Talk:John Zizioulas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John Zizioulas article.
Article policies
This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

Talk:John Zizioulas/Archive

Contents

[edit] Disputed

Work of M. Zizioulas has been disputed in many Orthodox circles, and giving him a title "one of the world's leading theologians" is very misleading.

In other words, this article is missing part in which his writings are questioned by traditional Orthodox theology represented in the writings of the Fathers, summarized in the works of prof. V. Lossky.

What is the procedure for tagging the article "disputed"? Thanks.

--216.191.72.153 19:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

The edits of Cebactokpatop do not conform to Wikipedia NPOV, and contained insertions of polemic which amounted to vandalism. Many of the claims were unverified. I tried to improve the page to make it conform to NPOV, and placed a vandalism tag on Cebactokpatop's talk-page.

At the same time, I added additional material concerning the content of Zizioulas' ecclesiology. (Despite the polemical allegations of 'ecumenism' previously in the article, there was previously no description of Zizioulas' ecclesiological views.)

In response, Cebastokpatop simply reverted my edits, and placed a vandalism tag on my talk-page.

I am happy to contribute edits on Wikipedia, but I do not wish to become embroiled in endless reverts with someone whose edits on Wikipedia are intended to promote a particular polemic unsuitable for an encyclopedia.

If Cebastokpatop is indeed willing to contribute towards the construction of an article which is NPOV, I would be very happy to work with him.

Seminarist (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Further NPOV

False accusations easily verifiable by looking at the latest revision of mine. This person is trying to quiet down the voice of the traditional Orthodox people who do not see the work of JZ as Orthodox. That is precisely what we call vandalism, and that is why you deserved tag - vandal.

Cebactokpatop (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Working towards NPOV

I am not a vandal, and desire to work towards consensus. I am not trying to prevent an encyclopedic description of criticisms of Zizioulas' thought and episcopacy. But I am trying to prevent the article being presented from a POV.

Thank you for not reinserting certain of the earlier NPOV items.

I have also tried to improve the article in a number of ways:

  1. I have tried to remove errors from the older version of the article. E.g. Zizioulas is no longer a member of the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
  2. I have also tidied the description of Zizioulas' academic education and career, by placing this in a separate section.
  3. I have added a section on Zizioulas' ecclesiology.
  4. I have tidied and expanded the bibliographical section.

You have now reverted these changes without explanation three times in the last 24 hours, and have therefore broken the 3RR. Please do not revert these sections again.

In your last edit you reinserted the sentence: "Although the many are amazed with the works of the John Zizioulas, his thought is not widely accepted amongst the Orthodox. Traditional Orthodox see his view of the personhood, Holy Trinity and The Church as untraditional, and different from the view of the Early Church Fathers, more specifically: St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Basil the Great and St. Gregory of Nazianzus (Cappadocian Fathers)."

This sentence is not NPOV, it is not verifiable and it is not of an appropriate style for an encyclopedia entry, for a number of reasons:

  1. The assertion that Zizioulas' thought is 'not widely accepted amongst the Orthodox' is not NPOV and not verified.
  2. It is not NPOV to contrast Zizioulas' thought to "traditional" Orthodoxy.

Could you rephrase the sentence and add (more) references?

Once again, I would like to work together towards consensus. It would be good if you could add a NPOV description of (1) which "traditionalist" Orthodox criticise Zizioulas' thought; of (2) where they criticise his thought [i.e. give some references]; and of (3) how they criticise Zizioulas' thought [i.e. say what they argue against Zizioulas' theology and episcopacy].

I do not wish the article to be pro-Zizioulas or anti-Zizioulas, but to be NPOV. Hopefully we can achieve that together.

Seminarist (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Until we come to the consensus, old revision remains. I would suggest to use sandbox until resolution.
BTW0: Only the blind would not see the references I supplied.
BTW1: Your constant quoting attitude whenever referring to the term - traditional, explains who you are and where you come from.
Cebactokpatop (talk) 21:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, let's try stage by stage. I will add my earlier improvements, and you tell me if you disagree with them.
Seminarist (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Show me how below sentence is "verifiable"? Are those two names representing whole "younger generation"? Are they "theologians" in the first place?
Zizioulas' theology has especially been accepted among younger generation of Greek and Serbian theologians, such as retired bishop Atanasije Jevtic or bishop Ignjatije Midic.
Cebactokpatop (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
That sentence doesn't come from me. I am not Serbian and have no view re Bps Atanasije or Ignatije.
Seminarist (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Towards Consensus

Do you really want me to provide you with references showing that Zizioulas and Florovsky are noted theologians?

Would you agree that the paragraph on Zizioulas views on personhood, etc. is weak and needs rewritten?

Seminarist (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You are not working towards the consensus with such an attitude.
Cebactokpatop (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
As you are trying to push down the Traditional Orthodox View, by creating numerous sections, I will add after each one of your sections, one that reflects Traditional View. But not now. Later.
Cebactokpatop (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Once again, I am trying to work to consensus; that is why I asked you the questions. I am not trying to 'push down' any view. Remember that the article is not about the 'traditional' Orthodox view of Zizioulas, but about Zizioulas himself. If you want a separate article about the 'traditional' Orthodox view of Zizioulas, then why not create one? Otherwise, interpretation of Zizioulas' thought - whether positive or negative - should go at the bottom of the article.
Seminarist (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
You are continuing with the vandal approach putting unverified claims "pro" while removing references to the voice of those who recognized in JZ - a faulty man with heterodox ideas.
Cebactokpatop (talk) 14:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I have put the revision that we can use for further development of he article. However, if you continue with your standard practice by naming Traditional Orthodox as "traditional", etc. (violating NPOV), this article will go nowhere.
Cebactokpatop (talk) 14:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Issues of Concern

[edit] Wikipedia Standards

You have repeatedly shown incivility to me. Please see Wikipedia policy on No Personal Attacks.

You have also have displayed an extremely hostile attitude towards the subject of this article, John Zizioulas. This is not acceptable on Wikipedia. I am concerned that your editing may still be motivated by your dislike of John Zizioulas, the subject of this article. You have alleged him to be 'heterodox', and previously you vansalised this article adding a picture of Zizioulas seated beside the Pope with the caption Zizioulas 'shows his true face'.

Seminarist (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Repeated Removal of Material without Explanation

This is now the fourth time in two days you have reverted the content of the article without proper explanation.

Please do not remove citations or bibliography I have added previously. They conform to Wikipedia's policy on citing sources.

Seminarist (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Presenting one POV as 'Traditional Orthodoxy'

To speak of one position rather than another as 'traditional Orthodoxy' is a POV, and so does not conform to Wikipedia NPOV. Therefore, it is not appropriate to use the title of 'traditional Orthodoxy' as a label of an anti-Zizioulas theology.

Seminarist (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citation of Questionable and Possibly Extremist Sources

According to Wikipedia's Polity on sources, material from questionable sources 'should only be used in articles about themselves', and that where such material does appear, it cannot be contentious. For both reasons, therefore, neither the article from the Italian magazine Ortodossia, nor the missionary booklet by Rodoljub Lazic may appear in the John Zizioulas article. For this reason, I am removing these references.

According to Wikipedia's policy on the burden of proof, 'The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material'. You have not provided suitable verification for your claims regarding 'traditionalist' understandings of Zizioulas' thought. Therefore, I am adding a [citation needed] tag to this material; this material should be removed unless it is properly sourced. If you revert the article to include again this 'traditionalist' material without HAVING PREVIOUSLY achieved consensus, then you are in violation of Wikipedia's burden of proof policy.

Seminarist (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Desire for Consensus

Please be assured again of my desire to work towards consensus on this article, but only in accordance with Wikipedia standards.

Seminarist (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I have supplied the references to the Traditional Orthodox understandings of Zizioulas' thought. That section of the article is full of references. If you choose to be blind before them, your choice. But, it can not be base for your constant calls for "policies breach". Your tagging of the Italian magazine article and other book as "extremist" is outrageous. You seems to have attitude to call extremists all those who disagree with your clique. Besides, did you read the book of Rodoljub Lazic? If you did not, your assertions are bordering with the term - lies.
Cebactokpatop (talk) 05:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The Orthodossa article looks to be extremist. But it doesn't have to be extremist; it only has to be contentious. And to say that a Metropolitan of the Greek Orthodox Church is 'heterodox' is certainly contentious. Please read the policies (WP:BLP; WP:PROVEIT; WP:BLP; WP:NPOV).
Seminarist (talk) 05:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
LOOKS?!?! Give me a break... Did you read the book of Rodoljub Lazic? On what basis did you tag it as "extremist"?
This below is for your own benefit and speedy revival from the falsehood of Zizioulas, Afansiev, Shmeman, etc.
"Even if false hierarchs, while being in heresy, will succeed in deceiving and enticing a certain number of ignorant ones and in gathering even a considerable number of followers, then they are outside the sacred walls of the Church just the same. But even if very few remain in Orthodoxy and piety, they are in the Church, and the authority and the protection of the ecclesiastical institution resides in them. And if they should suffer for true piety, then this will undoubtedly contribute to their eternal glory and salvation of their souls." - St. Nicephorus the Confessor
Cebactokpatop (talk) 05:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with Editing Zizioulas Article

Please revert the article to the revision dated: 16:20, 15 February 2008. Let the other party that arrived several days ago proove his claims. While he provide the evidences, that revision should be on display. It is actually, last revision before situation went out of control. Thank you.

Cebactokpatop (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

The previous versionof the article contained a section entitled 'Traditionalist Orthodox view of the Work of John Zizioulas', which articlates a fringe theory.
  • This section consists almost entirely assertions that Zizioulas' theology and churchmanship are not in line with what was being called 'traditional Orthodoxy', and Zizioulas is accused of 'heterodoxy'. Since Zizioulas is the Greek Orthodox Metropolitan of Pergamon, such statements do not reflect the Greek Orthodox Church's own view, and constitute a contentious, minority POV. Therefore this section violates both WP:NPOV and WP:BLPSTYLE ('Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone').
  • The only references in this section are made to an article by Lucian Turcescu whose conclusions are disputed in academic scholarship, to a questionable and possibly extremist on-line article entitled Is the Theologian Ioannis Zizioulas proclaiming Orthodoxy?, and to a Missionary booklet in Serbian, each of which accuse Zizioulas theology of being non-traditional and heterodox. None of these sources meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable and non-contentious sources. Specifically the on-line article asserts that we must state that Zizioulas’s theological style and argumentation can be proven deceitful, as he often stands too far from the truth. This man’ s individual thinking in no way represents the orthodox traditional theology but only personal and, at times, peculiar theological aspects having nothing to do with the common experience shared and faithfully practised by the great majority of orthodox believers down the Christian centuries. Again, according to Wikipedia policy, these views should never be on a BLP page ('Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link').
  • The traditionalist material was occupying half of the article. Therefore undue weight was being given to the material in the section.
  • Cebactokpatop had also inserted a picture of Zizioulas sitting beside the Pope which he had entitled Picture of the John Zizioulas (black robe) revealing his true face and position.[1] This is malicious.
  • It is not neutral (and so does not conform to WP:NPOV) to equate 'traditional Orthodoxy' with the views of a minority group within Orthodoxy.
The fact that Cebactokpatop is unable to provide a variety of mainstream sources concerning John Zizioulas - who has amassed a large bibliography of secondary literature in English - points to his edits having the purpose of promoting a fringe theory.
I have tried to negotiate with Cebastokpatop to make the article neutral. However, he has made repeated personal attacks. He has repeatedly deleted constructive edits which I have made (e.g. addition of extra sections of text, correction and expansion of Zizioulas biographical details, addition of extra bibliography, addition of references and footnotes) without justification.
Looking at his edit-history, it seems that this is the only article which he is interested in contributing to, and it seems that his only reason for contributing to it is to ensure that the John Zizioulas article is dominated by his material regarding 'traditional Orthodoxy'.
I therefore do not believe that it will be possible to negotiate with him without mediation, which I am therefore requesting.
Seminarist (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Demonstrate consensus for change

When an article is protected as a result of an edit war, it is protected in whatever version it is in when the administrator locates it. It is against policy for administrators to edit the contents of the protected page except in very limited circumstances, including (1) obvious vandalism, (2) uncontroversial changes unrelated to the dispute, or (3) changes for which clear consensus exists. May I suggest that the two of you try to reach consensus during this protection period? You may wish to seek additional feedback from WP:3O to help consensus emerge if the two of you cannot come to terms. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problematic areas in Seminarist's text

1. noted theologian: His theology is not Orthodox, and for that reason, he is not Orthodox theologian. Since he is, sadly, still member of the Orthodox clergy, having that assertion implies that he is Orthodox theologian. Text needs to be enhanced to include qualification on whose theologian he is.

2. "Traditionalist" Orthodox: Traditional Orthodox are not to be referenced like that. Added quotes are Seminarist's personal opinion, and are viloation of Wiki's NPOV.

3. Certain Orthodox, who style themselves as "traditionalist": Same as above. This assertion is personal opinion of Seminarist, and viloates NPOV.

4. Positive Assessments in Greece and Serbia: Two bishops named as "positive assessments" are Serbians. Where did the Greeks go? If he wants to add "positive assessments", for the article to be neutral as per Wiki's standards, we will have to add "negative assessments" as well.

5. Seminarist removed complete section citing Traditional Orthodox sources with regards to the JZ theology and work. Even though, all references in that section were provided, he continued with the abuse of the Wiki by continuous removal of that section. Just because he is the fan of the JZ, his personal orientation should not be emphasized on the Wiki's article. Seminarist needs to learn that other opinions are valid on Wiki, as well.

  • 1. This is unreasonable. Zizioulas is widely recognised to be a theologian (I have already provided appropriate citation), and he is the Greek Orthodox Metropolitan of Pergamon; as such, it is not unreasonable to call him a "theologian", and it is not unreasonable to call him an "Orthodox theologian". Seminarist (talk)
  • 2. It seems that you are not aware of WP:NPOV. NPOV does not mean no point of view. See WP:YESPOV, which states that 'the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints.' 'The neutral point of view is a point of view that is neutral, that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject.' Articles in which multiple viewpoints are presented must 'studiously refrain from asserting which is better'. 'Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions.'Seminarist (talk)
  • To identify traditional Orthodoxy with one group who claim that an Orthodox Metropolitan is not a traditional Orthodox and is heterodox is contentious and fails to conform to NPOV. Quotes are added to signify that this group claims to have a monopoly on traditional Orthodoxy, not to signify that they are wrong. To place contentious claims in quotation marks is a reasonable way of seeking to preserve NPOV.Seminarist (talk)
  • 3. Response as above. Seminarist (talk)
  • 4. You are dissimulating here. I have never objected to the netural reporting of the content of positive or negative assessments. I have sought that such descriptions conform to Wikipedia policies on WP:NPOV, WP:PROVEIT, WP:BLP.Seminarist (talk)
  • 5. No. You need to learn what Wikipedia's policy on NPOV means. I am tired of your incivility - please conform from now on to WP:CIVILITY.Seminarist (talk) [23:34, 17 February 2008 UTC)]

[edit] Unproven Claims by Seminarist

1. He claims that article of the magazine Italia Ortodossa is "extremist". As a proof, he said that it "looked (to him) as extremist". Again, his own opinion - viloation of the NPOV.

2. He claims that book of Rodoljub Lazic is extremist. After asking him on what basis he has put that claim forward, no answer was obtained. I have asked him if he read the book, and no answer was given. Again, his claim contains no proof and represents his own opinion - violation of NPOV.

Cebactokpatop (talk) 20:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

  • The article Is the Theologian Ioannis Zizioulas proclaiming Orthodoxy? is quite clearly a questionable source. This is evident to anyone who reads the text. The article never once quotes Zizioulas, consists almost entirely of unsupported assertions, and then concludes we must state that Zizioulas’s theological style and argumentation can be proven deceitful, as he often stands too far from the truth. This man’ s individual thinking in no way represents the orthodox traditional theology but only personal and, at times, peculiar theological aspects having nothing to do with the common experience shared and faithfully practised by the great majority of orthodox believers down the Christian centuries. According to WP:SOURCES 'Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves.' Therefore, since this article is clearly a questionable source, it cannot be cited in the John Zizioulas article.Seminarist (talk)
  • Again, WP:NPOVdoes not mean no point of view. WP:YESPOV, states that 'the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints.' 'The neutral point of view is a point of view that is neutral, that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject.'Seminarist (talk)
  • 2. Oncemore, you are not telling the truth. I did not claim that that book (which is a Missionary booklet) was extremist; I said it was 'questionable and possible extremist'. You previously accused me without justification of being 'very low' and of making assertions 'bordering with the term - lies'; in fact, it seems to me that such allegations apply more to someone who repeatedly dissimulates through misquotation.Seminarist (talk)
  • According to WP:PROVEIT, 'The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material'. That means that it is not up to me to prove that the missionary booklet IS a questionable source, but that it is up to you to prove that it is NOT a questionable source.Seminarist (talk) [23:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)]
What you did on this page, after I added two sections, is reflection of your attitude you expressed in the article as well. You deliberately keep removing my texts replacing it with your own. Normal civil way would be to add your comments below my text. Instead, you are trying to "prove" yourself "right" through the excessive amounts of text placed in the frontal position of the page. Very low indeed. I think that any attempt to come to the consensus would be pure waste of the time, and will therefore ask moderators to read the revision of the article I already pointed to and come up with the verdict.
Cebactokpatop (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
It is not unacceptable to respond to your claims point by point. I am very happy to seek assistance in reaching consensus, and, indeed, have already asked for such assistance. But it is disappointing to me that you will not actually consider the issues one by one.
Seminarist (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I have not detected even the smallest desire on your side to learn that there are people out there who do not agree with either JZ or his followers. If you were expecting arguing from my side in typical internet forum fashion - one by one sentence, you are badly mistaken about the mind of the Traditional Orthodox.
How low you can be is in the fact that you even modified my own text adding quotation around the first word in the title on this page - Unproven Claims by Seminarist. If you are by any chance real seminarist of some Orthodox Seminary, I can only be sorry for those faithful Orthodox people who would, in some future, be exposed to the clergy like yourself. In the end, followers of JZ cannot be any better, as the spring they are drinking from, is tainted.
Cebactokpatop (talk) 01:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • These comments constitute a personal attack and are unacceptable. Seminarist (talk) 01:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] To the Third Opinion Jury

Please read the revision dated 16:20, 15 February 2008 and come to the verdict whether it is in line with the Wiki's policy on neutrality or not. The point I an trying to make is that section titled "Traditional Orthodox View" is ballast to the remaining "pro" sections of the article and without it, the whole article would not be neutral. Thank you.

Cebactokpatop (talk) 01:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Since this is an encyclopedia the initial description of Zizioulas’ work must be objective and dispassionate. When this impartial assessment has been given a range of views on Zizioulas’ work can be laid out – critical views amongst them, properly referenced. It is prima facie not objective to say that a senior bishop of the Orthodox Church is not orthodox. Of course, the views of critics of Zizioulas can be given their own wikipedia pages, with cross-references.

--86.139.212.66 (talk) 13:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Great. Here we have anonymous face giving suggestions, who can be Seminarist himself.

Cebactokpatop (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not that other user. I've made similar points often enough not to need to make them again.Seminarist (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Moreover, now that things have quietened down, I would like you to withdraw your personal attack on me (made 01:17, 18 February 2008)[2] that 'If you are by any chance real seminarist of some Orthodox Seminary, I can only be sorry for those faithful Orthodox people who would, in some future, be exposed to the clergy like yourself. In the end, followers of JZ cannot be any better, as the spring they are drinking from, is tainted.'
The fact that I disagree with you about the contents of a wikipedia article gives you no right to make such comments. Seminarist (talk) 00:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Third Opinion

I have read this diff per the request of User:Cebactokpatop. It is my opinion that the section entitled "Traditional Orthodox view of the work of John Zizioulas" presents valid arguments against the authors work, however, it the way it is presented does violate WP:NPOV. In the articles present state, it balances criticism and defense in such away that it does not violate WP:UNDUE. As such, I recommend keeping the present version with the following caveats: the section entitled ""Traditionalist" Orthodox Criticisms of Zizioulas" needs to explain WHO the "traditionalists" are. In addition, the quotes around the word "traditionalist" imply a negative connotation, so they should be removed. Both the aforementioned section and the section entitled "Positive Assessments in Greece and Serbia" also need to have reliable sources attached to their claims. Giving this is a biography, criticisms and/or defenses of a persons views should not be included unless they are cited. I will watchlist this article if anyone needs clarification of my opinion in this case. Justin chat 08:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I would appreciate it if you would watchlist this article.
I remain concerned that the characterisation of the sorts of criticisms of Zizioulas' theology in question as 'traditional'/'traditionalist' is contentious, since there are differing conceptions within contemporary Orthodoxy regarding what it means to be traditional/traditionalist. So to assign the terms 'traditional'/'traditionalist' without qualification to one group/understanding must surely violate WP:NPOV. What is needed therefore is some suitable locution which makes clear that these criticisms come from a body of opinion which understands itself to be traditional; they are not simply the voice of traditional Orthodoxy simpliciter.Seminarist (talk) 12:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
If that's the case, the best option would be to use neutral language (remove the word traditionalist altogether). Title it "Criticisms of Zizioulas" and name, specifically, who is criticizing him. That is neutral, and avoids weasel words. 16:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justin (talk • contribs)
I agree. Here is a critique of the alignment of 'traditionalist' with 'traditional Orthodoxy' - which shows the equation to be sufficiently contentious that it does not conform to WP:NPOV. Seminarist (talk) 03:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Justin, thank you for the opinion. I find it useful, although I may not completely agree with it. My word about the idea of removing the attribute Traditional from the section in question... If we are going to explore that avenue under the umbrella of "being neutral", any possible reference in the article, that would implicitly or explicitly suggest that theology of JZ is Orthodox, should be removed as well. Claims that it is, are representing the opinion of a certain group of the people within Orthodoxy, and not of the Church as whole. Other group within the Orthodoxy that we call Traditional Orthodox, are rejecting his work. So, if the article is to be "neutral", it should state the fact that he is member of the Orthodox clergy, but, since his work is being disputed, his work should not be classified as Orthodox, in order to maintain neutrality. If in future his work gains an acceptance of the whole Church (God forbid), this article can move on and declare his work as Orthodox. Until then, neutral position of the article can not include any hint that his work could be Orthodox, or it is not neutral anymore.
Cebactokpatop (talk) 18:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
That depends really. In reviewing the article, I'm having trouble understanding which sections in particular you feel suggests his theology is Orthodox? Aside from the "Assessments of Zizioulas' Thought" section (which seems to display both views), I'm not seeing anything that states his theology is Orthodox. If you could point out the sections you feel are POV, perhaps I could better formulate an opinion on that. Justin chat 19:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Well... Presentation of his theology on the page implies it to be Orthodox, simply by the fact that he is member of the Orthodox clergy. Since there is no specific statement saying that his theology is strictly his private opinion, and not the opinion of the Church, it is implicitly attributed to the Orthodox Church. And as I said already, if we are to maintain neutrality of the article, any notion that could lead people to think it is Orthodox renders the whole article non-neutral. I have not assessed the current article in details, but was referring rather to principle that shall be employed here.
There was a question regarding the definition of the term - Traditional Orthodox... Quickly and without extensive elaboration, I can say that: Orthodox who base their Faith and theology on the theology of the Early Church Fathers, and NOT on a compilation of that theology by contemporary individuals, are Traditional Orthodox. It does not mean that we are rejecting contemporary theology a-priory, but rather, we judge contemporaries based on theology of the Fathers. If they comply with the Fathers, like Prof. Lossky, we accept them. Again, this is very short definition.
Cebactokpatop (talk) 21:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
This understanding of 'traditional Orthodox' seems to me to be somewhat idiosyncratic. Far more normal, in my view, would be the understanding of Holy Tradition expressed by, e.g. Elder Cleopa, when he says that 'Holy Tradition is the life of the Church in the Holy Spirit'.[3] (Elder Cleopa is a Romanian Elder widely respected amongst traditionalist Orthodox.)
I find your comments on Lossky surprising. Lossky is not normally held in traditionalist Orthodox circles to be a paradigm of contemporary conformity to the Fathers. For a traditionalist Orthodox critique of Lossky's views on tradition see footnote 6 of the following article on tradition, published by the Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies. I might even say that the notion of a traditionalist Orthodoxy which uses Lossky as a paradigm of fidelity to the tradition is something of a novelty...
It seems to me that what you are describing as the character and boundaries of 'traditional Orthodoxy' does not represent anything other than your own personal position. I would be grateful if you would give examples of some Bishops and Theologians (preferably from around the world, and not just from one jurisdiction) which advocate your form of 'traditional Orthodoxy'. Could you provide such examples? Seminarist (talk) 03:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
The article doesn't imply his views are held by the Orthodox community at-large, at least the way I read it, it explicitly states that there is some disagreement among members on whether his ideas are within the churches mantras. However, removing his title would be a problem on two fronts. First, it would be censoring a known fact in an attempt to remain neutral, and second, removing it would actually be a violation of WP:NPOV. Since the article doesn't expressly state that his views are the same views held by the church, I don't see an NPOV violation here. The article states his views, states the those that criticize his views, and those that defend them. That's as close to neutrality as you'll find in my opinion. Justin chat 07:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Justin, I was not advocating to remove his title. My intent is to clearly distinguish his title from his work. His title should not imply that his work complies with the title. Unless stated, it would. Also, couple of references to the critics of his work are removed as "extremist", or "potentially extremist". Second one is pure guess as Seminarist did not read the book. First one is his personal opinion and violation of WP:NPOV. Current article is for that reason not acceptable besides several other details like quotes around the word Traditional.
Cebactokpatop (talk) 13:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Oncemore, you are not telling the truth. I did not claim that that book (which is a Missionary booklet) was extremist; I said it was 'questionable and possible extremist'. You previously accused me without justification of being 'very low' and of making assertions 'bordering with the term - lies'; in fact, it seems to me that such allegations apply more to someone who repeatedly dissimulates through misquotation.
All that is needed is for the material to be unacceptable is that it be 'questionable'. The article Is the Theologian Ioannis Zizioulas proclaiming Orthodoxy? is quite clearly a questionable source. This is evident to anyone who reads the text. The article never once quotes Zizioulas, consists almost entirely of unsupported assertions, and then concludes we must state that Zizioulas’s theological style and argumentation can be proven deceitful, as he often stands too far from the truth. This man’ s individual thinking in no way represents the orthodox traditional theology but only personal and, at times, peculiar theological aspects having nothing to do with the common experience shared and faithfully practised by the great majority of orthodox believers down the Christian centuries. According to WP:SOURCES 'Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves.' Therefore, since this article is clearly a questionable source, it cannot be cited in the John Zizioulas article.
According to WP:PROVEIT, 'The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material'. That means that it is not up to me to prove that the missionary booklet IS a questionable source, but that it is up to you to prove that it is NOT a questionable source. Certainly, if the views on Zizioulas contained in that book are widespread enough to be 'traditional Orthodox' views, then you should be able to provide a widely-available source in English, and not have to cite a Missionary booklet published in Belgrade in Serbian. Seminarist (talk) 13:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
You are creating your own rules as what can be used as reference, and what not. For your own benefit, here is the official policy of Wiki: Non English Sources
Cebactokpatop (talk) 14:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, but I am already aware of these policies. I will take it that you accept that the on-line article is a questionable source. Now, would you be so kind as to explain why this Serbian missionary-booklet is not a questionable source? And would you tell me if you know of any widely-available reliable source in English which documents the views you are trying to promote? Seminarist (talk) 14:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You are dreaming. On line article is valid opinion of the faithful Orthodox in Italy.

Cebactokpatop (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It is obvious you have no answer to my points or questions. It is also obvious that you have no interest in achieving consensus, but only in using wikipedia as a means of publicising your own views. Seminarist (talk) 16:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposals for Resolution

In my opinion, there are two possible scenarios we can explore. Maintain neutrality of the article by:

  1. Balancing between two polarized views of his work. This would be problematic as it would require constant presence of the judges who would be setting quantities of the "pro" and "against" material, making sure that balance is maintained. How to make sure that judges are neutral?
  2. Keeping all material strictly factual. Article would include: biography, bibliography, references to written material of the other people whether "pro" or "against" his work. This option would have to refrain even from the explanation of his theology, as it would require counterweight from the Traditional Orthodox, thus turning it into option #1.

Cebactokpatop (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the first thing that needs to be done is for us all to recognise the difference between describing what somebody thinks and advocating or endorsing what they think. Then we can look for places in the article where Zizioulas' thought is endorsed rather than just described.
But as far as I can tell, the article in its present form is appropriately NPOV. Seminarist (talk) 01:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not. You have removed couple of references to the critics of his work tagging them as "extremist", or "potentially extremist". Second one is pure guess as you did not read the book. First one is your personal opinion and violation of WP:NPOV. Current article is for that reason not acceptable besides several other details like quotes around the word Traditional.

Cebactokpatop (talk) 13:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The article Is the Theologian Ioannis Zizioulas proclaiming Orthodoxy? is quite clearly a questionable source. This is evident to anyone who reads the text. The article never once quotes Zizioulas, consists almost entirely of unsupported assertions, and then concludes we must state that Zizioulas’s theological style and argumentation can be proven deceitful, as he often stands too far from the truth. This man’ s individual thinking in no way represents the orthodox traditional theology but only personal and, at times, peculiar theological aspects having nothing to do with the common experience shared and faithfully practised by the great majority of orthodox believers down the Christian centuries. According to WP:SOURCES 'Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves.' Therefore, since this article is clearly a questionable source, it cannot be cited in the John Zizioulas article. This is not simply my personal opinion, but Wikipedia policy.
According to WP:PROVEIT, 'The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material'. That means that it is not up to me to prove that the missionary booklet IS a questionable source, but that it is up to you to prove that it is NOT a questionable source. Certainly, if the views on Zizioulas contained in that book are widespread enough to be 'traditional Orthodox' views, then you should be able to provide a widely-available source in English, and not have to cite a Missionary booklet published in Belgrade in Serbian.
It has already been agreed that it violates WP:NPOV to equate the anti-Zizioulas position you advocate with 'traditional Orthodoxy', and that therefore the word 'traditional' should be avoided in the context of describing the views of those who oppose Zizioulas' thought. To avoid WP:WEASEL neutral language should be used. And to show that it is a disputed POV within Orthodoxy to equate 'traditionalist' Orthodox with fidelity to the Orthodox tradition, I can appeal to the authority of Fr Seraphim Rose, himself a traditional Orthodox.[4] Seminarist (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You are flooding this page with repeated text. It is considered abuse on all serious internet forums and treated as virus. Would you be so kind and stop with such a childish behavior?

Cebactokpatop (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Calm down - there is no need to resort to name-calling. If you ask me the same question, I'll give you the same answer. I'm repeating this text because you are not responding to the points I make. Now, are you willing and able to respond to these points, or will you just continue to hurl abuse? Seminarist (talk) 14:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I will stop this ping-pong with you, and continue conversation with Justin only.

Cebactokpatop (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's obvious that you don't have any answers to the points I have made or to the questions I have asked. Seminarist (talk) 15:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Mistake. I do not feel obliged to provide anything to the person that does not conform to the standard of WP:HONESTY. Proof is here: |Disgraceful Behavior by Seminarist - Proven

Cebactokpatop (talk) 16:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it. Ya missed this! CWii(Talk|Contribs) 17:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I did not miss it. Even though opinion described on WP:HONESTY page is not an official Wiki's policy, it is my personal policy based on my home education and religious affiliation.

Cebactokpatop (talk) 17:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

These repeated accusations of lying are false and malicious. I would like them removed please. Seminarist (talk) 17:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A few comments

First, I tend to agree that this article is relatively balanced. The sections that have a citation needed tag definitely need citations, as this is a biography article, criticisms should be well documented. Aside from that a few notes:

Balancing between two polarized views of his work. This would be problematic as it would require constant presence of the judges who would be setting quantities of the "pro" and "against" material, making sure that balance is maintained. How to make sure that judges are neutral?

We can never be positive that editors are neutral, however, that in of itself is never a reason to remove content. We have a variety of ways to ensure that articles are written in a neutral tone. In this case, if you still feel the article isn't, a request for comment might be a good option.

Keeping all material strictly factual. Article would include: biography, bibliography, references to written material of the other people whether "pro" or "against" his work. This option would have to refrain even from the explanation of his theology, as it would require counterweight from the Traditional Orthodox, thus turning it into option #1.

This is counterintuitive. The goal of Wikipedia is to describe notable subjects in as much detail as reliable sources allow. The subject of this article is notable because of his theology, and neutral coverage of his theology (in this case, explaining his views) is an important aspect of the article.

According to WP:PROVEIT, 'The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material'. That means that it is not up to me to prove that the missionary booklet IS a questionable source, but that it is up to you to prove that it is NOT a questionable source.

Nobody can prove a negative, so proving that a source is NOT reliable is quite impossible. When a sources reliability is called into question, a consensus must emerge on whether or not those sources are indeed unreliable. So, in a sense, both sides have a positive proof they must present. I've reviewed the reference that is in question [5], and I tend to agree that it's lacking in reliability. The article appears to be written by editors of Italia Ortodossa, however, I'm unable to determine what that is (is it a magazine, website, et al?). Furthermore, the translated version may or not be accurate, but without the link to the Italian version (and someone that speaks Italian better than I do) it's hard to make a determination. However, since this is a BLP, it is probably more appropriate to include references by known experts (ie, notable theologians) that disagree with the subject, as opposed to editorial boards of various periodicals. Justin chat 07:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I think we are substantially in agreement. I've had a look into Rodoljub Lazić's book Novatorsko bogoslovlje mitropolita Ziziulasa, and I don't have any great problem with it appearing in a bibliography of critics of Zizioulas' thought. I don't think it's any more extreme than the Turcescu article, which is there already.
For the record, I would always be suspicious when a contentious claim about an international figure (with a large critical secondary biography in English) is justified by an obscure book in an Eastern European language published by a Missionary Society - it's not quite the peer-reviewed academic material you'd be looking for.
So to me it looks like the way forward is:
  1. to purge the article of contentious terms 'traditional'/'traditionalist';
  2. to find references for, or remove, the other unsourced claims;
  3. to keep the article NPOV.
Best, Seminarist (talk) 08:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Information regarding the Italian magazine - Italia Ortodossa

Thanks for the suggestions Justin. I have to disagree with your qualification of the Italia Ortodossa. Simple Google search reveals everything about them:

  1. Official web site: http://www.italiaortodossa.it
  2. Founded in 1977, by the Fr. George Arletti of Modena, Italy.
  3. Responsible director: Georgios Karalis.
  4. In 1999, magazine gained recognition of all Orthodox jurisdictions in Italy.
  5. Director Georgios Karalis published 4 books so far (Church: Therapy for the Disease of the Man, pp.171; The Voice of the Fathers, pp. 225), and organized 3 conventions.
  6. His book is listed alongside other Orthodox authors like V. Lossky, J. Popovic, D. Staniloae, P. Evdokimov, etc. on the official website of the Orthodox parish in Milan, Italy: http://www.ortodossia.info

Based on all above facts, how anyone can possibly put down the claim that article is "unreliable"? I see two possibilities:

  1. Person is not informed who stands behind the magazine Italia Ortodossa.
  2. Person tries to hide the fact to which extent rejection of the theology of John Zizioulas had gone.

Justin, please review above information I have provided. Also, let me remind you that you can use Babel Fish Translator at: http://babelfish.altavista.com in order to read the Italian text on those websites. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cebactokpatop (talk • contribs) 17:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

What makes the Italia Ortodossa article unreliable is its content. It has already been agreed on by everyone except yourself that it is unsuitable because of WP:BLP. Seminarist (talk) 17:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Additional criticisms to be added to the article

Cebactokpatop (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The comment that Zizioulas is 'lamentable' is not appropriate according to WP:BLP. In any case, all that is quoted in the article is the simple assertion that Zizioulas is 'lamentable', not any reasons why, etc.
Archbishop Chrysostomos of Etna is not in fact an Orthodox bishop, but belongs to a schismatic fringe group, the so-called Holy Synod in Reistance, who are not in communion with any of the Churches of historic worldwide Orthodoxy (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Russia, Serbia, etc.) Accordingly, I don't think he constitutes a reliable source.
And if you look at the Word document that the interview with Abp Stylianos is taken from, again it looks decidedly unreliable as a source.
In general, these different sources are criticising Zizioulas on different grounds, from different standpoints, and for different reasons. It looks to me like you are just trying to dredge up anything you can to put as much negative material about Zizioulas as you can onto the John Zizioulas page. Seminarist (talk) 08:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zizoulas on Orthodoxwiki

I've just noticed that the article on Metropolitan John on Orthodoxwiki has had a similar discussion over the propriety of including this article from Italia Ortodossa, and that they also decided that the article was malicious and inappropriate for a BLP.[7]. Seminarist (talk) 22:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for mediation submitted

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/John Zizioulas —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cebactokpatop (talk • contribs) 13:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you both still interested in working this out? Please respond here - I have put this on my watchlist. Dorothy Kernaghan-Baez (talk) 23:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Positive. Cebactokpatop (talk) 01:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, yes - I'd like to get these issues sorted out. Seminarist (talk) 02:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


Okay, I'm going to go over the page history and do my own research on the subject. Please give me the weekend to get this done. I want each of you to know that I have no background on this topic and therefore no axe to grind. I look forward to working with both of you to help resolve your issues.

Dorothy Dorothy Kernaghan-Baez (talk) 04:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't heard from Dorothy for a while now, and I imagine you must be anxious to get this mediation on the road. I would like to give you a hand finding some common ground, and getting the article to a point you are both happy with. Do you both accept my help here? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 02:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your offer - it would be good if you could help. Seminarist (talk) 09:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you are welcome. Cebactokpatop (talk) 14:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I hope we can get this thing done soon. I will state some ground rules on the medcab page, and suggest that we work on the medcab talkpage for discussion, and use the medcab project case for things we have come to a consensus on. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Can you, please, provide the link to that page? Thanks. Cebactokpatop (talk) 18:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, certainly. You can find the mediation page here: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-03-05 John Zizioulas. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Excellent. How do we proceed? I have listed my objections on that page. They could be good starting point... Let's continue conversation there. Cebactokpatop (talk) 18:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I've started some discussion on the talkpage there. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cebactokpatop's new POV changes

Since there is still disagreement over the content of the page, and since you have requested formal mediation, to which I have agreed, please do not make changes to the page which re-introduce material which is the subject of our disagreement. Particularly, please do not introduce material which speaks about 'traditional Orthodox' opinion. The informal mediation and myself agreed that this expression violated WP:WEASEL and WP:NPOV. Your edit summary, which claimed that your changes were in line with the recommendations of informal mediation, was therefore incorrect. Seminarist (talk) 14:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I did not introduce anything. Just removed your ill opinion about the Traditional Orthodox, making the article NPOV. Also, removed reference to "Greeks" because no Greeks are mentioned in the subsequent text. And you are lying again. User user:Justin said: the section entitled ""Traditionalist" Orthodox Criticisms of Zizioulas" needs to explain WHO the "traditionalists" are. In addition, the quotes around the word "traditionalist" imply a negative connotation, so they should be removed. [8] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cebactokpatop (talk • contribs) 15:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Justin said 'If that's the case, the best option would be to use neutral language (remove the word traditionalist altogether). Title it "Criticisms of Zizioulas" and name, specifically, who is criticizing him. That is neutral, and avoids weasel words. 16:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)' So please retract your accusation of lying. Seminarist (talk) 15:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, he said CONDITIONALLY: If that's the case, the best option would be... responding to your ill rhetoric about the Traditional Orthodox. Since that is NOT the case, his first opinion that is UNCONDITIONAL is still valid and uncontested. Reading of his opinion would have saved you this new embarrassment. Cebactokpatop (talk) 15:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, since it is the case, there is no embarrassment. You are in violation of WP:CIVILITY again. Please stop making personal attacks. Seminarist (talk) 15:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
You have been caught in violating the WP:HONESTY again. Cebactokpatop (talk) 15:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I certainly have not. But WP:HONESTY includes assumption of good faith; hence you are violating WP:HONESTY, not me. I really can't be bothered with your accusations and insults any more. Seminarist (talk) 16:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
You broke WP:3RR rule. But, because I detected a sparkle of reason on your side, I would refrain from reporting you this time. Please, do not force me to rethink my decision. Cebactokpatop (talk) 16:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Warning! I will give you 15 minutes to revert your last addition before I report you. Cebactokpatop (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I haven't broken the 3RR. Please stop with your false charges and allegations. Really, I don't take your attacks seriously any more; I find your language, accusations - and now threats - very childish. Seminarist (talk) 16:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Evidence of influence of Metropolitan John on Bp Ignjatije Midic

According to the official site of the Serbian Orthodox Church, 'the theology of St. Maximus the Confessor and the theology of Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) left the deepest impressions upon' Bp Ignjatije, who 'considers his meeting and friendship with John Zizioulas in and of itself a gift of God.'[9] I think this link provides the citation needed to show that Metropolitan John has indeed been influential upon Bp Ignjatije. Seminarist (talk) 20:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notability of Zizioulas as a Theologian

Hi Cebactokpatop,

I'm not sure why you placed a tag on the statement that Zizioulas is a noted theologian; I've already given a reference to a survey of Orthodox theology by Rowan Williams showing that is the case. Are you questioning the reference? Seminarist (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

For the same reason you were removing valid academic sources of the criticism. Cebactokpatop (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Well none of the sources to which I have objected are valid academic sources. Now, if you actually have any good reason for objecting to the Rowan Williams article, could you pleace tell me what it is? Seminarist (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
That is yet another private opinion and is valid only within your own skull. Since you are a proven liar, I use that as valid reason to reject your private opinion with disgust. Cebactokpatop (talk) 19:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Do you have any good reason for objecting to the Rowan Williams article, and, if so, what? Seminarist (talk) 20:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


I don't know what is happening in USA, but in Greece Zizioulas is considered one of the most important modern theologians (for professor Hristos Giannaras he is "the most important since Gregory Palamas"), especially in the field of ecclestiastical history and history of doctrine, and some of his works are published by the official publishing house of the Orthodox Church of Greece. He is also a prominent member of the Academy of Athens, the most important cultural foundation of Greece--Vassilis78 (talk) 15:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

That does not matter. What matters is what is happening in Orthodoxy as a whole. People like J.Z. and his buddy Giannaras can tap each other's shoulders for as much as they want. That is not going to turn their heresies into Truth. Good portion of Orthodoxy is aware of the disease that comes from Greece these days. This article should reflect that fact.
Cebactokpatop (talk) 14:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Vassilis78. The fact is that almost nobody in world Orthodoxy objects to Metropolitan John of Pergamon in the way that Sebastokrator does. Sebastokrator's views represent a minority opinion adhered to only by himself and a handful of others (i.e. Sebastokrator's 'buddies'...) Every time someone presents evidence or makes a claim with which Sebastokrator does not agree, he simply abuses the person giving the evidence, or says that the evidence is not Orthodox (i.e. does not agree with his conception of Orthodoxy) and that therefore it does not count. It is not possible to discuss rationally with someone who adopts such an approach. Sebastokrator is a WP:SPA who is only concerned with promoting his own religious fringe-view. It is a shame that constructive editing of the John Zizioulas page has been obstructed by Sebastokrator for so long. Seminarist (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Cebactokpatop implies above that the Metropolitan is a heretic. This is utter nonsense! He is very much a mainstream Orthodox theologian. And given that no Orthodox Church has even alleged heresy, much less proven it, the claim by Cebactokpatop is clearly a fringe opinion, at best. --Allyne (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it is neither me, nor you who should make such a judgment about that man. It is The Church with it's canons who is called to judge his work and his actions. And, The Church said:
  1. Canons: 10th, 11th, 45th, 64th, 71st of the Holy Apostles
  2. Canons: 9th - Cartagene
  3. Canons: 6th, 32nd, 33rd, 34th, 38th - Laodicia
  4. Canons: 15th - Constantinople II

Cebactokpatop (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

No synod of bishops has accused, much less convicted, Metropolitan John of heresy of any kind. Unless and until that happens, Cebactokpatop's assertions are only his private opinions. --Allyne (talk) 20:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Informal mediation

[edit] Archimandrite Sophrony citation

Could we start the informal mediation by looking at the statements which are currently tagged as lacking sources?

The first of which is "Zizioulas has also been significantly influenced by the ascetical theology of Archimandrite Sophrony (Sakharov)".

Are there references to support this statement? PhilKnight (talk) 18:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, reference may be found in Fr. Nikolai Sakharov, I love therefore I am: The Theological Legacy of Archimandrite Sophrony (Crestwood, NY: SVS Press, 2002). Fr. Nikolai Sakharov is a nephew of Fr Sophrony, and a priest-monk of the Monastery of St John the Baptist in Essex, founded by Fr Sophrony. This book is the publication of his Oxford doctoral thesis, written under the supervision of Metropolitan Kallistos Ware. He writes: 'It is the personal-hypostatic dimension of Fr Sophrony's message that has been particularly drawn upon by other theologians, who in turn have influenced whole schools of thought. Metropolitan John (Zizioulas), renowned for his ecclesiology, acknowledges his debt to Fr Sophrony. [Here Fr. Nikolai cites Metropolitan John's article 'Theology is Ministry to the Church' (Russian translation by Bp Hilarion Alfeyev, in Tserkov i Vremya 3:6), in which Zizioulas makes explicit his debt to Fr Sophrony.] Zizioulas brought the christotrinitarian perspective of Fr Sophrony's theology to interactive dialogue with western scholars. Their response to the eastern theological challenge has stirred up an ongoing trinitarian discourse, embracing a wide range of theologians.' (p. 235)
In addition, there are a number of instances in the recent collection of Metropolitan John's essays, Communion and Otherness (London: Continuum, 2006), in which Zizioulas shows himself influenced by Fr Sophrony's theology (e.g. pp. 76, 83, 303-05).
I should add that I am aware of nowhere in print that anyone has ever denied that Metropolitan John has been influenced by the theology of Fr Sophrony.Seminarist (talk) 01:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt reply Seminarist, and sorry for not replying earlier. Looking at page 235 I concur the reference appears to be sufficient - unless there any objections I'll include the citation in the article. PhilKnight (talk) 23:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I've added the citation. PhilKnight (talk) 23:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I've just seen the citation, and I'm not sure why Ardyce V Czuchna-Curl is given as an author, as the copy of the book I have cites Nikolai Sakharov as the sole author? Seminarist (talk) 21:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ontology of personhood citation

Next, could we examine this statement?

"The primary focus of his work was to develop his own ontology of personhood derived from an extensive investigation of Greek philosphy, patristic era writings and modern rationalist philosophy."

Are there references which support this statement? Also, are there references that contradict this? PhilKnight (talk) 23:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this is slanted. First, saying "his own" strikes me as insinuating he is trying to be innovative, rather than faithful to the Orthodox tradition. Second, Zizioulas understands himself to be basing his work on the Greek Fathers and not Greek philosophy (which he said the Fathers "leavened"). Third, "patristic era writings" sounds like he is basing his work on non-patristic sources from the same era. Fourth, what "modern rationalist philosophy"? --Allyne (talk) 01:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Allyne, in your opinion, should the sentence be removed or replaced with something else? PhilKnight (talk) 19:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it is reparable as it, so my vote would be to remove it. I've just started a study of Zizioulas'recent book, Communion and Otherness, which I'll review in a month. At the time, I'd be happy to offer a better summary. --Allyne (talk) 02:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I'll remove the sentence unless there any objections. PhilKnight (talk) 09:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there is objection to that. His work should be clearly distinguished from the teachings of the Orthodox Church, as it is indeed - heterodox. His whole line of thought is not compliant with the Tradition of The Church, and whole dispute around this article is about that fact. While some people applaud to his work, Traditional Orthodox do not. He is innovator and his innovations are his own opinion that have nothing to do with The Church. Fact that he is (sadly) member of the Orthodox clergy do not make his work automatically Orthodox. Cebactokpatop (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
No Orthodox Church has accused, much less convicted, Zizioulas of heresy. If there is a private "opinion" involved here, it is that of Cebactokpatop. All he can reasonably say is that a few individual writers have said they don't believe Zizioulas' work is consonant with Orthodox teaching, but that is it. The statement as written is silly. As I am reading Communion and Otherness at the moment, it is clear on every page that Zizioulas is basing his work on the Cappadocian Fathers and St Maximus Confessor, and using that patristic theology to answer mistaken secular philosophers and Western theologians. --Allyne (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
And since no Orthodox Church has criticized, much less condemned, Zizioulas, I'd like to see specific references on what "patristic era sources" he is using that aren't Church Fathers, what specific "modern rationalist philosophy" he is using, etc. --Allyne (talk) 16:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Orthodox people know that what is not accepted in The Church as a whole, it is questionable, if not heterodox. There is no need to "accuse" or "convict" heresies unless they become so big that pose threat for The Church. Spirit of Orthodoxy does not work as westerners are accustomed to. Cebactokpatop (talk) 18:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and most Orthodox people who know Zizioulas' work acknowledge him as an Orthodox theologian, and Orthodox theologians such as Bishop Kallistos Ware, Christos Yannaras, Aristotle Papanikolaou, etc., see him as an outstanding Orthodox theologian. So let's see those specific citations about where you believe he has gone off the track. --Allyne (talk) 18:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I am here to prove you wrong. References I provided represent denial of your assertion. Clique you mentioned are all well known innovators, ecumenists (heresy of all heresies) and what not. But, I am not here to argue with you. I am here to make sure that article about that man would include Traditional Orthodox opinion about his inventions. Cebactokpatop (talk) 19:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Your dismissal of major English-language and Greek Orthodox theologians as a "clique" demonstrates that your take on Zizioulas is marginal. You cite one English-language article by a Romanian that Papanikolaou has sufficiently answered in an article in the same journal. Let's have specific citations of materials in English that identify page numbers in Zizioulas' work where he relies on "modern rationalist philosophy" or patristic era sources against the Fathers. --Allyne (talk) 19:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Papanikolaou so dear to you in the article you mentioned (Is JZ an Existentialist in Disguise) proves it. His whole article is about "defence" of JZ's use of philosophy in his work... I would suggest you to read it before making any further statements. Cebactokpatop (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think so. Here is the abstract of the Papanikolaou article: "This essay responds to Lucian Turcescu's article, “ `Person' versus `Individual', and Other Modern Misreadings of Gregory of Nyssa”, Modern Theology Vol. 18 no. 4 (October, 2002) in which he argues that John Zizioulas's relational ontology of trinitarian personhood is indebted more to modern personalism and existentialism than to the Cappadocian Fathers. Turcescu's focus on Gregory of Nyssa does not warrant the claim that a relational ontology of personhood cannot be found within the thought of the Cappadocian Fathers. More substantively, Turcescu never addresses Zizioulas's interpretation of the Cappadocian affirmation of the monarchy of the Father, which, I argue, is central to Zizioulas's relational ontology insofar as such an ontology attempts to express the realism of divine-human communion." --Allyne (talk) 20:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Are you building a basis for your claim on an abstract? I won't waste my time with you here... Cebactokpatop (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Cebactokpatop's remarks are ill-mannered and violate WP:CIVILITY and WP:ETIQ. I hope the mediator will ensure that the tone of the discussion returns to a civil level.

I agree with Allyne that no Orthodox Church has accused Zizioulas of heterodoxy. I would add also that, according to WP:NOR, even if Cebactokpatop gives his own reasons for thinking Zizioulas is heterodox, they cannot be included in the article, since wikipedia does not publish original research.

Beyond this, I agree that the sentence is flawed and should be replaced. Here are my reasons:

  1. Zizioulas' work is not 'primarily focused' on the development of an ontology of personhood. Zizioulas' most substantial book to date, namely his doctoral thesis published as Eucharist, Bishop, Church is not concerned with the ontology of personhood, but with ecclesiology. Ecclesiology is a major focus of Zizioulas' thinking in the essays collected in L'Être Ecclesial, Being as Communion and Communion as Otherness (this is evident simply by viewing the table of contents of each volume).
  2. Within Orthodoxy, the time of the Fathers is not an era in the past (as it is sometimes spoken of by Roman Catholics and Anglicans), but extends through to the present day; therefore, I don't think the remark about a 'patristic era' is helpful here in describing the work of an Orthodox theologian.
  3. Zizioulas nowhere claims to develop 'his own' ontology of personhood. Rather, in Being as Communion, he describes his work as a contribution towards a 'Neopatristic synthesis' (the project of the Orthodox theologian Georges Florovsky, a teacher of Zizioulas).
  4. Zizioulas' work displays no evidence of him having undertaken an 'extensive investigation' of 'rationalist philosophy' (e.g. Leibniz, Spinoza et al).

In the light of these reasons, I would suggest the following sentence as a replacement: 'Metropolitan John has sought to develop an ontology of personhood as a contribution to a Neopatristic synthesis.' Seminarist (talk) 21:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Cebactokpatop, if you want to keep the sentence in question, then could you provide references? Also, in order to prevent the discussion becoming heated, it would be helpful to avoid giving personal opinions about whether the subject of the article should be considered part of Orthodox Christianity. PhilKnight (talk) 21:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Seminarist's proposed sentence. No, I was not building a case based on an abstract. The point of printing the abstract was to respond to the assertion that Papanikolaou's "whole article is about 'defence' of JZ's use of philosophy in his work... I would suggest you to read it before making any further statements." I've read the article and, as the abstract suggests, the article is written to correct a misreading of Zizioulas' use of the Cappadocians. Papanikolaou also does this in his Being with God, especially pages 154-159. Papanikolaou also points out that some of Turcescu's complaints against Zizioulas can be applied equally to Lossky, whom Cebactokpatop holds up as the true Orthodox alternative to Zizioulas. --Allyne (talk) 22:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requested references

[edit] Is Jonh Zizioulas an Existentialist in Disguise? Response to Lucian Turcescu, by Aristotle Papanikolaou, Modern Theology 20:4, October 2004

  • Criticism of John Zizioulas's relational ontology of trinitarian personhood generally rebukes him for attempting to dress his philosophical personalism and existentialism with Cappadocian language and parade it as patristic. A relational ontology is not what the Cappadocians are up to, so the argument goes, and it has more to do with modern philosophical trends. Lucian Turcescu gives the most recent and, perhaps, sharpest expression of this critique. (str 601)
  • Turcescu indicates that Martin Buber and John Macmurray are the most substantial influences. But Zizioulas does not appear to hide the fact that both Buber and Macmurray have influenced his thought. Turcescu himself cites Zizioulas's references to Buber. Zizioulas has also cited Macmurray. He even gives credit to Pannenberg for helping him to articulate thoughts concerning personhood that he was "struggling to express". (str 604)
  • Zizioulas himself has admited to me in private conversations that the thought of Martin Buber did influence his understanding of personhood. He did not mention John Macmurray. (footnote 13)

[edit] Theo-Ontology: Notes on the Implications of Zizioulas' Engagement With Heidegger, by Marilynn Lawrence, MA (Phil.), Theandros, Volume 3, Number 2, Winter 2005/2006

  • Papanikolaou is correct to identify a conscious influence of Emmanuel Levinas on Zizioulas. He is also correct to point out that Zizioulas' interpretation of the Cappadocians as developing a "relational ontology of trinitarian personhood" is not far-fetched.

Cebactokpatop (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Based on the above references, I want to open new subtitle in the article named: "Non-christian and Heterodox Influences on his Thought", and add above citations. I will also provide influences on his work by French Catholic theologians Henri de Lubac and Yves Congar.

Cebactokpatop (talk) 01:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I object to such a subtitle, as it violates WP:WEASEL. It would be much better to add mention of influences on Zizioulas' thought in the appropriate sections of the article as it already stands. For example, any influence which Congar has had on Zizioulas falls within Zizioulas' ecclesiology; the influence of, e.g. Buber, on the other hand, would fall within his personalism. But in any case, it is best to do one thing at a time - just now, let's work out the task the mediator has set. Seminarist (talk) 02:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

In response to these quotes:

  1. No one disputes the contents of the Turcescu article; we all know it is polemically hostile to Zizioulas' thought. But Turcescu's claims have been rejected, both by Zizioulas himself (in Communion and Otherness) and in the Alan Brown article (already cited in the John Zizioulas article). As such, within contemporary theology, Turcescu's claims represent a disputed POV. But we are bound to adhere to the policy of WP:NPOV - so we cannot take Turcescu's disputed claims as facts; we cannot take Turcescu's article to establish that Zizioulas' thought is heterodox; and we cannot base the material in this article on Turcescu's POV claims.
  2. I don't think anyone disputes that Zizioulas has read and sometimes quotes Buber, Macmurray or Pannenberg. But this doesn't entail that his ontology of personhood derives from the thoughts of these philosophers and theologian. Nor is it necessarily the case that the aspects of their thought which Zizioulas refers are incompatible with Orthodox theology so that they can have no place in a neopatristic synthesis. To quote someone or to be influenced by someone does not make one heterodox - one would have to have imbibed from them a position which is heterodox. This is a matter of logic. Accordingly, these quotations don't show us that it is NPOV to call Zizioulas heterodox.
  3. I dispute whether the Lawrence article is a reliable source. An MA in philosophy (an undergraduate degree) hardly makes one an authority on Orthodox theology.

But I think we need to keep on track. The issue is whether or not we should keep or modify the sentence "The primary focus of his work was to develop his own ontology of personhood derived from an extensive investigation of Greek philosophy, patristic era writings and modern rationalist philosophy." I don't see anything in the quotes provided by Cebactokpatop that makes me change my earlier view that the sentence is best reworded to 'Metropolitan John has sought to develop an ontology of personhood as a contribution to a Neopatristic synthesis.' This seems to me to be NPOV and to avoid the difficulties I mentioned above.

Seminarist (talk) 01:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The citations Cebactokpatop gives don't prove his case. First, the mention of some Western philosophers does not suggest that the Papanikolaou's "whole article" is about defending Zizioulas' use of such philosophers. Second, he seems to think that the quotations establish that his thought is founded upon them; it is not. Third, he ignored Seminarist's point that Zizioulas is working on a Neo-patristic synthesis. Zizioulas interacts with several Western philosophers just as the Church Fathers interacted with philosophers such as Plato. Fourth, he is oblivious to the fact that Zizioulas addresses how Buber, et al, fall short of the patristic understanding of personhood. If his interaction with "non-Christian and heterodox influences" is somehow a bad thing and needs to be highlighted, then to be fair we will have to do that with most of the Church Fathers, as well as recent Orthodox theologians such as Lossky. --Allyne (talk) 02:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed revision of bibliography

Here is information for a more complete listing of Zizioulas' books available in English including two that are forthcoming:

  • Lectures in Christian Dogmatics. T&T Clark, 2009. ISBN 978-0567033154.
  • Remembering the Future: An Eschatological Ontology. T&T Clark, 2008. ISBN 978-0567032355.
  • Communion and Otherness: Further Studies in Personhood and the Church. T&T Clark, 2006. ISBN 978-0567031471.
  • Eucharist, Bishop, Church: The Unity of the Church in the Divine Eucharist and the Bishop During the First Three Centuries. Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2001. ISBN 978-1885652515.
  • Being and Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church. St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1997. ISBN 978-0881410297.

--Allyne (talk) 02:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this should all be in the article's bibliography. Seminarist (talk) 12:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
You can not list imaginary books that are "forthcoming". Cebactokpatop (talk) 12:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
If they have ISBN numbers already, they are not imaginary, but are either in press or shortly to be in press. Please show good faith in the edits of others. Seminarist (talk) 12:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response on Lawrence article

Cebactokpatop seems to miss the point of the article by Marilynn Lawrence, which is Zizioulas' position that the use of Heidegger is problematic for Orthodox theology. She opines: "I can only wonder what the outcome of Heidegger's thinking would have been had he been confronted from the outset with a more authentic reading of the Church Fathers, such as that of Zizioulas." Yes, she says that Levinas is an influence on Zizioulas. But Papanikolaou sees Levinas is influential upon Zizioulas in his critique of Heidegger, i.e., a Jewish philosopher (Levinas) influences Zizioulas in his critique of a secular philosopher (Heidegger). Why Cebactokpatop should understand this as a criticism of Zizioulas eludes me. --Allyne (talk) 03:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Seminarist (talk) 12:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I do not care what is the point of that article. In that article we find reference to the influence of the modern rationalist philosophy on the work of JZ. Influence can not exist prior to "extensive investigation..." Thus, sentence in question is true representation of the state of his work, whether you like it or not. Cebactokpatop (talk) 12:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Cebactokpratop, neither Heidegger nor Levinas are rationalists; they are phenomenologists. Which rationalist philosophers influenced Zizioulas? Seminarist (talk) 12:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, I do not care what type of philosophy influenced him. The fact is - he is influenced by philosophy. If you want to replace word "rationalist" with more precise type, that is fine with me. If you can group all of his influences: Heidegger, Levinas, Buber, Macmurray, etc. ... under one type, feel free to propose the word. Cebactokpatop (talk) 13:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you accept then that you were previously incorrect to maintain that Zizioulas has been influenced by modern rationalist philosophy? If so, we can agree that Zizioulas was not influenced by rationalist philosophy. Seminarist (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
If you do not have replacement word, I will propose to replace "rationalist" with "existentialist". Cebactokpatop (talk) 13:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
You're avoiding my question. Do you now accept that Zizioulas is not influenced by rationalism? Seminarist (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I do not feel obliged to answer any of your questions. Since you do not have replacement word, I understand that mediator will go ahead and replace it with "existentialist". Cebactokpatop (talk) 13:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok. If you are unable to admit you were incorrect, that's up to you. But 'existentialist' is not an appropriate term. Levinas, Buber, Macmurray and Pannenberg are not existentialists, and Heidegger can only with difficult by characterised as one. There is no one school of thought to which all these thinkers belong. Seminarist (talk) 13:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zizioulas on Buber, Levinas, and Macmurray

In the first chapter of Communion and Otherness, Zizioulas surveys 20th century Western thinking on personhood in Husserl, Heidegger, and Sartre, and then discusses how two Jewish thinkers – Buber and Levinas – make significant philosophical advances over them. However, he then goes on to show how both Buber and Levinas fall short of patristic thinking on personhood. He clearly sees Levinas as coming closest to the patristic understanding, but he points out how, e.g., Dionysius the Areopagite and St Maximus Confessor are superior to Levinas. The same is true of Macmurray, whom Zizioulas credits as having made an insightful critique of other Western views on personhood; he does not, however, base his own thinking of that of Macmurray. Interacting with non-Orthodox philosophers, and acknowledging what is worthwhile and what is deficient in their thinking when compared to the Church Fathers, is not a reason to criticize Zizioulas. The same criticisms have been made of Lossky. In neither case do they hit the mark. --Allyne (talk) 03:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Seminarist (talk) 12:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
And what is the purpose of all this blah blah? Cebactokpatop (talk) 12:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
We are discussing is the sentence "The primary focus of his work was to develop his own ontology of personhood derived from an extensive investigation of Greek philosphy, patristic era writings and modern rationalist philosophy". You suggested we keep that sentence, and provided bibliographical references which you took to support your claim. Allyne and myself have both shown that your references do not justify your claim and do not warrant keeping the sentence under question. That is what the 'blah blah' is about. We are responding to points you made. Please keep on track. Seminarist (talk) 12:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Using Zizioulas to prove Zizioulas is right? ahahahahahahah... LOL :o)))) I trash your blah blah as utter nonsense. Cebactokpatop (talk) 12:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Cebactokpatop, I suggest you strike the above uncivil remark. PhilKnight (talk) 12:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
What exactly is "uncivil"? Exposing utter nonsense? Cebactokpatop (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone who says he is "traditional Orthodox" should be more concerned about how he treats others. The Church Fathers, the Fathers of the Philokalia, the New Testament writers (I'm thinking especially of St James and St Paul), and our Lord himself had some strong words to say against people who speak ill of their brother. That goes for how you speak to others in this forum, as well as how you speak ill of a bishop of the Church. If you are truly Orthodox, you will be praying the Lenten prayer of St Ephrem these days: "O Lord and Master of my life, give me not the spirit of sloth, idle curiosity/meddling, lust for power and idle talk. But grant unto me, Thy servant, a spirit of chastity, humility, patience and love. Yea, O Lord and King, grant me to see mine own faults and not to judge my brother. For blessed art Thou unto the ages of ages. Amen." Disagreement is one thing, but the spirit of that disagreement and its expression are another. --Allyne (talk) 13:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh great... Now personal attacks. How about focusing on the article? Cebactokpatop (talk) 13:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
That wasn't a personal attack which Allyne made. A personal attack was when Cebactokpatop said to me (earlier on this page): 'If you are by any chance real seminarist of some Orthodox Seminary, I can only be sorry for those faithful Orthodox people who would, in some future, be exposed to the clergy like yourself.' When you speak in such ways, you violate WP:CIVILITY and WP:NPA (whose requirements are, admittedly far lower than those of Orthodoxy). Like Allyne, I am perplexed at how Cebactokpatop can speak in such a way and also claim to be a traditional Orthodox. But what I think we would all like would be for Cebactokpatop to stop making incivil remarks, and to work constructively to the achievement of consensus. At present it looks like, whenever Cebactokpatop has no answer to something someone says, Cebactokpatop just turns to incivility and insults. Seminarist (talk) 13:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Focusing on the article - there don't appear to be citations which directly support the sentence in question. PhilKnight (talk) 13:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I beg your pardon? Did you read the references I have provided? Cebactokpatop (talk) 13:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The sentence is:
"The primary focus of his work was to develop his own ontology of personhood derived from an extensive investigation of Greek philosphy, patristic era writings and modern rationalist philosophy."
The references you have provided don't appear to directly support this statement. PhilKnight (talk) 13:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  1. Greek philosophy is cited all over his book Being as Communion. If you want me to provide references, not a problem. He could not possibly cite that without prior "extensive investigation". Right?
  2. Patristic era writings I did not care about as other side in the dispute have no problem with that.
  3. Modern rationalist philosophy influence is addressed in the references I provided. Zizioulas even personally confessed to Papanikoloau that he was influenced. What is questioned at the moment is not whether that influence exists, but, whether by "rationalists" or some other types of philosophers. I suggest to replace word "rationalist" with "existentialist".

Cebactokpatop (talk) 13:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Since other party does not want to caracterize the influences, we wil lhave to name them. I propose to replace word "rationalist" with names: Levinas, Buber, Macmurray, Pannenberg and Heidegger. Cebactokpatop (talk) 13:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Cebactokpatop has been unable to provide any good reasons for maintaining the sentence as it is. It seems to me that the consensus is to replace it with 'Metropolitan John has sought to develop an ontology of personhood as a contribution to a Neopatristic synthesis.'

I suggest that at specific points where Zizioulas uses (to a significant extent) the work of the philosophers and theologians which Cebactokpatop has mentioned, we add mention of the fact where the article discusses those aspects of Zizioulas' thought. That will be more informative than a list of five or six names. Seminarist (talk) 14:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Rejected. This is attempt to minimize the fact that JZ based his work on philosophy, trying to parade it as patristic. Cebactokpatop (talk) 14:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Cebactokpatop, that is your private POV. You have no evidence that Zizioulas 'bases his work on philosophy'. I appeal to the mediator to do something here. It is clear that Cebactokpatop is only interested in derailing any progress on the John Zizioulas article, through incivility and obstructive blocks. Seminarist (talk) 14:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I think we have established the sentence should be kept in a modified form. The following is merely a suggestion:
John Zizioulas has developed an ontology of personhood based on an extensive investigation of Greek philosophy, and influenced by modern philosophy.
PhilKnight (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don’t know of any suggestion that Zizioulas uses any Greek philosophy other than that of the Church Fathers. His sources are the Cappadocian Fathers and St Maximus Confessor in particular. I’d suggest:

"Zizioulas has developed an ontology of personhood grounded in the work of the Cappadocian Fathers and St Maximus Confessor, but in dialogue with recent philosophers of personhood, particularly Emmanuel Levinas." --Allyne (talk) 18:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

All of the proposed is not precise enough, besides repeated attempt to minimize the influence that even Zizioulas himself admitted. Acceptable sentence would be: "The primary focus of his work was to develop his own ontology of personhood derived from an extensive investigation of Greek philosophy, patristic era writings and modern philosophers like: Levinas, Buber, Macmurray, Pannenberg and Heidegger."

In addition to that, references I supplied should be included after proper formatting as per Wiki's standards.

Cebactokpatop (talk) 19:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Our edits have overlapped. Please see my discussion below. I just don't agree that the sentence should say that Zizioulas 'develops his own ontology of personhood', since that implies his ontology of personhood is his own invention. I don't agree that his ontology is only concerned with personhood. Also, Pannenberg is not a philosopher. Seminarist (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
We can separate Pannenberg from the philosophers, and add him together with the De Lubac and Congar to the group of heterodox theologians. So, the sentence would read: "The primary focus of his work was to develop his own ontology of personhood derived from an extensive investigation of Greek philosophy, patristic era writings and modern philosophers like: Levinas, Buber, Macmurray and Heidegger. His work was also influenced by heterodox theologians like: Pannenberg, Henri de Lubac and Yves Congar." And yes, his ontology of personhood is his own invention. His attempt to "Christianize" mentioned philosophers' relational ontology is his own idea, resulting in his own version of ontology of personhood, that is far from Tradition of The Church, rendering him - heterodox. Cebactokpatop (talk) 03:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you have provided no evidence showing that Zizioulas' ontology is 'his own invention'. Nor have you provided evidence showing that Zizioulas tries 'to "Christianize" mentioned philosophers' relational ontology'. Neither have you provided evidence showing that Zizioulas is 'heterodox'. Once again, you are ignoring all the reasons presented against your claims. Maybe you are incapable of reasoning, and able only to hurl around crass insults. Or maybe you are just trying to prevent anyone from developing the John Zizioulas article in a balanced and NPOV fashion, free from your own anti-Zizioulas fringe-view agenda. Either way, until such time as you are prepared to engage constructively with the reasons and suggestions other people give and make, I doin't think there is much point in continuing to discuss with you. Seminarist (talk) 04:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
If his ontology is not his own, we will have to reword the sentence to say: "The primary focus of his work was to plagiarize ontology..." If that is the way you would prefer it, we would have to find name(s) of the people he plagiarized. Cebactokpatop (talk) 12:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Further Suggestions on the Opening Sentence of the Section Theological Ontology

I want to make a couple of comments here regarding the sentence we are considering.

Zizioulas' ontological thought is developed principally in the first two chapters of Being as Communion, and the paper 'Human Capacity and Incapacity' which has been reprinted in his new book Communion and Otherness.

In the first section of the first chapter of Being as Communion ('From Mask to Person: the Birth of an Ontology of Personhood'), Zizioulas rejects classical Greek philosophy as unable to provide an ontologically adequate understanding of personhood. In the second section ('From Biological to Ecclesial Existence: The Ecclesiological Significance of the Person'), Zizioulas develops a contrast between the mode of personal existence in the Church ('ecclesial existence') from that of personal existence outside the Church ('biological existence'). In this second section, Zizioulas opposes Sartre and Heidegger and develops certain themes from Dostoevsky. On p. 45, Zizioulas says that Levinas is correct in criticising Heidegger's Sein und Zeit on the grounds that it makes being inseparable from the comprehension of being.
In the second chapter of Being as Communion, Zizioulas rejects the interrelated understandings of truth, being and history found in classical Greek philosophy, and endorses the understandings of truth, being and history which he finds in the writings of St Maximus the Confessor.
In the paper 'Human Capacity and Incapacity', Zizioulas opposes the idea that the human being can be understood in the ontological concepts of classical Greek philosophy, or that the human being can be understood adequately as an individual substance of a rational nature. Zizioulas argues instead that true personhood is found in God, and is ecstatic and communal, not individual. At no point in the article does he base any theological contention upon a non-Orthodox source. What he does do is accept (on p. 209) Heidegger's claim that the Latin notion of natura 'reinforced the Western approach to nature as an objectified substance.' He accepts (on p. 212) that a number of analytical philosophers are correct in rejecting philosophically the notion of person as individual. On p. 213, he explicitly refuses to accept that Heidgger's notion of ekstasis can be taken over into Orthodox theology. And when he mentions Buber, Macmurray and Pannenberg, he does not base his position on theirs, but says that they are 'representative examples' of 'the understanding of the person as a relational category in our time'. (pp. 212-13).

Firstly, it is clear from this that Zizioulas' ontological thought is not only concerned with personhood, but also with being, existence, truth and history. Therefore we should not say that Zizioulas is only concerned with developing an ontology of personhood. This is only part of his ontological project.

Secondly, Zizioulas does not borrow ideas from classical Greek philosophy, but only ever criticises them. So we should not say that Zizioulas' position is based on classical Greek philosophy.

Thirdly, Zizioulas does not derive any theological notions from Heidegger, Levinas, Buber, Macmurray or Pannenberg. Rather, he sometimes accepts that they are correct on historical points; he sometimes agrees with criticisms they make of other philosophers; and he sometimes sees them as exemplifying positions which are (to a certain degree) harmonious with his own. There is nothing here that justifies saying that Zizioulas bases his theological ontology on these thinkers.

Beyond this, Zizioulas is explicit that his project is intended as a contribution to a Neopatristic synthesis. In Being as Communion, p. 26, Zizioulas says that his studies are 'intended to offer their contribution to a "neopatristic synthesis" capable of leading the West and the East nearer to their common roots, in the context of the existential quest of modern man.' To develop a neopatristic synthesis is not the same thing as developing one's own ontology of personhood on the basis of non-patristic thinkers. Therefore it would be wrong of us to characterise Zizioulas' project as developing such an idiosyncratic ontology of personhood.

Accordingly, in the light of the foregoing, I would like to propose the following sentence:

'Metropolitan John has sought to develop a theological ontology emphasising the notions of personhood, truth and history, as a contribution to a Neopatristic synthesis "in the context of the existential quest of modern man". In developing this ontology, Zizioulas has drawn particularly on the work of the Cappadocian Fathers and St Maximus the Confessor, entering into dialogue with aspects of the philosophical thought of Martin Heidegger, Martin Buber and Emmanuel Levinas.'

I hope this meets with agreement. Seminarist (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

How about this? "Metropolitan John has developed "a relational ontology in which communion constitutes the key idea for ecclesioolgy as well as anthropology" (Communion and Otherness, xiii). His ontology draws particularly on the Cappadocian Fathers and St Maximus the Confessor, engaging aspects of the philosophy of Martin Heidegger, Martin Buber, and Emmanuel Levinas."--Allyne (talk) 20:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You're quoting Rowan Williams :-) Yes, I'm happy with that formulation. The only thing is that, since it encompasses both his ecclesiology and his ontology, perhaps this sentence should go earlier in the article, say in the initial paragraph of the 'Theology' section? Then we could mention the different influences, etc. all in that paragraph. I wonder if that would be a way round the impasse? I'd still like some mention of the neopatristic synthesis bit, maybe to follow the sentence you propose? And maybe we could also add a paragraph further down about Metropolitan John's thinking on being and history? Seminarist (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No, what I quoted is from the Metropolitan's preface, not Williams' foreword. I think those suggestions are good. --Allyne (talk) 21:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected! Seminarist (talk) 21:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Do make those changes. Email me sometime. --Allyne (talk) 21:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. Here's an idea: the opening paragraph of the 'theology' section could read something like:

Metropolitan John has developed "a relational ontology in which communion constitutes the key idea for ecclesiology as well as anthropology" (Communion and Otherness, xiii), as a contribution to a Neopatristic synthesis "in the context of the existential quest of modern man" (Being as Communion, 26). Zizioulas' ontology draws particularly on the Cappadocian Fathers and St Maximus the Confessor, engaging aspects of the philosophy of Martin Heidegger, Martin Buber, and Emmanuel Levinas. His ecclesiology is indebted to the Russian émigré theology of Nikolai Afanassieff. Zizioulas has also been significantly influenced by the ascetical theology of Archimandrite Sophrony (Sakharov), founder of the Stavropegic Monastery of St John the Baptist in Essex, England.

Seminarist (talk) 21:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I like that. My only question is whether to capitalize 'neopartistic.' Due to a hard drive crash, I've temporarily lost my access to the OED. --Allyne (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure. In French it wouldn't be capitalized; and in Being and Communion it's not either. Maybe best to put it in lowercase? Seminarist (talk) 21:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I just checked a couple of sources -- The Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern Christianity and A Companion to the Philosophy of Religion (also from Blackwell). Both references use lowercase. --Allyne (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok then - shall we say (I've changed a little of the phrasing):

Metropolitan John has developed "a relational ontology in which communion constitutes the key idea for ecclesiology as well as anthropology".[1] He has intended that this contribute to a neopatristic synthesis "in the context of the existential quest of modern man".[2] Zizioulas' ontology draws particularly on the Cappadocian Fathers and St Maximus the Confessor, engaging aspects of the philosophy of Martin Heidegger, Martin Buber, and Emmanuel Levinas. Zizioulas' ecclesiology is indebted to the Russian émigré theology of Nikolai Afanassieff, whilst his thought more generally has been significantly influenced by the ascetical theology of Archimandrite Sophrony (Sakharov),[3] founder of the Stavropegic Monastery of St John the Baptist in Essex, England.

? Seminarist (talk) 22:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good. As it happens, I just finished reading the following by Metropolian John: "The Holy Trinity and the imago Dei, two thoroughly patristic ideas which no existentialist or any other modern philosophy would use, are the only proper basis for theological personalism" (Communion and Otherness, 95n.).--Allyne (talk) 01:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Rejected. Cebactokpatop (talk) 03:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Once again, Cebastokpatop does not engage reasonably with anyone else's contributions. He gives no reasons for his rejection; he just ignores all the arguments and suggestions made by others which don't agree with his own anti-Zizioulas prejudices. Seminarist (talk) 04:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
How to "engage reasonably" with contributions that are utter nonsense? I will have to place myself onto same level in order to "engage", and that would be an insult to my intelligence. Cebactokpatop (talk) 12:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Cebactokpatop, I don't think your remarks are very productive. Could you give further details as to your objections?--PhilKnight (talk) 13:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It should be clear to the moderators by now that Cebactokpatop is more concerned with insulting everyone who disagrees with him than with making any progress on this article. I humbly suggest that it is time to block him. --Allyne (talk) 13:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Current practice regarding disruptive editors is described here - the next step would probably be a request for comments on user conduct.--PhilKnight (talk) 13:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Your repetitive siding with the other party in dispute, and after my warning, lead me to only remaining possibility - I REJECT you as mediator. Please mark this informal mediation as FAILED, so that we can move on. Thank you. Cebactokpatop (talk) 14:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

A request for user comments has been created at [[10]]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allyne (talk • contribs) 15:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Turcescu revisited

I’ve been re-reading the article by Turcescu. The first thing to say is that he never says anything outrageous about Zizioulas, i.e., he never accuses him of heterodoxy or heresy. Second, he never claims that Zizioulas’ views on personhood are mistaken. His claims are, rather, as stated succinctly in his conclusion: “Zizioulas is therefore in error when he contends that the Cappadocians did not understand a person as an individual or when he credits them with having the same concerns we moderns have when combating individualism today” (Turcescu, 537). Third, I think that Turcescu’s arguments are more than adequately answered by both Papanikolaou and Zizioulas himself (in Communion and Otherness, 171-177). --Allyne (talk) 19:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the issue ever has been what Turcescu or Papanikolaou say. I think it is evident that the basic issue is the behaviour of Cebactokpatop, who is intent on trying to use the John Zizioulas page to defame the Metropolitan. I don't think we can really hope to resolve anything regarding the article until the issues with Cebactokpatop are resolved. I think that then we could make lots of improvements to this page. But I don't want to waste lots of time making reasonable points only to have them rejected by someone who is only interested in wrecking constructive proposals. Seminarist (talk) 21:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Formal Mediation Submitted

Requests_for_mediation/John_Zizioulas —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cebactokpatop (talk • contribs) 19:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Following the consistently disruptive and incivil behaviour of Cebactokpatop on the two previous attempts at mediation, it is clear to me that he is not genuinely interested in mediation. I therefore do not think it appropriate to attempt a third round of mediation with him. The fundamental issue is the behaviour of Cebactokpatop, not the contents of the John Zizioulas article. Seminarist (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Seminarist. I've watched the mediation attempts here and think they have been unproductive. Priot to Cebactokpatop filing the request for formal mediation, Allyne requested a comments page on User Cebactokpatop. I think that is the way to go. --Fr Lev (talk) 21:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that appears to be the easiest way... "eliminate" me, and get open hands to applaud your guru Zizioulas in this place any way you like. Cebactokpatop (talk) 12:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

More incivility from Cebactokpatop. Seminarist (talk) 14:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lazic missionary pamphlet

The anti-Zizioulas missionary pamphlet by Lazic may be found here. Seminarist (talk) 23:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Getting on with it

How long before we can return to working on this page? --Fr Lev (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] About the book of Rodoljub Lazic

The book represents analysis of the various writings, interviews, statements, etc. of John Zizioulas, with the comments exposing heterodoxy of that man. Here are some examples taken out of the book (my poor translation into English):

Zizioulas wrote: "To be created means to be mortal, and creation is under constant threat of absolute annihilation. Death is characteristic of the creation." (Христологија и постојање I, стр. 179, 180); and further "...to be created means to incur the death as return to unbeing, to nothingness... The death is corporal part of the creation..." (Христологија и постојање II, стр. 125)

Mr. Lazic, in his response to the above statements, quotes Church fathers, at the same time, asking the question: If JZ is right, how possibly God could say after He finished the creation of the world: "God looked at what he had done, and it was good"?

Fathers Mr. Lazic quotes:

  • St. John Damascus (Exact exposition of the Orthodox Faith II,12).
  • St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechesis IV,18 и 23).
  • St. Iraneus of Lyon: (Against Heresies II,4).
  • St. Athanasius the Great: (Against Barbarians 32,33).

Almost the whole book is in that tone. He is using patristic writings to expose heterodoxy in the thought of John Zizioulas. The book can be "Anti-Zizioulas" to those who have no idea what Orthodoxy is all about. More precise definition of the book would be - the book puts the thought of John Zizioulas to the public shame in the world of real Orthodoxy.

Cebactokpatop (talk) 19:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another Example of Heterodoxy of JZ

This example taken out of the book of Mr. Lazic is dealing with the heterodox thought of JZ in relation to the homosexuality. In the interview, being asked about his opinion on the matter of homosexuality, JZ answered (my poor translation into English):

John Zizioulas said: "If homosexuality is considered as sin... The Church has to accept homosexuals. Of course, they will undergo transformation in the extent possible, as there are natural limitations which can not be overcome."

Mr. Lazic, in his response to the above statement after extensively quoting the Bible where homosexuality is clearly defined as sin, writes: "Metropolitan says 'IF homosexuality..' leaving the possibility that it is not a sin. What is it if it is not sin? Resolution to this question we find at the end of the answer, where Metropolitan talks about 'transformation to the extent possible', because of 'natural limitations..' Besides uncertainty of his answer, we can recognize in his thought that homosexuality is disease, perhaps incurable, as some limitations 'can not be overcome'... Such an opinion may share some contemporary psychiatrists and Metropolitan, but, Holy Scriptures and Holy Fathers - do not."

Cebactokpatop (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to provide a quote from Metropolitan John, it would be good to at least give the English title of the book it comes from, even if you don't have the English translation of it at hand. The quote you give is not given any context, and the conclusion Lazic and you draw from it is inconsistent with Metropolitan John's theology. --Fr Lev (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Above JZ writings are taken out of the official Eparchial magazine. Title of the article in that magazine was: "Christology and Existence" (my translation of the above references).
Cebactokpatop (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Sentences without context and containing ellipses are not adequate for evaluating someone's theology. --Fr Lev (talk) 20:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


I don’t see anything in the quotation from Metropolitan John that is in disagreement with the Church Fathers that C says RL cites. Metropolitan John certainly believes that God called the creation God. He is clearly talking about creation after the Fall, when St Paul says death entered the world.

To say that “[a]lmost the whole book [of RL’s] is in that tone” is not a commendation. What has been presented thus far seems the worst kind of proof-texting that does a disservice to the Church Fathers, as well as to Metropolitan John.

As to C’s claim that RL’s book holds the Metropolitan up “to the public shame in the world of real Orthodoxy,” this is so far removed from reality that I don’t know how to answer it. --Fr Lev (talk) 01:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there ANY place in his writings, where he acknowledges the state of the man before fall, that is compliant with the St. Athanasius writing: "For God had made man thus (that is, as an embodied spirit), and had willed that he should remain in incorruption. But men, having turned from the contemplation of God to evil of their own devising, had come inevitably under the law of death. Instead of remaining in the state in which God had created them..."? Is there ANY? If you say that he always talks about the state after the fall, wouldn't that be a big hole in his theology? His heterodox assertion that the death is not result of our transgression, but natural part of our bios tells us that he does not even see the difference that fall produced, or at least, does not see it in Orthodox way.
I can tell you that I failed to find him talking anywhere about initial state of tha man before fall, about man having a soul, about eternal judgment of the wicked, etc. Think about it and let me know if you find it.
Cebactokpatop (talk) 13:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Well it seems you're not looking too hard:
  • The passage he quotes from St Athanasius which I mentioned above speaks about man first being 'called into being by the presence of and lovingkindness of the Word', and then [with the fall] being 'deprived of the knowledge of God and turned towards things which do not exist', and being 'deprived of the benefit of existing forever'. This clearly is talking about prelapsarian and postlapsarian states.
  • The page after the paragraph from which you took the quote which you mistranslated begins a section entitled 'The Question of the Immortality of the Soul'.
  • As regards belief in future judgment, Metropolitan John says the Creed like the rest of us.
Oncemore, you have been able to provide nothing which shows Metropolitan John to be heterodox.
Why don't you end this anti-Zizioulas witchhunt you are on, and we can all get on with improving this wikipedia article?
Seminarist (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
If he speaks about the man being "deprived of the knowledge of God" he is not Orthodox, but RCC believer. He appears to be confessing RCC view of the fall, in which, man had lost completely his notion of God. In Orthodoxy, on the other side, man's notion of God is only blurred. God's image in man is only distorted, and not completely lost. Term "deprivation" is too harsh for Orthodox understanding of the fall, and more appropriate for RCC theology. Not surprising, as John Zizioulas is known as big lover of RCC. There is joke amongst RCC folks who keep saying that is Orthodox failed to ordain JZ to Episcopate, they would have ordained him to Bishopry.
Cebactokpatop (talk) 16:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cebactokpatop's possible mistranslation of Zizioulas

Cebactokpatop quotes from Zizioulas' paper Christology and Existence (originally published in Synaxi in 1982, then in French in Contacts in 1984-85, and now in English in Communion and Otherness).

Here is what Cebactokpatop quotes Zizioulas saying:

"To be created means to be mortal, and creation is under constant threat of absolute annihilation. Death is characteristic of the creation."

He then asserts that such a position is heterodox and that 'exposure' brings shame on Zizioulas.

Now, here is what Zizioulas actually says:

"precisely because Christian faith regards the nothing from which the world came forth as absolute 'non-being', creatureliness implies that death is a return to the nothingness of 'non-being'. Consequently, by definition, death is essentially nothing other than the threat of a return to nothingness, to the 'non-being' of the pre-creative state. It is something written into the very nature of what is created - no sooner created than mortal." (pp. 263-64).

And immediately following this quote, Zizioulas quotes St Athanasius, saying exactly the same thing as Zizioulas:

"For the transgression of the commandment turned them back to the state in accordance with their nature; so that just as they had come into being out of non-being, so were they now deservedly on the way to returning, through corruption, to non-being again. ... Man is mortal by nature, since he is made out of nothing." (St Athanasius, De Incarnatione 4, quoted on p. 264.)

From this, two things are clear:

  1. The quote provided by Cebactokpatop is a misquotation - he has misreported what Zizioulas has said in a vain attempt to present Zizioulas as heterodox.
  2. Zizioulas' position is not different from the Fathers - rather, he is agreeing with St Athanasius.

Far from bringing shame on Zizioulas, any 'shame' arising from Cebcatokpatop's edits heap upon his own head. Unable to find any legitimate quotes showing Zizioulas to be heterodox, Cebactokpatop has to stoop to the depths of misquotation.

And if Cebactokpatop has misquoted Zizioulas once, I don't trust him not to do it again. Cebactokpatop has shown himself to be an untrustworthy source. No quotation provided by Cebactokpatop should be trusted without independent corroboration.

In future, Cebactokatop, please provide reliable quotes, which may be verified by other editors.

Seminarist (talk) 02:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I have clearly stated that quotes I provided are my own translation. Thus, Seminarist expresses his malicious intents here.
What is clear from two citations he provided is malicious use of St. Athanasius by John Zizioulas. While St. Athanasius in context writing says: "For God had made man thus (that is, as an embodied spirit), and had willed that he should remain in incorruption. But men, having turned from the contemplation of God to evil of their own devising, had come inevitably under the law of death. Instead of remaining in the state in which God had created them...", Zizioulas took only the part he needed to "support" his heterodox thought.
Cebactokpatop (talk) 03:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The point is that you changed the meaning of what Zizioulas said, and missed out parts of what he said without noting that you had done so. Thereby you portrayed the Metropolitan as saying something different from what he said. That was not an accident on your part. But it was less than honest.
The quote from St Athanasius which you provide does not disagree with Zizioulas' position.
Zizioulas' thought is not heterodox. In all the discussion until now you have been utterly unable to provide ANY quotation which shows Zizioulas' thought to be heterodox. Obviously your edits are motivated by some personal POV, and not by any interest to produce a better wikipedia article.
Seminarist (talk) 03:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
If you have said so, that must be the case! Blind can not see, event the things that are brought right before them. It is well known that followers of some guru are blind about the falsehoods of their guru. What I am exposing here is not aimed at blind ones, but those who can see.
Cebactokpatop (talk) 12:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Heterodoxy of John Zizioulas in his book: Being as Communion

His book I will be quoting from is printed by: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, Crestwood, New York, 2002, paperback.

Page 49-50: "The eternal survival of person as a unique unrepeatable and free "hypostasis", as loving and being loved, constitutes the quintessence of salvation, the bringing of the Gospel to man. In the language of he Fathers this is called "divinization" (theosis), which means participation not in the nature or substance of God, but in His personal existence. The goal of salvation is that the personal life which is realized in God should also be realized on the level of human existence. Consequently salvation is identified with the realization of personhood in man."

That passage is heterodox in several ways:

  1. It is unscriptural. JZ states that divinization does NOT mean participation in the (divine) nature, while Scriptures are clear about that: "whereby he hath granted unto us his precious and exceeding great promises; that through these ye may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in that world by lust." (2 Pet 1,4 ASV)
  2. It is not known to the Fathers. Divinization (deification, theosis) in Orthodoxy literally means "...man might be made God" (St. Athanasius, On Incarnation) through partaking in the divine nature (2 Pet 1,4), more precisely, in God's Energies, and not Substance. JZ's mentioning of the Fathers is well known attempt of his to present his innovation as something compliant with Patristic theology.
  3. It makes no sense in Orthodoxy. In Orthodoxy, we know that humanity has it's beginning, and have no end (for example, St. Gregory Theologian, Oration 29, 13). Thus, existence of mankind is not in question, and to link salvation to the "level of human existence" does not make sense. It would make sense in one case only - if we are to believe that non-saved = non-existing. This statement, and those Mr. Lazic used in his book, are perfectly in line with each other, and they clearly designate John Zizioulas as a nihilist.

If we read more subsequent pages, up to page 65, we can easily find many confirmations to this conclusion. In those pages, we can find him taking about "dissolution and annihilation of the body", "disintegration of the hypostasis, which is death", etc. On page 52, we find another heterodox statement:

"..this 'failure' of the survival of the biological hypostasis is not the result of some acquired fault of a moral kind (a transgression), but of the very constitutional make-up of the hypostasis, that is, of the biological act of the perpetuation of the species."

What does he tell us here? That Adam was bound to death even before his fall. That death was always present in the creation, and not something that entered this world as a result of our transgression. To the Orthodox, there is no need to explain how HETERODOX this thought of JZ is.

[edit] Another point

In all of those pages, between 49 and 65, JZ talks about tragedy of "biological hypostasis", perspectives of the new one (ecclesial hypostasis) acquired through Baptism, and third one he had to invent to "explain" how the two mentioned (also invented) relate to each other - eucharistic hypostasis. He talks many times about "body" and "eros" when he tries to explain how they can survive... but NOT a single word mentioning - THE SOUL! Mankind he invented has NO souls! Souls do not exist in his anthropology.

[edit] Recap

Two extremely heterodox finds in this short revision of several pages of his book:

  1. John Zizioulas is anihilist.
  2. John Zizioulas does not believe that man has a soul.

Who preaches both of these heresies? Seventh Day Adventist cult.

Cebactokpatop (talk) 02:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Cebactokpatop:

  1. You are equivocating on the word 'nature'. As used within Orthodox theology, nature means essence. When Zizioulas says that in theosis we do not participate in the divine nature, he means (like St Gregory Palamas) that we do not participate in the divine essence (ousia). If Zizioulas is heterodox, then so is St Gregory Palamas. Vladimir Lossky's Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church is very clear on this point.
  2. In Orthodox theology, the eternal life of man is by grace, not by the potentialities of man's own nature. The passage from St Athanasius mentioned previously makes that clear.
  3. Re your remarks on existence, you really don't understand what Zizioulas is saying. He is not talking about the fact of man's existence, but about how he exists. According to Zizioulas, man has different ways of existing. Existing ecclesially is one way of existing; it is the way of existing of salvation. This is very clear in the opening chapter of Zizioulas' Being as Communion.
  4. I find your insinuation that Zizioulas is a Seventh Day Adventist ridiculous.

But in any case, your arguments cannot be included on the John Zizioulas page, since wikipedia does not allow original research.

Seminarist (talk) 03:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Not true. In Othodoxy, "essence" and "substance" are synonims. Nature is something completely different. Zizoulas is aware of that when he says: "participation not in the nature or substance of God".

So much about your knowledge of Orthodox theology.

Cebactokpatop (talk) 03:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You are completely wrong here. For your information, St John of Damascus tells us that nature [physis] is 'nothing other than essence [ousia]' (Dialectica, ch. 40). He also tells us that it was the 'pagan philosophers' who drew a distinction between ousia and physis, but that the Holy Fathers rejected this distinction as 'inane' (Dialectica, ch. 30).
So much for your knowledge of Orthodox theology!
Seminarist (talk) 04:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I am not here to argue about the terminology. However, this is a good opportunity to show to everyone how thin is your knowledge of Orthodoxy. Having said that, I would take your assertion:
"As used within Orthodox theology, nature means essence."
And employ it on Scripture passage: "ye may become partakers of the divine nature"
As per your assertion where nature = essence, Scriptures would actually read: "ye may become partakers of the divine essence", which is a blasphemy. Orthodoxy clearly states that deification is partaking NOT in the essence, but in Divine Energies only.
It is interesting to note how in typical Protestant fashion, when lacking the theological arguments, you run away into arguments that are linguistic in nature. What is missing in your typical Protestant approach is the blame on poor translations of the Zizioulas and Fathers. But, you still may pull out that card from your sleeve.
Sayonara.
Cebactokpatop (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Cebactokpatop, earlier you cited St John of Damascus as an authority in your attempt to brand Metropolitan John as heterodox (or worse). Now when Seminarist cites the same Saint, you dismiss him with uncharitable language rather than dealing with the text itself. Seminarist is quite right about this. If you will go back and re-read Lossky, whom you also hold up as the expositor of patristic theology par excellence, you will see that he is quite adamanat about maintaining the distinction between essence & energies, and that the Orthodox tradition has felt the need to use more precise translation than that used in 2 Peter, lest anyone think we participate in the essence/substance/nature of God rather than in His energies. --Fr Lev (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
heheheheh... Didn't I mention that next followers of JZ might pull out is going to be - a "translation" thing!
Cebactokpatop (talk) 14:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


What to say?? Me, a Protestant; Zizioulas a Seventh Day Adventist; and him a traditional Orthodox!
Cebactokpatop, since you don't like translations, here are the original words of St John of Damascus, which will confirm that there is nothing wrong with my translation:
Φύσις ἐστὶν ἀρχὴ τῆς ἑκάστου τῶν ὄντων κινήσεώς τε καὶ ἠρεμίας, ... Ἡ οὖν ἀρχὴ καὶ ἡ αἰτία τῆς κινήσεώς τε καὶ τῆς ἠρεμίας αὐτῆς, καθ᾿ ἣν πέφυκεν οὕτω κινεῖσθαι καὶ ἠρεμεῖν οὐσιωδῶς ἤγουν φυσικῶς καὶ οὐ κατὰ συμβεβηκός, φύσις λέγεται παρὰ τὸ τοιῶσδε πεφυκέναι τε καὶ ὑπάρχειν. Αὕτη δὲ οὐδὲν ἕτερόν ἐστιν εἰ μὴ οὐσία· ἐκ γὰρ τῆς οὐσίας ἔχει τὴν τοιαύτην δύναμιν ἤγουν τὴν κίνησιν καὶ ἠρεμίαν. (Dialectica, ch. 40.)
Οἱ μὲν ἔξω φιλόσοφοι κατὰ τὸν προλελεγμένον λόγον διαφορὰν εἶπον οὐσίας καὶ φύσεως (Dialectica, ch. 30.)
Also, if you read St Gregory Palamas' 107th Theological Chapter, you will see him explain that in the passage from 2nd Peter which you quoted, 'nature' is to be understood as meaning 'natural attribute'. His position is opposite to yours. Here is what he says about 'essence':
"when you hear the Fathers saying that God's essence is imparticipable, you should realize that they refer to the essence that does not depart from itself and is unmanifest. Again, when they say that it is participable, you should realise that they refer to the procession, manifestation and energy that are God's natural attributes. When you accept both statements in this sense you will be in agreement with the Fathers." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seminarist (talk • contribs) 14:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Seminarist (talk) 14:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I was talking about the Orthodox theological tradition and theologians such as St John of Damascus and Vladimir Lossky. Since even hyper-tradiionalists in Orthodoxy venerate these men as theologians, I think it is safe to say that Cebactokpatop is stepping outside of Orthodox tradition. His idea of responding to citations of texts from undisputed theological authorities is to say "heheheheh" and impugn motives. I'm glad the process has begun to block this fellow. He shouldn't be contributing to an encyclopedia. --Fr Lev (talk) 14:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Zizioulas: "participation not in the nature or substance of God"
If nature=substance/essence, why did he say it twice in the same sentence side-by-side? Wouldn't his sentence be, in that case, ridiculous, meaning: "participation not in the substance or substance of God"?
Besides, in (2 Pe 1,4) the Greek word translated as "nature" is: ΦΥΣΙΣ (physis), which is clearly different from οσία. Now, despite his Greek ethos, Zizioulas uses "nature" as translation of οσία, alongside of "substance" which is, again, translation of οσία, in the same sentence...
You are continuing in arguments that are purely linguistic in nature, failing to address any theological grounds. You must be seminarists of some linguistic school. I did not see you addressing his lack of acknowledgment of man's state before the fall, lack of proper Orthodox anthropology where man has a soul, etc. You keep steering the argumentation in purely linguistic fashion... which exposes your weakness and lack of proper argumentation. You obviously have no any valid Orthodox grounds to defend his heterodox opinion about the homosexuality either. I am going to put even more of his obvious heterodoxy soon.
His thought is so obviously heterodox that Orthodox theologians do not feel a need to refute his writings. Nobody wants to waste their times refuting such an obvious heterodoxy. Besides, his influence in the Church is so small and limited that he is not posing the threat at all. Who is amazed by his work are heterodox people, mostly RKC and Prots. Several polemics written by Orthodox on JZ's address, are mostly defended by RKC and Prots. That also speaks for itself.
Cebactokpatop (talk) 14:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Cebactokpatop, your claims are incorrect, and they now have strayed so far off course that they have nothing to do with the subject of the John Zizioulas article. It is clear that your arguments violate WP:NOR, and so could never merit inclusion in the article anyway. You are repeatedly rude and incivil; that is why Allyne, Fr Lev and I have posted an RfC concerning your conduct. Until such time as you become interested in making constructive edits to the John Zizioulas page, I don't see any reason to continue discussing with you.

Seminarist (talk) 15:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

When even linguistic argumentation fails, you turn to personal attacks, insults, false accusations, threats, etc. That has been seen already... Thanks for showing to all what kind of the personality you posses.
Cebactokpatop (talk) 15:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It is interesting that attention to language, which obsessed the Fathers, is dismissed here by Cebactokpatop. The Council of Nicaea, after all, was at loggergeads over one iota, yet the difference between homosousios (the Orthodox view) and homoiousios (the Arian view) makes all the difference in the world! What is also striking is the staggeringly false claim that Metropolitan John’s “thought is so obviously heterodox that Orthodox theologians do not feel a need to refute his writings.” Virtually everything I have read by Orthodox theologians about Metropolitan John has been very positive, be it Bishop Kallistos Ware, Christos Yannaras, Fr John Meyendorff, Fr Boris Bobrinskoy, Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos, Bishop Ignjatije Midić, Aristotle Papanikolaou, etc. Cebactokpatop is more interested in his partisan, polemical agenda than with accurate reporting. I give up. Moderators, help! I'm done responding to this. --Fr Lev (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Behind those "iotas" was very different content, my friend... Do not forget that. As for those "orthodox" names you mentioned...
  • Bishop Kallistos Ware - Ecumenist buddy of JZ.
  • Christos Yannaras - Same as above.
  • Fr John Meyendorff - Heterodox of "Paris school of orthodoxy" (together with Shmmemann, Afanasiev, etc.)
  • Fr Boris Bobrinskoy - Never heard of this guy...
  • Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos - Are you sure?
  • Bishop Ignjatije Midić - Ecumenist, Bishop who hardly can be called theologian, as he is almost not writing anything. Has very bad reputation even in his own Eparchy.
  • Aristotle Papanikolaou - Another buddy of JZ.
If you think that above names represent Orthodoxy, you are deeply mistaken. Most of the names you mentioned represent core support of heterodoxy of JZ. His supporters are numbered around 10. Do you know how many Bishops and priests have Russian OC alone?
Cebactokpatop (talk) 18:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moderators!

I have named numerous Orthodox theologians who have spoken highly of Metropolitan John Zizioulas and his contributions to theology. Bishop Kallistos Ware of Oxford University is perhaps one of the best-known writers on Orthodoxy in the English-speaking world. Christos Yannaras is, along with Metropolitan John, perhaps the best-known Greek Orthodox theologian alive. Fr John Meyendorff, who wrote the introduction to Being as Communion, was a distinguished patristics scholar trained at the Sorbonne and was the dean of St Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary in New York. Fr Boris Bobrinskoy has been the rector of the St Sergius Orthodox Theological Institute in Paris. Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos of Greece is a highly regarded (and quite conservative) writer throughout Orthodoxy. Bishop Ignjatije Midić is a professor at the Serbian theological institute. Aristotle Papanikolaou is a professor at Fordham and author of a book-length study of Metropolitan John. And, of course, the Metropolitan remains a bishop in good-standing of the Patriarchate of Constantinople and an advisor to Patriarch Bartholomew.

All that Cebactokpatop offers is a polemical pamphlet in Serbian, a polemical article from an Italian magazine, a snarky comment from a Greek archbishop in Australia, and one academic article which, although disagreeing with Metropolitan John, draws none of the extreme conclusions of heterodoxy that Cebactokpatop does. There is no question here as to what the overwhelming academic consensus is. Cebactokpatop represents a very tiny minority of opinion within the Orthodox Church. More than that, his conduct on this page has been atrocious. His use of sources is either incompetent or deliberately misleading, and he refuses to deal with citations from authorities (such as St John of Damascus) when they say undermines his case. And, always, he is personally abusive to anyone who has the temerity to disagree with him. His behavior may be well-suited to pamphleteering and yellow journalism, but they do not conform either to the rules or the spirit of this encyclopedia project. --Fr Lev (talk) 19:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You are misleading moderators here. Let me number references I quoted...
  1. Lucian Turcescu - professor of theology at Concordia University in Montreal, Canada.
  2. Peter J. Leithart - Ordained in the Presbyterian Church, also a pastor of Trinity Reformed Church
  3. "Innovatory Theology of Metropolitan Zizioulas", by Rodoljub Lazic - is a BOOK in Serbian, and not a pamphlet.
  4. Archbishop Chrysostomos of Etna holds degrees from the University of California, California State University, University of California, Princeton University
  5. The Orthodox Christian Witness is a serious magazine serving Orthodox community for many years.
  6. Hieromonk Patapios is author of many books... Amazon
  7. Archbishop Stylianos of Australia was Professor of Theology at Athens University, University of Thessaloniki, and later Sydney University, Dean of the Theological college of Saint Andrew.
  8. Information about magazine Italia Ortodossa I already submitted here: Information regarding the Italian magazine - Italia Ortodossa
  9. In addition, I will provide references to John Behr and his criticisms of JZ.
What I offer is much more substantial from what Fr. Lev said. In fact, I am not sure why one who puts "Fr" before one's name would attempt to sell such a misleading information?
Cebactokpatop (talk) 20:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

More misleading information. As I said, Turcescu criticizes Metropolitan John but doesn't draw any extreme conclusions such as claiming Metropolitan John is heterodox. Peter Leithart writes a very positive article and thinks highly of the Metropolitan. Archbishop Chrysostomos and Hieromonk Patapios are part of a "resistance" Church that is not in communion with any of the ancient patriarchates, and this is also true of The Orthodox Christian Witness. These may be fine folks, but one cannot reasonably claim that they represent the Orthodox Church. One can, of course, take their position that the ancient patriarchates have all abandoned the Orthodox faith, but then it is clear how marginal a point of view this is. Fr John Behr is a professor at St Vladimir's and I don't believe for a moment that he believes the Metropolitan is heterodox. So the only "mainstream" authority he names is an Australian archbishop whose opinion is not shared by his own Patriarch or Patriarchate. He invokes mainstream people who do not share his (Cebactokpatop) views. This is his evidence that most" Orthodox theologians think the Metropolitan is heterodox! On the other hand, I quoted mainline Orthodox authorities. This is sad. --Fr Lev (talk) 21:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

True. Most of them would say everything I say, but would refrain from making logical conclusion after criticism of JZ's inventions... I prefer to complete the criticism instead of leaving it incomplete. That is the only difference between me and all references I mentioned, except Reformed Mr. Leithart, who unintentionally pointed out to JZ's heterodoxy. To denounce any of above academic references on a basis of religious affiliation is not part of Wiki's policy. When speaking about "resistance" folks, we should keep in mind that they hold same doctrines as Orthodox, without even a single difference. What kicked them out of liturgical union is Masonic deceit, brought upon some local churches that accepted un-orthodox calendar. Not a doctrinal difference. Thus, their voice from theological point of view is as valid as any Orthodox one. Thanks to God that not all hierarchs of the Patriarchate, Archbishop Stylanos belongs to, fell into the pit. Such a rare right standing champions of Faith preserve apostolic continuity of fallen Patriarchate.
Cebactokpatop (talk) 22:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Now there is a Masonic conspiracy.... I think this conversation should be moved to a blog for Weekly World News or an urban legends site. --Fr Lev (talk) 22:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You can call it any way you want. It is well known when un-orthodox calendar was introduced in Orthodoxy, and by whom. Also, it is well known that person who did it was a mason. For your personal benefit, you can start here: Meletios Metaxakis
Cebactokpatop (talk) 02:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] suggested new section

I have two suggested changes. First, apart from a first reference to Zizioulas as Metropolitan John of Pergamon, I think it would be appropriate to refer to him simply as “Zizioulas” in the article, in that it is not an ecclesiastical website.

Second, I think we should ad the following. If added, I will provide the footnotes citing references to both Being as Communion and Communion and Otherness.

-Critique of Western Philosophy of the Person- Although some critics of Zizioulas have suggested that the sources of his thinking on personhood are Western philosophers rather than the Church Fathers, a careful reading of his work shows that the opposite is the case. While acknowledging the contributions to philosophical anthropology by Edmund Husserl, John Macmurray, Martin Heidegger, Martin Buber, and Emmanuel Lévinas, Zizioulas is very specific in claiming that their philosophy of the human person is fundamentally inadequate. Moreover, he argues that this inadequacy can only be met by the patristic understanding of the person, particularly as developed by the Cappadocian Fathers. --Fr Lev (talk) 15:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Following should accompany the above "suggestion": "Is John Zizioulas an Existentialist in Disguise? Response to Lucian Turcescu," Modern Theology 20:4, October 2004, pp. 601-607) "Turcescu indicates that Martin Buber and John Macmurray are the most substantial influences. But Zizioulas does not appear to hide the fact that both Buber and Macmurray have influenced his thought. Turcescu himself cites Zizioulas's references to Buber. Zizioulas has also cited Macmurray. He even gives credit to Pannenberg for helping him to articulate thoughts concerning personhood that he was 'struggling to express'." (str 604) "Zizioulas himself has admited to me in private conversations that the thought of Martin Buber did influence his understanding of personhood. He did not mention John Macmurray." (footnote 13) Cebactokpatop (talk) 04:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Cebactokpatop has selectively cited Papanikolaou. If one reads the text, Papanikolaou notes that the same charge of being influenced by modern personalism has been made against Lossky, as well as Metropolitan John. Thus he cherry-picks a charge that Papanikolaou points out is made against Lossky, his sine qua non of Orthodoxy. And, of course, Papanikolaou acquits both theologians. He goes on to cite the differences between the Metropolitan and those modern philosophers and that, for the Metropolitan, only a Trinitarian theology that affirms the monarchy of the Father can provide an adequate theology of personhood. As Papanikolaou says, "[Zizioulas} and Lossky are no more superimposing a philosophical system on the Eastern patristic writers than did these same writers Hellenize the teachings of Jesus" (160). Metropolitan John and Lossky simply have done what the Fathers did -- "thinking about the authoritative texts of the tradition in light of the questions, challenges, and prevailing philosophical currents of their time" (ibid). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fr Lev (talk • contribs) 01:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

With one huge difference - JZ adopted heterodox thought without revising it and turning into Orthodox. Basing his thought on such a heterodox foundations, he could not come up with the Orthodox outcome, as from the seeds of apple, only apple can grow, nothing else. For example, on pages 164-165 of his book Being as Communion, JZ talks about "individuals" and "persons" referring to the M. Buber... who made clear oppositions between the two, making them antonyms. However, as Turcescu already provided in his article, St. Gregory of Nyssa used both terms as synonyms. In this example, heterodox influence prevailed in the thought of JZ over the Orthodox, resulting in his thought being heterodox as well. Cebactokpatop (talk) 14:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Metropolitan John precisely corrects all of the philosophers he cites, including Buber. No open-minded reader, i.e., no one who wasn't trying to grind a particular axe, could read what the Metropolitan has said about Buber and think otherwise. And to suggest that there is anything heterodox in the Buber quote is utterly absurd. The quote is, "Individuality makes its appearance by its differentiation from other individualities." This is nothing but the non-contoverisal claim that A is not B because A is not the same as B. --Fr Lev (talk) 19:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I meant to add that, whatever Turcescu says, Cebactokpatop is grossly misrepresenting St Gregory of Nyssa, who is quite aware of the danger of equating the two terms. Metropolitan John provides the textual evidence from St Gregory's Ex communibus notionibus that to say the Persons are three "individuals" as humans are, is a "misuse of language". St Gregory, therefore, specifies ways in which certain qualities cannot be predicated of the Divine Persons -- addition or diminution, alteration or change. more than one ontological cause (the Father), and any other properties or qualities except those of ontological relation (e.g., Father is Father, and not Son). This is not heterodox. To deny this, to claim that person must by synonomous with individual entails the conclusion that we confess three Individuals, and that is not simply heterodox, but heresy. In atempting to libel the Mteropolitan, Cebactokpatop leads himself into confessing heresy. --Fr Lev (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Turcescu criticizes the Metropolitan on the question of person versus individual by indicating that St Gregory of Nyssa sometime uses ἄτομον (atomon) “to express the notion of the person.” Of the Cappadocians, only St Gregory uses atomon as equivalent to hypostasis or prosopon. So one could stop here and say that only one of the Cappadocians followed a usage contrary to the Metropolitan’s reading. But that would still leave a misimpression. For if one thought that St Gregory was saying atomon as predicated of human persons could be predicated of divine persons simpliciter, we would be left with the heresy of tritheism. But St Gregory was not foolish, which is why he never said any such thing. The other Fathers (Cappadocian or otherwise) never run the risk of confusing someone (such as Turcescu and his fervent disciple, Cebactokpatop) by using atomon as equivalent to person. While we find the Orthodox confession of three hypostaseis or three prosopa, nowhere in Orthodox theology do we find the confession of three atoma. Thus Turcescu’s criticism of the Metropolitan’s refusal to equate atomon with either prosopon or hypostasis can only by employed in a defense of tritheism. While at no point on these pages has Cebactokpatop ever read someone else’s posts charitably, I will give him the benefit of the doubt and not infer that he is arguing for tritheism. And if I am right about his intent (I am no mind reader, as he pointed out), then he needs to consider revising his support of Turcescu’s argument. --Fr Lev (talk) 00:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)