User talk:Esoglou

A curiosity

Some imagine that only non-Catholics call the (Roman) Catholic Church "Roman Catholic". In that case, the Popes are non-Catholics!

Pope Benedict XVI has called the Church "the Roman Catholic Church" at a meeting in Warsaw on 25 May 2006 and in joint declarations that he signed with Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams on 23 November 2006 and with Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople on 30 November 2006.

Pope John Paul II referred to himself as "the Head of the Roman Catholic Church" (29 September 1979). He called the Church "Roman Catholic" when speaking to the Jewish community in Mainz on 17 November 1980, in a message to those celebrating the 450th anniversary of the Confessio Augustana on 25 June 1980, when speaking to the people of Mechelen, Belgium on 18 May 1985, when talking to representatives of Christian confessions in Copenhagen, Denmark on 7 June 1989, when addressing a delegation from the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople on 29 June 1989, at a meeting of the Ukrainian Synod in Rome on 24 March 1980, at a prayer meeting in the Orthodox cathedral of Bialystok, Poland on 5 June 1991, when speaking to the Polish Ecumenical Council in Holy Trinity Church, Warsaw 9 June 1991, at an ecumenical meeting in the Aula Magna of the Colégio Catarinense, in Florianópolis, Brazil on 18 October 1991, and at the Angelus in São Salvador da Bahia, Brazil on 20 October 1991.

Pope Paul VI called the Church "the Roman Catholic Church" in the joint declarations he signed with Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople on 7 December 1965 and 28 October 1967, with Patriarch Mar Ignatius Yacoub III of the Syrian Orthodox Church on 27 October 1971 and with Archbishop of Canterbury Donald Coggan on 29 April 1977.

In his encyclical Humani generis, Pope Pius XII wrote: "Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing".

In his encyclical Divini Illius Magistri, Pope Pius XI wrote: "In the City of God, the Holy Roman Catholic Church, a good citizen and an upright man are absolutely one and the same thing".

FYI: Arbitration on State Church

Since I cannot seem to find a way to build consensus on the third paragraph with Medeis I have filed a request for arbitration here. I have not listed you as a party since I did not want to drag anybody else into it unwillingly. But please feel free to join this discussion if you like.

--Mcorazao (talk) 16:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

As you may have noticed the arbitration request has been declined in favor of creating an RfC. I have created the RfC as the admins requested though I highly doubt that will yield anything useful. If you have any advice on how to proceed please feel free to share. I appreciate the fact that you have been helping to build consensus in spite of our disagreements.

If the RfC does not yield anything helpful (i.e. somehow encouraging Medeis to come back to the table and discuss) I am afraid I have to let things fall back into an edit war which is the last thing I want (how did we get from being on the same side to being so far apart). I honestly can't fathom that one single paragraph is holding up an entire article. --Mcorazao (talk) 19:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Pope

Thanks - nice edit! Springnuts (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

IP editor for Roman Catholic deletions

Hi, From the tone and actions of that persistent IP, I have an idea who he is. He has not been active for some time, but has done the same before, and gave up before. Used to be on the east coast. He will eventually go away after a while, I guess. But discussing it at the CC talk page may be opening another Pandora's box. It is not my business to tell you what to do, but I would have avoided that CC talk page subsection, if it had been up to me for that page has enough problems of its own, historically speaking. The talk page for Roman Catholic (term) may be more appropriate since it is not just the Church that is affected, but also Latin Rite issues, etc. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the Talk page of his IP, you will find that he has identified himself earlier today, perhaps unwittingly, and you will see that he is in fact a young seminarian. I preferred not to mention that on the Talk:Catholic Church page. Esoglou (talk) 18:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, maybe I am mistaken. The other fellow was a consultant. But then people do change paths. I have seen priests who used to be bankers - so who knows what the situation is here. However, he will not be the last to attempt that edit, so what you had at the top of this page which is interesting may need to become some type of pamphlet to hand out when this happens again. History2007 (talk) 18:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

As you saw, I was hesitant about raising the question on the Talk:Catholic Church page. I really think the place for it would be some more generic page, though not quite as generic as Village Pump. I failed to think of a suitable page and, as I wrote, I took it that someone active on the Talk:Catholic Church page would know where to redirect discussion to. But perhaps the anti-"Roman" editor will choose not to seek consensus support and will go away. Anyway, it is now too late to choose another page to direct him to. Esoglou (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe not too late. You can just move your comment to the Term page and leave him a message. Edit summaries will be forgotten tomorrow. History2007 (talk) 19:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Just about when we were discussing this question yesterday, the campaigner's anonymous account was blocked for a month. I have now added to the Talk:Catholic Church page a comment to this effect and asked that my intervention there not be considered an invitation to a general discussion, for which, in any case, I think very few would have an appetite. Esoglou (talk) 05:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Afterwriting has added a comment that seems to agree with your identification of the campaigner. I don't intend to study the question of his identity. I only say that I have no evidence to support the adjective "young" that I used of him. Esoglou (talk) 06:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Fine, on a few of the semi-separate note, some the items you have at the top of this talk page may be good to go into Roman Catholic (term) as just 2 or 3 sentences. Would you like to do that, or shall I make a go at it? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 07:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Feel quite free, as far as I am concerned, to use it as you wish. Of course, what is above isn't meant to be NPOV in tone. Esoglou (talk) 09:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Fine, I added it. The next time some IP says "We Catholics do not..." All that is needed is to point to that subsection and ask: "Is the Pope Catholic?" and that should handle it. History2007 (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

maybe you can help improve potentiality and actuality

Hi. Currently there is work going on at potentiality and actuality. One section which needs work I am not very qualified for is trying to improve the section on uses after Aristotle. I see you've edited or commented on subjects related before. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I prefer not even to look at the article, for two good reasons, of which the second is the more serious. Firstly, it is already some decades since I seriously studied such questions. Secondly, unless I am mistaken, one of the editors involved is one who has a strong antipathy towards me, and I find it a difficult enough task to try and correct some (not all) of that editor's (mis)interpretations of the already hostile picture that certain selected sources present of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church: I don't want to be attacked by him even more. Esoglou (talk) 14:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for looking. I posted as many people as I could trying to be neutral (as required) so obviously I was not looking at how people got along.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences

Hi. As you may have noticed already, I posted a request at Talk:Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences asking LoveMonkey to help find more Orthodox (or Orthodoxy-knowledgeable) editors to participate in that article. LoveMonkey replied that he had brought in Cody7777777 (talk · contribs) a while ago, but that (in LoveMonkey's opinion) you had driven him away. That didn't seem to be what happened, as best I could tell from reviewing Cody's participation on the talk page, but I'm wondering if I might have missed something. Do you have any thoughts on this? In any event, I just posted something on Cody's talk page asking if he could please come back and help sort out this current thing about the fall, physical bodies, Lossky, etc. Richwales (talk · contribs) 15:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I see as quite groundless the idea that I drove Cody away. (I have been strongly tempted to add a well-merited exclamation mark to that.) I would warmly welcome him back. I already commented on his openness and balance. I suppose that, like others who will have looked in, he did not feel up to really getting into the heat of the discussion. It is a pity too that Richardshusr did not feel able to make more than short occasional interventions. Esoglou (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess we'll have to wait and see how Cody responds to my request. I also asked Richardshusr (talk · contribs); thanks for bringing him up. Richwales (talk · contribs) 18:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I do monitor the Talk Page but, quite frankly, the intricacies of the theological discussion are beyond my level of skill and interest. Mostly, I comment on incivility when it occurs. I do not feel up to the task of mediating the actual dispute as the subject matter is not one I feel competent to discourse on. --Richard S (talk) 16:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: "stalking" - I think it better to let that discussion wither away. It's clear that LoveMonkey feels he has been "stalked". I don't see evidence of that but this is one of those situations where it is impossible to argue about how someone feels. I don't see how further discussion can improve things. --Richard S (talk) 16:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Esoglou (talk) 16:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Revision history of Baptism

I thank you for your intervention! I was consoled to see your excellent choice of material before I chose to have recourse to arbitration without further futile attempts on my part to revise the article's introductive paragraph. The Ruach ha-Kodesh רוח הקדש of the Father and the Son when He wills always responds lovingly to our petitions, and He moved you to help. Thank you for your submission. Pax Vobiscum. Hermitstudy (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph, etymological roots of "baptism" and its varied meanings

I have completed this moment an introductory paragraph (rather brief) on the more ancient etymology of "baptize" from ancestral/aboriginal forms 10,000 years prior in IE and PIE root forms, which seemed to me before the debate began to be a potentially very useful background for the reader. I have attempted to the best of my ability to render it readable, together with footnote attributions of external sources accessible to the reader online. I am not seeking to be contentious. If Walter Gorlitz intervenes, I trust you might nevertheless find the material practical, relevant and useful on its own merits and yourself use it in the article in my place at your discretion and in your own style. שלם pax vobiscum Hermitstudy (talk) 00:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I have explained on the article's Talk page that I think the article should not start with a disquisition on the Indo-European roots of "baptism", and of other words as well, and I have transferred it, simplified, to after the lead. הבו כבוד לאב ולבן ולרוח הקדש Esoglou (talk) 11:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

This afforded me great amusement at my own expense, and I concur. I have finally stopped laughing. (see my response on the "baptism" discussion page.) Hermitstudy (talk) 16:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit rejection of texts from Paul supporting Baptism as admission to Church as Body of Christ, and rejection of witness of CCC supportive of them.

I was surprised at your unexpected objection to a statement re: sharing in Christ himself, which is present nearly at the top of the Encyclopedia Britannica article you yourself referenced which cites Romans 6:3-4, evocative of Romans 12:4-5. The edit history of this portion of the Wiki article indicates controverted reader opinions re: baptism as uniting one with the "Church" (divided understandings of what that means); hence, a quotation verbatim (English) from Paul himself re: "one body in Christ" would appear to be core to the subject of baptism as admission to the Church, and should be acceptible as an introduction and "journalistic grab" for the reader, especially with no accompanying "interpretation" of what Paul meant, interpretations which do appear further down the article. Bible readers may be divided doctrinally on the meaning, but are seldom divided on the words of the text. Text is safe. Text is primary as witness to apostolic doctrine in the first decades of Christianity. There is much in Christianity that when stated plainly and unequivocally is not acceptible to many readers. "Ah, yes, he did say that!" (cf. John 6:60, 67) Some strongly negative reaction to the subject can be expected no matter how carefully NPOV phrased. As Sergeant Friday (Dragnet, Badge 714) is apocryphally credited with saying: "Just the facts." Some people seem to say, "I already know the truth - so don't annoy me with the facts." Leave them alone, don't worry about it. (Titus 3:10-11) The consonance of the quotation from the CCC together with the introductory sentence and the Pauline texts does not seem to support your contention that the statement from the CCC is not a valid supportive witness here. To date, my only firsthand experience of rejection of the validity of any Catholic source which so clearly supports this Christian doctrine set forth in the text of sacred scripture has been from the standpoint of an anti-Catholic prejudice, in which nothing said by a Catholic source could possibly be even remotely Christian and the actual use of such a source makes the integrity of the speaker most suspect. I would welcome a change. You have not explicated your reticence at the introductory appearance of Paul's key statements on sharing in one body in Christ as the consequence of Baptism, you only express might, and should, and would perhaps be better (buried) further down, without actually saying why. It does seem like avoidance, even a form of denial. An editor/contributor cannot go wrong stating what others have done and said solidly backed by supportive documentation, and in NPOV reporting the "facts". There will be reaction and rejection from those who do not like them. The Church is the Body of Christ. Baptism incorporates one into the Body of Christ. Romans 6:3-4, 12:4-5. Start the article with the reality of Baptism as admission to the Church, the Body of Christ. Discussion and clarifications follow. Start with the reality, as you said. The words of Paul are not taken out of context. I should be most interested in reading your motivation for deflecting them, or your reason for diffidence, if you should choose to express it. Meanwhile, even if you decline, courageo! and peace be with you. -Hermitstudy (talk) 10:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I still don't think that opening the lead of an article with a quotation from Paul that you think settles a "controverted" question is the right thing to do. Why not put it in later in the article, where the controversy can be explained? Isn't it better to state first what is pacifically accepted? The lead should mention important controversies, stating the opposing points of view, but not endeavouring to declare which side is right. Discussion of controversies is for the body of the article, not the lead. Esoglou (talk) 15:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Saint Paul's statements are not controverted, interpretations of them are. He simply states the doctrine of the apostles. I did not place them at the lead as an attempt to preemptively settle any controverted questions. Theologians down the centuries to our own time have struggled to highlight the import of his words and delve into their fuller meaning in order to set forth what they understand to be the implications within them that he himself may not have consciously seen. Quoting him has never usually settled controverted opinions of what he meant, as witness the history of Christianity and this present discussion; quoting Paul is an elegant means of implicitly introducing (as you said, "mentioning") the important controversies and does not declare ipso facto the opinion which should prevail according to the opinions or convictions of the contributing editors or according to the anticipated view of the majority of the readership. The Encyclopedia Britannica article did not hesitate to place reference to Paul's teaching near the opening statement and in the middle of the lead paragraph, and their academic and scholarly integrity is widely regarded as beyond reproach. Did the texts seem to contradict your own convictions, did they seem to confirm them, did they seem "too strongly stated"? Quoting Paul with reference to any doctrinal matter is sure to provoke a response, but a neutral viewpoint cannot state with certitude that the Pauline texts proposed here as part of the lead definitively settle, or even "side with", any of the controversies and disputes treated in the body of the article following, or are substantively prejudicial to those arguments; they are simply and directly what he wrote regarding baptism into the death of Christ and that Christians are one body in Christ. I ask you: what does that really mean, and what obligation does that impose on the Christian believer? Can you say, without any doubt, infallibly, that you know the definitive and unassailable answers? One man's prooftext is another man's distortion of scripture. The Church universal has traditionally been called the Body of Christ, and the temple of God, and the collective number of all Christians the "body of believers", yet the reality of this term "Body of Christ" is not usually declared to be essentially coextensive solely with the visible form of any official religious organization only, nor is it viewed as identical with the nature and expression of organized religion alone—not even the Catholic Church takes that position. (CCC 1261; Lumen Gentium 15, 16; Unitatis Redintegratio 22, 23.) God has not refrained from bestowing his grace and guidance outside of the visible structure of the Church, of any church, on those who sincerely seek him. He calls to himself all who are his own. He is not willing that any should perish. All who are baptized into Christ belong to his Body, and it is the Body of Christ Himself that is the Church, being both visible and invisible, known and unknown. Surely the disinterested inquirer who reads the article for himself can benefit from knowing initially the stated position of the influencial Apostle to the Gentiles at the beginning of Christianity and decide for himself what he meant, particularly in view of the discussions that follow in the article representing as they do all who came later. It is a simple matter of chronology, not of who is right. He will be able to weigh the information in a balanced way. He may not be able to decide who is correct, but he will know the positions that have been taken. Hermitstudy (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you will find sufficient the addition of the reference to Paul and "the body of Christ" further down in the lead, not at the start of it. Esoglou (talk) 08:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

"rebaptism"

I had been thinking today about the use of "rebaptized" in the article Baptism and its theological and doctrinal, and specifically denominational, connotations. I was delighted to see you had dealt with it already, and in a very even-handed and commendable style, with substance. Semper Fi! —Hermitstudy (talk) 00:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Canon Law Invite

Hi Esoglou! From your edits, it looks like you're interested in Catholic canon law. Would you like to join the Canon law task force? You are most welcome. Thanks and God bless!

I saw you edited the Code of Canon Law page. Thanks for the improvement on my work! Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 22:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It is true that I have formally studied the field, but I must try to avoid adding yet more to what is on my Wikipedia plate, which one editor, with whom reasonable dialogue seems impossible, keeps piling up with persistent caricatures of another church's teaching and a slanted interpretation of his own. Esoglou (talk) 09:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Christian Church

I completely concur with your reworking and condensing of the material I contributed to supply what was lacking in the article. Well done! Hermitstudy (talk) 15:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Esoglou (talk) 15:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:SHARE response from "Hermitstudy"

Thank you for the alert. I am the only one who has the password to use the account identity "Hermitstudy." As of now no one else will be allowed further use of my computer to contribute to Wikipedia, not students, not even the Rabbi. And I have the only key. Please advert to the tone of my last commentary and response on the discussion (talk) page of the article Baptism. I will say that my experiment of the past 18 months of contributing verifiable matter, without inclusion of an academic and professorial identity, to determine if substantial material contributed will be accepted on its own merit, rather than on the international reputation of a contributing scholar, has been productive and instructive: verifiable information and documented historical and literary facts accompanied by an established "name" is more readily received (unfortunately frequently without close critical scrutiny) than solidly based and researched and historically witnessed material presented anonymously. But this is not new. Over the past several decades I have seen sources of dubious merit cited as reliable documentation accepted because they have been associated with a well-known (usually deceased) author, and also sources of solidly-backed historical documentation and research questioned and challenged by editors (I am also including here far many more Wikipedia articles on subjects I know well than the ones to which I have personally contributed), questioned and challenged by editors of other encyclopedias, professional journals of peer review, and published works. For example, reference works from the 18th and 19th centuries, now known to be inaccurate in many cases and superceded today by far more informed and accurate works of the 20th and now 21st centuries due to the sheer increase in knowledge (e.g. material written by Alfred Ely-Day, International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, "badger"), are being used by students and pastors even now as a primary resource of "reliable" information. A reading of the History of Science too provides several illustrative examples. My collegues warned me ahead of time what result I should obtain. But I had to determine it for myself. And they were right. I had thought that perhaps their years of experience in academe had damaged their faith in the ability of human intelligence to recognize the merits of factual objectivity and of an unbiased presentation of substantiated material. I was curious about the extent of the effect of cultural conditioning and outright prejudice on the receptivity of the audience. I was told that although I am in my mid-sixties I was still innocent and naive, but that I should find out what Father Thomas Dubay declared about the acceptance of the message depending on the "package" in which it is delivered ("Contemplation"). In other words, if real facts arrive with no return address revealing the identity of the sender they will probably be rejected or regarded with suspicion. While I enjoyed being a contributor to Wikipedia, since September has arrived I find I have not the resources to attend both to my duties and to continue at present with Wikipedia and get a full night's rest. There are not enough hours in the day. (I sympathized with your reason for delining the invitation to work on the Canon Law project due to lack of sufficient energy and the desire to avoid acrimony and controverted opinions.) I feel fortunate that what I was truly interested in saying and contributing has been completed. I had thought that my complete concurance with your edit (above) was my farewell contribution to Wikipedia for the season, until I read the comments on Original Research on the Baptism talk page, your reply, and the response. So, groaning with fatigue, I had to add my 25¢ worth (inflation), and then deal with the situation with some degree of finality. After your message on my talk page I thought at least I could respond with some measure of reassurance for you. This communication on your talk page is the last I shall be able to contribute to any site on Wikipedia for a good long while. Maybe again in July 2011, and not necessarily here. I appreciate your understanding. Again, thank you for the alert. I do not believe there will be any further difficulty. I shall see to that. שלם , pax vobiscum Hermitstudy (talk) 05:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Original Research on Roman Catholic Eastern Orthodox theology

I hope you don't mind my [1] for a confirmation of your claim about a Wikipedia decision that your interpretation of hell as the same between the two theologies is not Original Research for the Wikipedia article. You may perhaps wish to add some comments to my request. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

There we go again...

Please see: User talk:150.199.97.75. Maybe that section we set up on Papal references with your material will become useful now. I linked to it there. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 14:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

RSV "Transubstantiation"

You afforded me a chuckle or two. I used the RSVCE 1965-6 but excised the "it" in accordance with your own observations that "it" is implied in Greek, so I cannot take credit for the translation (appreciated). ESV would be as accurate. The passages as cited from RSV without "it" (prior your edit) still read well. I was surprised that you removed the immediate linkage opportunity for the reader to compare versions of their choice (which display the "it") and limited the link to NAB. Educational opportunity is imperative here. Contributors point out the facts (known), frequently provide readable summary analysis of the available material, and then provide accessible sources for the reader to verify at their leisure the accuracy of the argument unless those facts are immediately known to all readers from their own shared experience. Let them see it for themselves. (On the whole, however, I'll give you a "B" for the paragraph segment!) —שלם, pax vobiscum Hermitstudy (talk) 13:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Aramaic comment "Transubstantiation"

Thank you, sincerely! I decided to set forth the specious argument that some of my Protestant collegues advance and maintain re: the semantics of the Greek form of the statement of Jesus in the Gospel vis-a′-vis "this", and "body": that these words do not "prove" anything one way or another. It represents a Protestant position. The sources begin in the 16th century and run current even to this day. They isolate the sample from its semantic field, and from the context of the whole of Scripture, and from the milieu of the Christian fathers of the first 5 centuries: historio-theological lacuna amnesia—"presentism"! I see you agree with me that speculations re: Aramaic of Jesus and Aramaic primacy are inconclusive at best. What you have done reads fine. —שלם, pax vobiscum, Semper fi! Hermitstudy (talk) 17:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)