(logy) the infinite (the knowledge of God and Evil i.e. duality) Forgive the mysticism it is the best I have to explain it. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It is as I feared. One editor still wants Wikipedia to consider Paul Evdokimov, Michel Quenot, Kallistos Ware, Sophrony Sakharov, Theodore Stylianopoulos, the Catechism of Saint Philaret, Saint Isaac the Syrian, Saint Gregory of Nyssa, Saint Gregory the Theologian and "many Orthodox saints and writers" as unfaithful to what that editor, who cites extremely few sources in support of his opinion, calls the "teaching of hell that is Orthodox is ancient and unchanged and one directly given by the first and ancient church". So, alas, there is no closure even yet. Esoglou (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Typical Esoglou not an Orthodox christian also not an Orthodox theologian can't listen to other Orthodox editors other then me (i.e. Cody) has been shown to be wrong repeatedly and now ignores all of that and starts back over with the same edit warring none compromising and completely wrong stances that have already been addressed. POST HERE EACH SOURCE AND HOW IT CONTRIDICTS THE ORTHODOX THEOLOGIAN I HAVE ADDED TO THE ARTICLE. POST EACH ONE AS I CAN SHOW HOW ITS ALL ESOGLOU DISTORTING. LoveMonkey (talk) 03:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps there is some hope for closure after all. This comment by LoveMonkey seems perhaps to indicate that, after all, he sees nothing contrary to Eastern Orthodox teaching in the view expressed by those listed as stating that hell is a state of separation from God. (The subsection Orthodox opinion that views separation of man from God as hell cites the sources for their statements of this view.) Even if he disagrees with the "many Orthodox saints and writers" who see hell as "a place of punishment, even by means of material instruments such as fire", and even if he continues to maintain his personal belief that there is no separation from God, it is enough that he agree that those who see hell as separation from God are not unfaithful to their church and are not unOrthodox. Does he agree? Esoglou (talk) 07:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it is really necessary to mention this, but according to the following, Saint Isaac the Syrian stated: "As for me I say that those who are tormented in hell are tormented by the invasion of love. What is there more bitter and violent than the pains of love? Those who feel they have sinned against love bear in themselves a damnation much heavier than the most dreaded punishments. The suffering with which sinning against love afflicts the heart is more keenly felt than any other torment. It is absurd to assume that the sinners in hell are deprived of God's love. Love is offered impartially. But by its very power it acts in two ways. It torments sinners, as happens here on earth when we are tormented by the presence of a friend to whom we have been unfaithful. And it gives joy to those who have been faithful.", there is also an article from the website of the Orthodox Antiochian Archdiocese of North America, which claims that "Nothing exists outside God, making the concept of "separation from God" only a handy metaphor". Cody7777777 (talk) 12:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I failed to notice this posting earlier. That even those in hell are objects of God's love is the teaching also of a Father of the Church to whom one editor attributes so many wrong things: "The suffering of hell is compounded, according to St. Augustine, because God continues to love the sinner who is not able to return the love" (Berard L. Marthaler, The Creed: The Apostolic Faith in Contemporary Theology). The estrangement from God that is hell is only on the sinner's side, as indicated in the same source. As for the quotation from the "Orthodox Antiochian Archdiocese of North America", I have often refrained from quoting from this source because of probable objections about it from the same Wikipedia editor; in any case, it only confirms (if it is an acceptable source) the variety of teaching among Eastern Orthodox about what constitutes hell: the concept that pictures those in hell as being "in the presence of God" is also, in the view of those who deny that hell involves location, only a handy metaphor. Esoglou (talk) 11:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The comments critical of Augustine that I have posted are well sourced and belong to other people than myself. I know it's hard for esoglou to grasp that, as he keeps getting told to actually add Roman Catholic sources that say things and then source them for the content of this article. And esoglou is not being told this just by me. So it is no surprise that Esoglou can't see wikipedia and the editors and editing done here any other way but the way that Esoglou does the editing himself. Which is to have his opinion and then find sources stating his opinion (or to twist and distort or misquote) sources to that effect. Rather than follow policy and just post what theologians actually say. Also note that now according to Esoglou people are to be separated from God's love but are then getting burned by it. Wow that makes a whole lot of sense. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Posting of Eastern Orthodox sources that say hell is separation from God

Now that LoveMonkey is back, would he please indicate whether he accepts as Orthodox those listed (with sources) in the subsection Orthodox opinion that views separation of man from God as hell as holding that hell is a state of separation from God. If they are Orthodox, then the view that hell is not a state of separation from God is not the only Eastern Orthodox view, and we can close this discussion on whether there is variety of opinion among Eastern Orthodox about the nature of hell. Esoglou (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Now that I am back? I don't edit on it for one day and now I am defacto returning? Esoglou likes to ask people questions but won't answer their questions. So for clarification I will ask yet again. POST HERE EACH SOURCE AND HOW IT CONTRADICTS THE ORTHODOX THEOLOGIAN I HAVE ADDED TO THE ARTICLE. POST EACH ONE AS I CAN SHOW HOW ITS ALL ESOGLOU DISTORTING. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh and by the way.... I asked you first. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The sources are all given in the subsection Orthodox opinion that views separation of man from God as hell. Are you seriously asking that they be copied from there to the Talk page? If you assure me that you really are asking for something that seems quite unnecessary and indeed silly, I will do the copying for you, as I have already done in response to your request about Quenot's text. Esoglou (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I suppose LoveMonkey is serious in his request. So here goes.

LoveMonkey has quoted some Eastern Orthodox writers who say hell is not separation from God. Several other Eastern Orthodox writers say that hell is the state of separation from God. All of them were members of the Eastern Orthodox Church in the same way as those whom LoveMonkey quotes.

1. Paul Evdokimov, someone with whom LoveMonkey disagrees, but still an Eastern Orthodox whose work is published by St Vladimir's Seminary Press, said: "Hell is nothing else but separation of man from God, his autonomy excluding him from the place where God is present."^[1]
2. Michel Quenot, whose book is also published by St Vladimir's Seminary Press wrote: "Hell is none other than the state of separation from God".^[2]
3. Kallistos Ware, surely a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church, since he was a metropolitan of that church, wrote that Hell is "the place where God is not".^[3]
4. Sophrony Sakharov, a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church with the position of archimandrite and whose work is published by St Vladimir's Seminary Press, wrote of "the dead suffering in the hell of separation from God".^[4]
5. The Longer Catechism of The Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church, which, though some consider that it cannot be utilized for certain purposes, and though it uses Western terminology to defend, Kallistos Ware said, Orthodox truth, is certainly a publication of the Eastern Orthodox Church, speaks of hell in the theological sense as separation by sin from the sight of God's countenance: it answers the question, "What is hades or hell?", by stating: "Hades is a Greek word, and means a place void of light. In divinity, by this name is understood a spiritual prison, that is, the state of those spirits which are separated by sin from the sight of God's countenance, and from the light and blessedness which it confers.^[5]
6. Theodore Stylianopoulos, a pastor in charge of a parish of the Greek Orthodox Church in the United States, and thus clearly a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church, says that "hell is a spiritual state of separation from God".^[6]

All these are members of the Eastern Orthodox Church and all of them say that hell is separation from God. LoveMonkey has quoted other members of the Eastern Orthodox Church as saying that hell is not separation from God. There is clearly diversity of opinion within the Eastern Orthodox Church on whether hell is or is not separation from God. Esoglou (talk) 16:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

1. Kallistos Ware, surely a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church, since he was a metropolitan of that church, wrote that Hell is "the place where God is not".^[7]

LoveMonkey response
I already added that a response to Kallistos Wares mistake I added it over a year ago as from the Orthodox information website a review of that comment from Kallistos Ware was called not Orthodox. [7] How is this an example of anything if the Orthodox church has already called it not only into question but blantently called it Un-Orthodox'? How does this invalid the other theologians whom represent the Orthodox church at councils with other Christian faiths Esoglou. Why if you read what the whole passage as it is right now in the article would you even post this again? Are you missing this everytime you have read that passage? LoveMonkey (talk) 16:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

1. Sophrony Sakharov, a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church with the position of archimandrite and whose work is published by St Vladimir's Seminary Press, wrote of "the dead suffering in the hell of separation from God".^[8]

LoveMonkey reply
I am still at a loss of this one as to why this passage matters as the theologians and the passages I am quoting from are not passing comments in a book about a Startez from Mount Athos life. This book is not a book of Orthodox theology. Nor is it at the point of the book where Esoglou quotes it saying that it is. Notice the sources and quotes I have posted they are a direct commentary (and in theological sources not biographies) about the difference between the Western teaching of hell and the Eastern. This book is none of that. This is a biography. And makes no such statement to the effect (like the sources I have given) that it is the teaching of the Orthodox Church in general. It is just a passing remark mentioned in a book Staretz Selouan. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Michel Quenot, whose book is also published by St Vladimir's Seminary Press wrote: "Hell is none other than the state of separation from God".[4]

I would like for Andrew to remove this passage. As 1 it is quote obvious from the passage I added to it that the remark Esoglou attribute to Quenot is contradicting itself and 2 if Andrew reads the source he'll see it is out of context and is nothing more the Quenot quoting (as I have said repeatedly on this talkpage) Dante. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

1. Paul Evdokimov, someone with whom LoveMonkey disagrees, but still an Eastern Orthodox whose work is published by St Vladimir's Seminary Press, said: "Hell is nothing else but separation of man from God, his autonomy excluding him from the place where God is present."^[9]

Father Paul Evdokimov was an ecumenist and is a well know ecumenist. The ecumenist movement has been condemned by many many Orthodox groups. It has been condemned OFFICIALLY. [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

1. Theodore Stylianopoulos, a pastor in charge of a parish of the Greek Orthodox Church in the United States, and thus clearly a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church, says that "hell is a spiritual state of separation from God".^[10]

WP:Undue Weight What is it with random websites? I can get random websites to say all kinds of things. Why is it that Esoglou continues to ignore what people like Vladimir Lossky and John Romanides whom are representatives of the Orthodox church and wrote directly to the differences and are representatives of the Orthodox church in dialog with other Christian churches? How is it that some obscure website or two from regular parishes somehow now has the same weight and has to be used in the article? This is nothing more than Esoglou engaging in practices that are not useful in order to full fill his personal objective and have nothing to do with clear and official statements on behalf of the Orthodox church to other christian confessions. Esoglou would if he actually knew even alittle abit about Orthodox theology has plenty of "Orthodox theologians that he could quote to say all kinds of things against what the Orthodox theologians say. And these sources make all kinds of wretched attacks and statements against the Orthodox theologians whom represent the Orthodox church various councils. That is why ecumenism has been condemned and now there will be even more pressure to address it more directly as these people are attacking their own church and brothers and sisters. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk about undue weight!!! I seem to have given LoveMonkey too much credit, when I took it that he really had provided sources (plural) for the view that hell is not separation from God, but perhaps Peter Chopelas is the only writer to say so. LoveMonkey seems to have thought (by a curious synthesis) that, because God loves those in hell, they are not separated from him. But LoveMonkey himself admits that "mankind in his fallen state in the world ... is 'separated from God'." And God loves them, in spite of their being separated from him. Since no source of the Eastern Orthodox Church as such has been given (at least not by LoveMonkey: the nearest such source is the Catechism of Saint Philaret, a source of the Russian Orthodox Church, but still a source of an Eastern Orthodox Church, not just of an Eastern Orthodox individual), we only have the views of Eastern Orthodox theologians. LoveMonkey has quoted a single theologian (Chopelas) who holds that hell is not separation from God. Those listed above clearly hold that hell is separation. They are Eastern Orthodox theologians as much or indeed more than Chopelas. They are clear evidence of the existence within the Eastern Orthodox Church of belief that hell is separation from God. If we accept Chopelas as sufficient proof of existence within the Eastern Orthodox Church of belief that hell is not separation from God, then we must also accept that more than one belief on the matter is held within the church.

I think it is highly arrogant to dismiss as simply wrong-headed six exponents of Eastern Orthodox theology, including theologians of recognized status who have written widely read academic books, and to present as the true exponent of Eastern Orthodox theology someone who has written a short article published on the Internet site of a certain Alfred G. Green Jr, retired senior technical writer. Esoglou (talk) 17:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense as I added, George Metallinos is in the article right now and says very clearly.

"Consequently, there is no such thing as "God's absence," only His presence" [16]

And I think that each of your Orthodox sources is being used by you as WP:Synth to create a impression of Orthodox teaching that is wrong. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Also I think that Esoglou is trying very very very hard here to distort. As Hilarion Alfeyev here again goes after the point that Hell is not something "created by God". Nor is there any separation from God.

Any person bears moral responsibility for his actions. And he will answer for the sins of his earthly life in the eternity. St. Isaac the Syrian writes that sinners in the hell are not deprived of God’s love. On the contrary, love is given equally to everyone: to the righteous in the Heavenly Kingdom and to the sinners in Gehenna. But for the righteous it becomes the source of joy and bliss while for sinners it is the source of torture.

Thus, God didn’t create the hell for sinners, they did it themselves. God doesn’t send sinners to the hell, but people who oppose God’s will and revolt against God choose the hell themselves. And this choice is made in their earthly life rather than in some distant eschatological prospect. It is right here on Earth that infernal tortures and “the Kingdom of God come with power” begin. [17] LoveMonkey (talk) 19:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Do some Eastern Orthodox theologians say hell is separation from God?

Yes indeed, hell is what sinners themselves create by cutting themselves off from God, a separation that they begin in this life and make definitive at death. And, as I already said, though separated from God, whether now or hereafter, whether sinners or righteous, God never ceases to love us.

But to come to Metallinos, who is mentioned in a different subsection of the article - marvellous! There is a second Eastern Orthodox believer in no separation from God in hell, and this time a recognized theologian! And whatever these two believe must be the teaching of the Eastern Orthodox Church, even if other more numerous Orthodox disagree with them! And if we who, as you yourself say, are separated from God in this life want to end our separation from him, all we need do is go to hell! If, though God is everywhere, human beings can be separated from God in this life, why can't they be separated from him also in the next life?

Really all that is by the way. It isn't what you or I think that counts. What is in question is what beliefs are held within the Eastern Orthodox Church. There is evidence that separation from God as being hell is believed in within that church, and is even taught by an official catechism of the Russian Orthodox Church (which is in full commmunion with the rest of the Eastern Orthodox Church). You have produced two Eastern Orthodox individuals as evidence that belief in hell as unrelated to separation from God exists within the Eastern Orthodox Church. Much weaker evidence than there is for the other view, but I'm not objecting to it. So, in the Eastern Orthodox Church, how many beliefs are there, objectively, whether we agree with the beliefs or not? Esoglou (talk) 19:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

More original research. Post Roman Catholic theologians whom say these things or it is nothing but original research and wp:synth. Also this is just even more wiki hounding and edit warring as this sentence is already in the article and Esoglou knows it is

"Alexandre Kalomiros,[221] Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos) of Nafpaktos[222][223][224][225] and John Romanides [226] denies that Hell is a location where the condemned are separated from the presence of God, and attributes these ideas to Western Christianity, both Roman Catholic and Protestant." LoveMonkey (talk) 23:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Then Kalamiros, Hierotheos and Romanides agree with the Popes, who say hell is not a location, not a place, but a state. So they agree that there is no question of physical distance from God in some location - a ridiculous idea whose attribution to Western Christianity is hard to explain except by ignorance or hostility. Not the only ridiculous idea here. Another is the idea that, to know what is the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, one should ignore that Church's own statements and give credit to those who contradict those statements! And another is the demand that seems to be made immediately above, that Roman Catholic theologians be posted here who say what the cited Eastern Orthodox theologians are quoted as saying. What these Eastern Orthodox theologians unanimously state is a belief held within the Eastern Orthodox Church. They are Eastern Orthodox, and they do profess that belief. It is undeniably a belief held within the Eastern Orthodox Church, whether Roman Catholic theologians do or do not say that the belief exists within the Eastern Orthodox Church.

By the way, Kalamiros (and, one can suppose, the other two also) do agree that physical distance is not the only kind of separation. Perhaps all three should be put with those who believe that hell is separation (not in a physical sense) from God. Of the prodigal son's elder brother Kalamiros asks: "What separated him from all the joyous people in the house if not his own hate and his own bitterness?" As hatred separated the elder brother from those celebrating the return of the prodigal, so hatred separates from God both in this life and the next. It separates those in hell from God not physically (impossible!) but in a very real sense. You shouldn't call unfaithful to Orthodox teaching those Eastern Orthodox theologians and a famous Eastern Orthodox catechism that state this. Esoglou (talk) 06:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

As for Esoglou's attacking Peter Chopelas. [18] LoveMonkey (talk) 17:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

If some attack on Chopelas worries you, I withdraw whatever it was I said and will not defend it. Now, how about explaining how you can deny that a belief held by a number of Eastern Orthodox theologians and a catechism a belief that fits in with the picture of the prodigal son's elder brother being separated by his own hate and not by anything or anybody external to him, is a belief held within the Eastern Orthodox Church? Esoglou (talk) 17:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Why do you continue to make this personal? What do the sources say.. What does that have to do with me denying anything? LoveMonkey (talk) 02:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

What do the Eastern Orthodox sources say? That is exactly the question I am waiting for you to answer. Some Eastern Orthodox sources say that hell is not separation from God, and other Eastern Orthodox sources say that hell is separation from God. Is that so or is it not? Esoglou (talk) 04:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Orthodox Church of America

The following article about "Heaven and Hell" from the official website of the Orthodox Church of America (which is not the website of just a "random parish church", but of an autocephalous Orthodox Church, which shares the same theology as all Orthodox Churches) states: "According to the saints, the "fire" that will consume sinners at the coming of the Kingdom of God is the same "fire" that will shine with splendor in the saints. It is the "fire" of God's love; the "fire" of God Himself who is Love. "For our God is a consuming fire" (Hebrews 12:29) who "dwells in unapproachable light." (I Timothy 6:16) For those who love God and who love all creation in Him, the "consuming fire" of God will be radiant bliss and unspeakable delight. For those who do not love God, and who do not love at all, this same consuming fire" will be the cause of their "weeping" and their "gnashing of teeth.". The article claims, that while people can currently remain blind to God's love, this will no longer be possible after Christ's second coming, and this will cause eternal pain to those who do not love God, "The final coming of Christ will be the judgment of all men. His very presence will be the judgment. Now men can live without the love of Christ in their lives. They can exist as if there were no God, no Christ, no Spirit, no Church, no spiritual life. At the end of the ages this will no longer be possible. All men will have to behold the Face of Him...". Regarding Kalomiros, he claimed "The Light of Truth, God's Energy, God's grace which will fall on men unhindered by corrupt conditions in the Day of Judgment, will be the same to all men. There will be no distinction whatever. All the difference lies in those who receive, not in Him Who gives. The sun shines on healthy and diseased eyes alike, without any distinction. Healthy eyes enjoy light and because of it see clearly the beauty which surrounds them. Diseased eyes feel pain, they hurt, suffer, and want to hide from this same light which brings such great happiness to those who have healthy eyes.", Romanides also claimed "The uncreated glory that Christ has by nature from the Father is heaven for those whose selfish love has been cured and transformed into selfless love, and hell for those who choose to remain uncured in their selfishness. Not only are the Bible and the Fathers clear on this, but so are the Orthodox Icons of the last judgment. The same golden light of glory within which Christ and His friends are enveloped becomes red as it flows down to envelope the damned.", the Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos claims "...God Himself is Paradise for the saints and God Himself is Hell for the sinners...Hell is the torment of the love of God...Paradise and Hell are an energy of the uncreated grace of God, as men experience it, and therefore they are uncreated." (I would also add, that the word "hell", is used here to refer to the situation of sinners after the second coming of Christ, not "hades"/"Sheol" (which, especially in non-Orthodox documents, was also translated in English using the word "hell"), "...Hell will begin after the Second Coming of Christ and the future judgement, while the souls of sinners experience hades after their departure from the body. According to the teaching of the holy Fathers, hades is an intelligible place, it is the foretaste of Hell, when a person receives the caustic energy of God.") Cody7777777 (talk) 11:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I think everyone would agree with this. Augustine said something similar, though not quite the same, when he spoke of the suffering of hell as compounded because of inability to return the love with which, they well know, God loves them. Their lack of love, their hate, is what separates them from God. God does not in any way exclude them from his love, any more than the father of the prodigal son excluded the elder brother from his love. They exclude themselves from a loving relationship with God, as the elder brother excluded himself from the father's love and celebration. Esoglou (talk) 12:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I think is completely inappropriate, that is the very essence of your edit warring and wiki hounding --Esoglou thinks--. I did not invent this nor did Cody. Nor I am taking or have taken liberties with it. This teaching is not what is taught in the West Esoglou. Why have you attacked Romanides and Hierotheos in the conversation here already by denying they are valid and real theologians and sources, as you indicated that only Metallinos was? Also there is a clear difference in that there is in what Cody posted no separation from God hell and heaven are the same place it is being with God directly. This is not taught by the Roman Catholic church. ANYWHERE. What is taught by the Roman Catholic church and Protestantism is the Pedagogy of Fear just like Hilarion Alfeyev called it.

"One should note that the notion of Hell has been distorted by the coarse and material images in which it was clothed in Western medieval literature. One recalls Dante with his detailed description of the torments and punishment which sinners undergo. Christian eschatology should be liberated from this imagery: the latter reflects a Catholic medieval approach to the Novissima with its ‘pedagogy of fear’ and its emphasis on the necessity of satisfaction and punishment. Michelangelo’s Last Judgment in the Sistine Chapel depicts Christ hurling into the abyss all those who dared to oppose Him. ‘This, to be sure, is not how I see Christ’, says Archimandrite Sophrony (Sakharov). ‘...Christ, naturally, must be in the centre, but a different Christ more in keeping with the revelation that we have of Him: Christ immensely powerful with the power of unassuming love’. If God is love, He must be full of love even at the moment of the Last Judgment, even when He pronounces His sentence and condemns one to death."[19] LoveMonkey (talk) 12:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

In all that LoveMonkey has just written here, I fail to find anything that addresses the question whether the theologians and the catechism I have cited are Eastern Orthodox (as they are) and whether they state that hell is separation (on the part of the sinner) from God (as they do state). What makes souls suffer because of God's love for them is their self-exclusion from God, their auto-separation from God, hating God instead of returning his love. If they didn't cut themselves off, there would be no suffering for them, there would be only happiness. That is the belief of the Eastern Orthodox whom I have cited. It is a belief held in the Eastern Orthodox Church. Esoglou (talk) 13:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I will be very clear here I think this is in the order of an escalation. There is not one single Roman Catholic source that says what you just posted. Not one. There is not one Orthodox source that will say that the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic church have the same teaching on hell. The best Esoglou has is that some Orthodox sources going again other Orthodox sources state things that sound like there is an agreement. But not one of those sources states they agree with the Roman Catholic church on this. That makes this entire activity of Esoglou original research and WP:Synth. I and Cody have posted Orthodox sourcing stating that hell is being burned by the love of God in the presents of God. There is no separation. That is a multiple sourced statement. At some point it will be appropriate to gather here on the talkpage all of Esoglou documented behavior and submit it so as to show that Esoglou is working against policy and is not following the rules of wiki. I will note that I have been explicit in my headers and criticism so that once this is done that it can be read and understood with clarity. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

This section is on the proposal to consider closed the discussion on an alleged uniform Eastern Orthodox teaching on hell, since it is obvious that some quite important Eastern Orthodox sources say hell is separation of the soul from God, while others say hell is not separation of the soul from God. What counts is what Eastern Orthodox sources say; what Roman Catholic sources say is immaterial, and it is to no purpose that anyone should demand that Roman Cathoic sources be posted. Also immaterial is whether one side or the other is in agreement with the Roman Catholic Church. They could both disagree with the Roman Catholic Church, as well as with each other. It is evident that some Eastern Orthodox say hell is separation, and that other Eastern Orthodox say hell is not separation. Thus the lack of a single uniform teaching on this matter seems evident. Why cannot we accept this fact and declare the discussion closed? How can you possibly deny that there are Eastern Orthodox who say hell is separation? Do you actually deny it? Esoglou (talk) 14:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Do these sources which speak about "Hell" as a "separation" from God, refer to the state of sinners after the Second Coming of Christ, or they refer to "Sheol"/"Hades"? (Philaret's catechism, seems to be talking more about ""Sheol"/"Hades".) Are they denying that after the Second Coming all people will see God's Light/Fire (and those who do not love God will feel eternal pain because of this)? Are they claiming that sinners are "separated" from God only in "Hades"/"Sheol"? But as said before there are sources claiming that ""separation from God" is only a handy metaphor" (this is from the website of an archdiocese, not a parish church). Cody7777777 (talk) 14:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course it is only a metaphor, since in the literal sense it is an impossibility: there is no spatial separation or barrier between God and anybody or anything; there is only spiritual separation of a human being, one who separates himself or herself from God - "Be reconciled with God", pleaded Saint Paul. That spiritual separation is a reality, a sad reality. Sadder still, the spiritual separation can continue beyond death. As for the sources, I have looked at them (and for that reason have had to correct the reference to Metropolitan Kallistos's book), and I don't see that even the Catechism of Philaret excludes the post-resurrection state. One of the sources, the last, has the explicit phrase "whether of the soul after death or both soul and body after the resurrection".

None of the sources Esoglou provided but an Ecumenist and a biography explicitly state that hell is separation from God. The Metropolian website for the whole of the Americas (the OCA website that Cody sourced) say nothing of the sort. And you Esoglou are pushing to marganize what the website and Romanides and the other theologians me and Cody pointed out actually stated. Along with Hilarion Alfeyev, George Metallinos and Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos) of Nafpaktos. You are ignoring what they state and if you address what they have stated you attempt to marginalized it with your own opinion that you just posted above. Because what you posted is your opinion and you can not find it in Roman Catholic sources. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Whatever others state, the six I have cited do say either in so many words (not only the catechism and the archimandrite, but also Quenot and Stylianopoulos) or in equivalent terms ("hell is the place where God is not"; "separated by sin from the sight of God's countenance") that hell is separation from God. Even if there were only two, not four, who state it explicitly, that would be the same number as you have found who state explicitly the contrary view. Then there would be equality between the sources for both views, instead of the present preponderance for the (spiritual) separation view. So even then there would clearly still be two contrary views on the matter. There would still clearly be two contrary views on the matter even if the sources in favour of the "no separation, neither physical or spiritual" view were the majority. Isn't that so? Esoglou (talk) 16:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

NO. The context is what matters and that the sources I posted are in church positions of dealing with the differences between the Eastern Orthodox and various other Christian factions not just making Sunday announcements that esoglou has used as sources for encyclopedia articles against catechisms created by heads of interfaith church offices directly under the Patriarch of Moscow like the passage I posted by Hilarion, let alone Romanides whose works are directly about ecumenism as Romanides was a church representative in various ecumenical organizations. It shows how out of touch Esoglou is to not be able to understand this distinction. LoveMonkey (talk) 03:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The Catechism of Saint Philaret, a full-scale official catechism created by the Russian Orthodox Church, is no Sunday announcement. The writings of Paul Evdokimov are no Sunday announcement. Michel Quenot's The Resurrection and the Icon is no Sunday announcement. Sophrony Sakharov's The Monk of Mount Athos is no Sunday announcement. Kallistos Ware's The Orthodox Way is no Sunday announcement. Even Theodore Stylianopoulos's responses to theological enquiries are no Sunday announcement, as LoveMonkey found out when he consulted the experts. And Hilarion Alfayev's online Orthodox catechism, in which he explains hell as the torment sinners undergo because they cannot participate in God's love and they are outside of it is no Sunday announcement. Esoglou (talk) 04:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem is these statements which speak about "Hell" as separation from God have some ambiguity (it does not seem to me clear that they explicitly deny that sinners will feel God's energies as Fire, perhaps, it could be said that sinners have separated from the way of loving God, but not that they will be separated in Hell from God's Love/Fire, which they will also see), and as said earlier we do not know exactly if all of them speak about "Hell" when referring to "Hades"/"Sheol", or the state of sinners after the Resurrection. Even if the catechism of Philaret indeed claims that those in "Sheol"/"Hades" remain blind to God's Light/Fire (although, its claim "Hades is a Greek word, and means a place void of light. In divinity, by this name is understood a spiritual prison, that is, the state of those spirits which are separated by sin from the sight of God's countenance, and from the light and blessedness which it confers.", has some ambiguity, and it does not say explicitly that those in hades will not feel God's energies as Fire, it only says they will not feel it as "light and blessedness"), when talking about the Resurrection, Philaret's Catechism also claims (using citations from the Holy Scripture): "How does it speak of his future judgment? The hour is coming, in which all that are in the graves shall hear the voice of the Son of God , and shall come forth: they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation...How will he judge them? The conscience of every man shall be laid open before all, and not only all deeds which he has ever done in his whole life upon earth be revealed, but also all the words he has spoken, and all his secret wishes and thoughts. The Lord shall come, who will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the heart: and then shall every man have praise of God.". Kallistos Ware speaks in his book about Christ's descent into "hades" (so, it seems he uses the word "hell" when referring to "Hades"/"Sheol"), however his claim about Hell as "the place where God is not. (And yet God is everywhere!)" has some ambiguity (his statements were also criticized in another book already mentioned in the article), however it does not seem to explicitly deny that sinners will feel God's Fire in Hell, and he also claims "God is also there with them (in Hell). It is written in the Psalms," "If I go down to hell (it refers to "Sheol"/"Hades"), thou art there also" (139:7); and St Isaac the Syrian says, "It is wrong to imagine that sinners in hell are cut off from the love of God. Divine love is everywhere, and rejects no one...". Paul Evdokimov, while in the citation you gave, speaks about a "separation" from God, in some other place, he claims "The great spiritual masters insist on this aspect of judgment more as a revelation of the light of God's love, not at all the menace of punishment...He is not the fearful Judge but he is Love and the very love which subjectively becomes suffering among the outcasts and joy among the blessed. Sinners in hell are not deprived of divine love". Regarding the catechism of Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev, it claims "...there is no person who would be deprived of God’s love, and there is no place which would be devoid of it; everyone who deliberately chooses evil instead of good deprives himself of God’s mercy. The very same Divine love which is a source of bliss and consolation for the righteous in Paradise becomes a source of torment for sinners, as they cannot participate in it and they are outside of it. It is therefore not God Who mercilessly prepares torments for a person, but rather the person himself who chooses evil and then suffers from its consequences. There are people who deliberately refuse to follow the way of love, who do evil and harm to their neighbours: these are the ones who will be unable to reconcile themselves with the Supreme Love when they encounter it face to face." (this appears to state that while humans can separate themselves from the way of loving God, they will not be able to separate themselves from God's Love/Fire, after the Second Coming of Christ). In conclusion, in my opinion, these sources do not really deny that sinners will also feel God's Love in Hell, even if they don't love God (which will cause them to feel His Love as tormenting Everlasting Fire). Cody7777777 (talk) 12:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

You are right in saying God continues to love the sinner; from the side of God there is no separation; from the side of God no one is deprived of God's love, no person or place is devoid of it. But sinners do cut themselves off from his love. As the online Orthodox catechism of Metropolitan Hilarion Alfayev puts it, they are (by their own choice) "outside of" the love of God (online Orthodox catechism), and that situation of (self-)exclusion from the love of God, of being outside the love of God, of being spiritually separated, is their torment when, as you say, they encounter that love face to face. (Unlike the hope expressed in 1 John 3:2, that "when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is", that encounter will not conform them to the loving image of God.) Similarly, God does not need to be reconciled to us, but Saint Paul makes the appeal to us: "Be reconciled to God" (2 Cor 5:20). Reconciliation and love are always open on the part of God, but can be refused by us. Esoglou (talk) 13:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the question here is, if these sources claim that this "separation from God" means that sinners will never be able to feel God's Light/Fire in a tormenting way, making this a distinct view of "Hell" (this "sepatation from God" could just mean the sinners' decision to not love God). I do not think that these sources actually deny that God's Energies are "Everlasting Fire" for sinners. The statement of Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev, "The very same Divine love which is a source of bliss and consolation for the righteous in Paradise becomes a source of torment for sinners, as they cannot participate in it and they are outside of it", seems to claim that the source of sinners torment is the Divine Love, not being able to participate in it and being outside of it, could just mean that the sinners do not love God, and they can't return love to His Love, but this not explicitly states they will not feel God's Light as torment (and so, it does not seem to make it a contradictory view of "Hell"). In the article written by the Reverend Theodore Stylianopoulos, while he is claiming that "hell is a spiritual state of separation from God and inability to experience the love of God" (although this does not state that they won't experience His Light as Eternal Fire, and "separation" from God, could just mean that the sinners do not love God and they don't want to be in His presence), he also claims (without explicitly stating that he describes a different view of Hell from the previous): "Nevertheless, those who deliberately refuse to believe in God, refuse to obey Him, and refuse follow His ways of light and love, will experience the same divine light and love as “hell” because they are unable to share in that divine light and love, and will know this fact as immense deprivation, a psychic anguish greater than any material punishment, the “scourge of love” as St. Isaac put it". Cody7777777 (talk) 15:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree fully. Spiritual separation doesn't mean inability to feel and be aware of God's love for those who cut themselves off from his love. We can indeed suppose that they are grievously tormented by their very inability, in the definitive state in which they find themselves, to return that love. And I see no reason to think that any of the Orthodox and Catholics who speak of hell as separation from God would claim that sinners cannot be painfully aware of God's love for them. Esoglou (talk) 16:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

To Cody : there needs to be a part of that section (after the removal of all of Esoglou's taking Chopelas and posting long passages of his article in order to try and discredit Chopelas) that cover specifically the Eastern Orthodox teaching on the "Bosom of Abraham". I can hope at least. If Cody you would be so kind as to try and communicate to Esoglou here (please and thank you so much for what you have already done) what the Bosom of Abraham is as Esoglou appears to not have much of any Orthodox theology and simply will not read or listen to sources I have posted.. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, the "Bosom of Abraham" refers to the blissful state of the souls of the righteous who love God and participate His Divine Grace, while waiting for the Resurrection. The following citations from a book by Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos claim that "In analysing the subject of Paradise and Hell, St. Mark, also expressing the teaching of the Church, says that neither do the righteous after death possess that blissful state completely, nor are the sinners led to everlasting torment, where they will be tormented for ever, but both of these things "will necessarily take place after the Judgement of that last day and the resurrection of all". Now both the righteous and the sinners "are in places proper to them": the righteous, in absolute repose and free, are in heaven with the angels and have a foretaste of the Kingdom of Heaven, whereas sinners are shut into hades, waiting with discomfort and inconsolable grief, like condemned men awaiting the Judge's sentence and foreseeing eternal torment.", "It should also be observed that the Rich Man saw Abraham with Lazarus in his bosom. He saw the glory of Abraham, but he had no share in this glory. By contrast, Lazarus both saw it and participated in it. This is a very significant point, for it shows that in that other life everyone will see God, but the righteous will have communion, participation, while the sinners will not. A characteristic example is what Christ said about the coming judgement. All will see the Judge, all will converse with Him, but some will enjoy His glory and others will experience the caustic energy of divine grace....This fact, along with other elements, shows what we said before, that the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus does not refer to the life after Christ's Second Coming, but to the life up to the Second Coming. Clearly it is about the so-called intermediate state of souls." Cody7777777 (talk) 14:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Wonderful. I was hoping to compress this down to a short passage and include it in the article. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Cody's interpretation of the passage he quoted, with the wicked as in the permanent state of hell only after the resurrection, and the parable as referring to the temporary intermediate state. In that temporary state the wicked are separated by a great chasm from where Lazarus is, i.e., already in heaven with the angels. (The separation is, of course, spiritual, since you have physical, spatial separation only of material beings.) In that case, there seems little reason to believe that their spiritual separation will be removed when after the resurrection the wicked are in the permanent state of hell. But perhaps Cody will explain things better. I thank him for his assistance. Esoglou (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad I could be of some help. However, the Metropolitan Hierotheos does not seem to speak about a "separation" from God's grace, since he also claims that "The fire in which the Rich Man was burning was not what the Latins called the purifying fire, or `purgatory' that all people's souls pass through. It was not a created fire, but uncreated. That is to say, even sinners receive the rays of divine Light, but since they die unrepentant, without being cured, they experience the burning energy of the Light.", this means that even those in "Hades"/"Sheol" will see the uncreated energies of God (following Christ's descent into "Hades"/"Sheol" and Resurrection), and so they are not separated from God's Grace/Fire. However, the "Bosom of Abraham" and "Hades"/"Sheol" are only a temporary state of the bodiless souls, but after the Resurrection, all people will have to forever face, both in spirit and body, the everlasting energies of God, which will result either in everlasting happiness or everlasting pain (and this claim is obviously supported by many Orthodox sources). Cody7777777 (talk) 12:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the same distinction can be made between the love and grace that, on God's side, is always granted, but that is not always accepted on the side of man, can be applied here. However, since this parable is being interpreted as a factual description of a temporary after-death situation (and not as a description of a definitive situation, nor just as a parable), discussion of it seems to be departing from the topic of the section of the article, which is on hell in a more definitive sense. Esoglou (talk) 14:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Energies and Essence distinction

To Cody if you could source the sections still needing sourcing in the Hesychasm section. By you doing it, it might not trigger another edit war by Esoglou. Also for the existence of mankind in the material world by way of the sarx. The separation of human's -being- or -ontology- is as Lossky pointed out common to the Orthodox theologians' Orthodox anthopology even if it has some detractors. [20] as treating the separation of mankind from God's energies, God's Hypostasis is not acceptable and will get treated as heterdox. The only distinction that denotes a "separation" is the energies and essences distinction. As what is without beginning or end is not comprehensible to Man.

“Man’s attempt to know God through his created mind ends in idolatry.” (Romanides, 2004, p. 5 Ancestral Sin) LoveMonkey (talk) 17:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Esoglou added into the article the following comment.

"Chrysostomos however does not say in any of his works that Augustine had theoria, nor that in any of his works Palamas had theoria."[21]

Why would the Archbishop of Cyrus need to convey the monastic degrees as his own works? Why would someone say or post something so completely ignorant to this article about a Orthodox monastic? As the works of Palamas are LITERIALLY CALLED THEORIA. [22]. Why is this? Why is Esoglou doing these things and posting things like this in the Orthodox Christian section on the center of Orthodox theology the topic called Hesychasm? If Esoglou is ignorant of the subject why is Esoglou making statements like this about a living person and and Orthodox Christian Monastic in an encyclopedia article that is supposed to inform people about Orthodox theology and is instead making it's authorities (as Chrysostomos is an Archbishop) look like they are opposing their own communities and saints? That they are renegades? Since when has Chrysostomos gone off the wagon and starting changing Orthodox Monasticism to not teach that one should be striving everyday to recite the Jesus Prayer in hopes of see the uncreated light of Tabor. This whole thing is completely not understood by Esoglou. As if John Climacus and Symeon the New Theologian are not taught as precursors to Palamas. That even by Roman Catholic sources.

"But it was Simeon, "the new theologian" (c. 1025-c. 1092; see Krumbacher, op. cit., 152-154), a monk of Studion, the "greatest mystic of the Greek Church" (loc. cit.), who evolved the quietist theory so elaborately that he may be called the father of Hesychasm. For the union with God in contemplation (which is the highest object of our life) he required a regular system of spiritual education beginning with baptism and passing through regulated exercises of penance and asceticism under the guidance of a director." [23] LoveMonkey (talk) 17:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Most of the comment objected to was added by LoveMonkey. It has now been erased totally. Esoglou (talk) 18:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Chrysostomos adhers to the hesychasm as such he adhers to the monastic degrees that explicitly state that Palamas as the defender of hesychasm had theoria. However in his review of Seraphim Roses Book on Augustine and in his other comments Chrysostomos makes no clear statement that Augustine had theoria as matter fact the passage that Esoglou deleted from Chrystomos comments on Augustine that I added and Esoglou deleted. [24] I then added them back in [25] and Esoglou then changed them, rewrote them. [26]. As it stands now the very essence of a theologian expressing theology from theoria is that they are not rationalizing as theoria and Eastern Orthodox church dogma ARE mysticism.

"While Chrysostomos admits that, "in terms of classical Orthodox thought on the subject, Saint Augustine placed grace and human free will at odds, if only because his view of grace was too overstated and not balanced against the Patristic witness as regards the efficacy of human choice and spiritual labor. Likewise, as an outgrowth of his understanding of grace, Augustine developed a theory of predestination that further distorted the Orthodox understanding of free will. And finally, Augustine's theology proper, his understanding of God, in its mechanical, overly logical, and rationalistic tone, leads one, to some extent, away from the mystery of God-which is lost, indeed, in Saint Augustine's failure to capture fully the very mystery of man." Archbishop Chrysostomos.

This above from Chrysostomos as a criticism can not be reconciled with the theoria of Hesychasm as no one including Chrysostomos ever stated that Augustine saw the uncreated light of Tabor. If you have not seen the light. You do not have the theoria that Palamas and Romaides via St Gregory are talking about. And Esoglou does not know anything about this or is on purpose distorting the truth of it for his own agenda. As theoria is when one "sees the light" the uncreated light of Tabor. There is nothing in Augustine to even come close to suggesting this. NOTHING. Esoglou is twisting Chrysostomos' comments and making stuff up about what all of this means because Esoglou does not know about it and or does not even have a basic understanding of this subject that Esoglou is wiki hounding and warring over. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Palamas had reached theoria, but where does Chrysostomos say he had? Esoglou (talk) 18:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

You don't even understand what these things mean do you? How can you even ask me that? LoveMonkey (talk) 19:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

As clearly as I can.....Esoglou post here on the talkpage where Augustine talked about his contemplation of the uncreated light. Post here where Chrysostomos talks about how monks at Mount Athos used Augustine's works to protect them when they were attack with Western Scholasticism and Western, Latin, Roman Catholic theology and stated that those things did not represent the God of the Eastern Orthodox church whom they contemplate (theoria) as the uncreated light. Post here where one of them named Palamas did not defend this theoria contemplation practice. Post here when these monks used the works of Augustine to defend this practice of contemplating (theoria) or experiencing the uncreated light. Since Palamas was the spokes person and or representative that did indeed make the case that the goal of live is to obtain the experience of this light and that this is the very meaning of Christianity. As St Seraphim of Sarov being a hesychast expressed the experience of the uncreated light as reconciliation with God called deification through acquisition of the Holy Spirit. Thoeria is part of that Theosis not an empty word with no specific meaning but rather a very specific thing (see the uncreated light the halo) in a specific context called theosis. Where does Augustine talk about any of this? LoveMonkey (talk) 19:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

All rather interesting, and perhaps (by some synthesis?) you think Palamas did reach theoria. But where does Chrysostomos say he did? Esoglou (talk) 19:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I will repeat. Palamas defended it at the hesychasm councils. He is the spokesperson for it. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to answer the question where Chrysostomos said Palamas had reached theoria. Esoglou (talk) 19:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

"Now, then, a few specific words about the teachings of St. Gregory Palamas—about his magnificent synopsis of the Christian Faith: this ontological philosophy of life. As I told you earlier, I am not really a theologian; nor do I have personal knowledge or experience of the lofty gifts of the Spirit about which St. Gregory writes. What little I know, I know from my study of Byzantine history and from the perspective of the psychological presuppositions that I see in the teachings of St. Gregory Palamas, and I can express myself only from such platforms. I ask your forgiveness, should I commit some error in my summary of that synopsis of Orthodox soteriology which is, in reality, the theology of St. Gregory Palamas. You must measure my words against the light of spiritual men and women, who live empirically that which I only understand, however imperfectly, from an historical, psychological, and entirely theoretical standpoint. Thus, some basic elements from the teachings of St. Gregory Palamas."[27] LoveMonkey (talk) 19:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Why would you put into the mouth of a hesychast like Chrysostomos that he is now denying the teachings of Palamas and that Palamas knew what he was talking or teaching about? LoveMonkey (talk) 19:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)