LoveMonkey (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 88: | Line 88: | ||
==Edit Warring on the filioque article== |
==Edit Warring on the filioque article== |
||
I have posted on the edit warring noticeboard [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FEdit_warring&action=historysubmit&diff=360515204&oldid=360514123] the behavior I have noted on the filioque article talkpage.[[User:LoveMonkey|LoveMonkey]] ([[User talk:LoveMonkey|talk]]) 13:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC) |
I have posted on the edit warring noticeboard [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FEdit_warring&action=historysubmit&diff=360515204&oldid=360514123] the behavior I have noted on the filioque article talkpage.[[User:LoveMonkey|LoveMonkey]] ([[User talk:LoveMonkey|talk]]) 13:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC) |
||
:Thanks for doing so. I am glad you did. [[User:Esoglou|Esoglou]] ([[User talk:Esoglou#top|talk]]) 13:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:29, 6 May 2010
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".
Jehovah
Thanks for the catch. I didn't mean to imply that it was the 'only' conclusion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Byzantine-Slavic Catholic Church
Why did you remove the information about Byzantine-Slavic Catholic Church ?
Byzantine-Slavic Catholic Church is listed as a separate church.
Sources confirming the existence of the Church:
1) article in the Polish Wikipedia page
2) List of churches located on the Polish Ministry
3) List of Catholic Churches in English
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Марий (talk • contribs) 11:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for this information. When I indicated that the parish was not listed as a separate autonomous Church, I was referring to the list of such Churches in the Holy See's Annuario Pontificio. The information you have provided suggests that the "Byzantine-Slavic Catholic Church" is linked with what in the Wikipedia list of Eastern Catholic autonomous Churches is called the Russian Catholic Church. One of the sources that you kindly provided says: "Catholic parishes belonging to this rite" - i.e. to what that source calls the Byzantine-Slavic rite - "are also to be found among Russian emigrants to Western Europe, North and South America and Australia. The list of these parishes can be found on the Internet: http://www.stmichaelruscath.org. The parishes in that list are those that Wikipedia considers to belong to what it calls the Russian Catholic Church. Do you think the article on the Russian Catholic Church should be revised to take account of the alternative name that your source gives the autonomous Church? Do you think that the Polish parish should be mentioned in the Wikipedia article and also in the list on the New York site? Esoglou (talk) 12:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- Byzantine-Slavic Catholic Church and Russian Catholic Church are different churches. Person in charge of the Russian church is Joseph Werth. Person in charge of the Byzantine-Slavic Church is Zbigniew Kiernikowski. Bishop Zbigniew Kiernikowski is independent of Joseph Werth, but directly to the Pope as Apostolic Delegate for the Byzantine-Slavic Catholic Church. Byzantine-Slavic Catholic Church was destroyed by the Communists, so after the Second World War lasted only one parish of the Church. This is currently the world's smallest Catholic Church. Marij (talk) 15:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- Then we need more information about the "Byzantine-Slavic Catholic Church". It seems not to have got the Holy See's recognition as an autonomous (sui iuris) Church. And that is a very important, indeed an essential consideration. The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches defines a sui iuris Church as a group of Christian faithful canonically connected with a hierarchy and recognized as autonomous either expressly or tacitly by the supreme authority of the Church (canon 27). This group doesn't have a bishop of its own and is, as you say, under the care of a Latin bishop. If then they do not be3ong to the sui iuris Eastern Catholic Church that Wikipedia calls the Russian Catholic Church, it seems that, in the eyes of the Holy See, the parish is in much the same position as, for instance, the "Anglican Use" parishes in the United States, which have a distinct liturgy but are not autonomous Catholic Churches, And there are several Anglican Use parishes, not just one. The title "Delegate" used for the Latin bishop associated with the group might even recall the delegates chosen by some episcopal conferences for contacts with Anglicans who are not yet in full communion with the Holy See, but who may well become so, perhaps even in less than a year, under the new structure of personal ordinariates that has not yet been put into effect. Am I missing something? Esoglou (talk) 22:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- The Byzantine-Slavic Catholic Church is a typical Polish church, acting only in Poland, so I know the Polish language only items on the subject. The best known are:
a) Radzyn Year Humanities, Volume 5 / 2007, dr Andrzej Tłomacki, Kościół rzymsko-katolicki obrządku bizantyjsko-słowiańskiego (Kościół neounicki) na południowo-wschodnim Podlasiu w latach 1924-1947, [1]
b) Wheel of History, Materials Student Research Student Historians of the University of Maria Curie-Sklodowska University, No. 7, 2003, Michał Wójciuk, Specyfika organizacji i zarys charakteru Cerkwi katolickiej obrządku bizantyjsko-słowiańskiego o liturgicznej tradycji synodalnej na wschodnich ziemiach II Rzeczpospolitej w latach 1924 - 1939, [2]
c) The Catholic Weekly "Niedziela", Edit Zamosc 31/2000, Ks. Henryk Krukowski, Kościół Katolicki obrządku bizantyjsko-słowiańskiego „Neounia”, [3]
d) Wikipedia, Kościół katolicki obrządku bizantyjsko-słowiańskiego w Polsce, [4]
e) Ministry of Internal Affairs and Administration, The list of churches and religious organizations operating under separate laws,[5]
f) Unici.pl, Catholic Churches in full communion with the Bishop of Rome - the successor of Saint Peter, [6]
g) Scientific Society of the Catholic University of Lublin, 1999, Florentyna Rzemieniuk, Kościół katolicki obrządku bizantyjsko-słowiańskiego (NEOUNIA)
h) Hieronim Wyczawski, Ruch neounijny w Polsce w latach 1923-1939, Studia Theologica Varsaviensia nr 8/1970, z.2
i) Marek Ziółkowski: Szkice o kościołach obrządków wschodnich w Polsce północno-wschodniej. Warszawa: Oddział Uniwersytecki PTTK, 1985.
j) Cezary Gawryś: Ruska wiara. "Więź", 1988.
I think after reading these sources you will not have more doubts that The Byzantine-Slavic Catholic Church exists. Marij (talk) 00:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)- We still need a source, don't we, that says the Holy See recognizes the group as an autonomous Eastern Catholic Church? Maybe it does, but we don't seem to have a source that says so. We only have claims that within Poland it is assimilated to the Eastern Catholic Churches. If it were/is an autonomous Eastern Catholic Church, how should we classify it? It is obviously not a patriarchate, major archbishopric or metropolia, It is not an eparchy or exarchate, not having a bishop of its own rite. It doesn't seem to be even an apostolic administration, the status that Wikipedia attributes to the Albanian (Eastern) Catholic Church (a Church that, though still listed in the Holy See's Annuario Pontificio as one of the Byzantine Catholic Churches, now exists - I have been told - only on paper, and certainly the Annuario Pontificio presents the Apostolic Administration of Southern Albania as of Latin, not Eastern, rite). It seems to have much the same structure as the various parishes of what Wikipedia calls the Russian Catholic Church, and none of those parishes is an autonomous Eastern Catholic Church on its own. What may perhaps be its own website only calls it a "parish", which isn't enough for being a Church. In fact, this website doesn't present it clearly as even Catholic, but rather as an initiative that brings together Eastern Catholics (of the Brest tradition? of the Russian Catholic Church tradition? of both?), Latin Catholics, and Orthodox: "In the Catholic Byzantine-Slavic rite parish of Kostomloty, Eastern Catholics, Roman Catholics and Orthodox co-exist in harmony. Under the patronage of the martyr Saint Nikita, the parish gathers the three groups together for a common liturgy. This coming together takes place in a context where each one maintains his own confessional identity." It thus speaks of itself as a group using a particular liturgical rite, not as a Church. In this it speaks of itself in much the same way as an Anglican Use parish in the United States could speak of itself.
- I don't know enough of any Slav language to be able to read properly the article you cite on the situation in the Poland of 1924-1939 (pp. 121-168)]. I don't think there is anything in it that says that the Holy See then recognized a distinct Eastern Catholic Church (not just an approved liturgical rite) that could be called the Byzantine-Slavic Church distinct from other Byzantine Slavic Catholic Churches such as the Ruthenian. To me it seems indeed to suggest the contrary. In any case, the list of the existing Eastern Catholic Churches must be based on what the Holy See recognizes now. In its organization, the Ruthenian Catholic Church is even now less unified than the others, lacking a single central point of reference. Esoglou (talk) 10:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- The Byzantine-Slavic Catholic Church is a typical Polish church, acting only in Poland, so I know the Polish language only items on the subject. The best known are:
- Then we need more information about the "Byzantine-Slavic Catholic Church". It seems not to have got the Holy See's recognition as an autonomous (sui iuris) Church. And that is a very important, indeed an essential consideration. The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches defines a sui iuris Church as a group of Christian faithful canonically connected with a hierarchy and recognized as autonomous either expressly or tacitly by the supreme authority of the Church (canon 27). This group doesn't have a bishop of its own and is, as you say, under the care of a Latin bishop. If then they do not be3ong to the sui iuris Eastern Catholic Church that Wikipedia calls the Russian Catholic Church, it seems that, in the eyes of the Holy See, the parish is in much the same position as, for instance, the "Anglican Use" parishes in the United States, which have a distinct liturgy but are not autonomous Catholic Churches, And there are several Anglican Use parishes, not just one. The title "Delegate" used for the Latin bishop associated with the group might even recall the delegates chosen by some episcopal conferences for contacts with Anglicans who are not yet in full communion with the Holy See, but who may well become so, perhaps even in less than a year, under the new structure of personal ordinariates that has not yet been put into effect. Am I missing something? Esoglou (talk) 22:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- Byzantine-Slavic Catholic Church and Russian Catholic Church are different churches. Person in charge of the Russian church is Joseph Werth. Person in charge of the Byzantine-Slavic Church is Zbigniew Kiernikowski. Bishop Zbigniew Kiernikowski is independent of Joseph Werth, but directly to the Pope as Apostolic Delegate for the Byzantine-Slavic Catholic Church. Byzantine-Slavic Catholic Church was destroyed by the Communists, so after the Second World War lasted only one parish of the Church. This is currently the world's smallest Catholic Church. Marij (talk) 15:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Papal infallibility and the Great Schism
Here is your question..
- "Would you please direct me to whichever of these spoke of infallibility as a bone of contention between East and West at the time of the schism?"
I am posting an except from Kallistos Ware about the issue of papal infallibility and the Great Schism. The article is called The Great Schism, is from his book the Orthodox Church.
- "We have spoken of the different doctrinal approaches in east and west; but there were two points of doctrine where the two sides no longer supplemented one another, but entered into direct conflict - the Papal claims and the Filioque. The factors which we have mentioned in previous paragraphs were sufficient in themselves to place a serious strain upon the unity of Christendom. Yet for all that, unity might still have been maintained, had there not been these two further points of difficulty. To them we must now turn. It was not until the middle of the ninth century that the full extent of the disagreement first came properly into the open, but the two differences themselves date back considerably earlier.
- We have already had occasion to mention the Papacy when speaking of the different political situations in east and west; and we have seen how the centralized and monarchical structure of the western Church was reinforced by the barbarian invasions. Now so long as the Pope claimed an absolute power only in the west, Byzantium raised no objections. The Byzantines did not mind if the western Church was centralized, so long as the Papacy did not interfere in the east. The Pope, however, believed his immediate power of jurisdiction to extend to the east as well as to the west; and as soon as he tried to enforce this claim within the eastern Patriarchates, trouble was bound to arise. The Greeks assigned to the Pope a primacy of honour, but not the universal supremacy which he regarded as his due. The Pope viewed infallibility as his own prerogative; the Greeks held that in matters of the faith the final decision rested not with the Pope alone, but with a Council representing all the bishops of the Church. Here we have two different conceptions of the visible organization of the Church.
- The Orthodox attitude to the Papacy is admirably expressed by a twelfth-century writer, Nicetas, Archbishop of Nicomedia:
[7]LoveMonkey (talk) 17:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. Twentieth-century Bishop Kallistos did indeed use the expression "infallibility" in speaking of attitudes at the time of the schism, unlike twelfth-century Nicetas. Esoglou (talk) 19:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Isn't Kallistos Ware a professor at Oxford? So why is his statement not a valid enough of a reflection of the Eastern Orthodox opinion? So what or how do you propose that the Orthodox position, Orthodoxy against the excesses of authority claimed and acted upon by the Papacy be reflected in the article? Since you reverted and insisted that the term you state that Kallistos Ware uses is not really how the Eastern Orthodox see things? Kallistos Ware really doesn't know what he's talking about here and you do. How should it be stated in the article, then? Since it appears that the Orthodox position has to be Ok'ed and authorized in it's terminology by the Roman Catholic church first? Or at least Esoglou.LoveMonkey (talk) 15:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Recent changes to East West Schism
Ah why can we Orthodox not call Pascha, Pascha? We don't call it Easter. The West calls it Easter we don't. Why are you removing that distinction from the article? [8]LoveMonkey (talk) 15:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Of course, "we Orthodox" can call Easter "Pascha" or any other name desired, even when speaking English, a language in which the usual name is quite different. (Some English dictionaries, such as the American Heritage Dictionary, don't register the word "Pascha" at all.) But you don't really want, do you, to point the reader to the Wikipedia page Pascha? That page gives as one meaning of the word "Pascha" "a large brothel in Cologne, Germany"! Perhaps you had better insert the word without a wikilink. Cheers. Esoglou (talk) 18:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi
Hi, nice to see that you came back. History2007 (talk) 05:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- If you are referring to the article on the Catholic Church, and I can't think of anything else that I held back on, I intend even now to intervene only little and hesitantly, in view of the danger that interventions by me will be unhelpful, only provoking again an automatic angry rejection by a once dominant editor of anything I say. Happy editing. Esoglou (talk) 06:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- No, do not worry about Catholic Church. All the bickering there will be forgotten in 6 months and a 12 year old may just rewrite that article anew. All that will happen there is anguish and unnecessary anger. I left them to have their own Rugby game in which no one wins, but all get bruised. They Church will outlive it all, however. History2007 (talk) 08:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
1 Corinthians 15:29
I detest that LDS use this passage to justify baptism for the dead. However, they use that as a proof-text. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Quite obviously, they do. And they hold that their practice is what Paul wrote of, and that he approved of it. Not everyone agrees. Esoglou (talk) 11:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- Absolutely. I certainly don't and it appears that you don't either. However, it's not about agreement but about trying to explain what the ground for their belief is. I like your update better. Thanks. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
867
So what sources do you have for the positions that you have depicted about the East-West Schism and the filioque? I have posted some of mine. Some. So I feel it only fair to ask you, yours. Since it appears that you don't really have any sources and the two articles are almost unreadable. Here is a link with a quick synopses of the whole affair. [9] Note what it says about the Council (yes council) of 867 that Photius called. This council is of course not here on Wikipedia. And I find it quite confusing and bordering on unethical that the Council that Photius called in 867 is missing yet the Council repudiating it has an entry. How is you missed this? LoveMonkey (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for your attention to aspects of the Christian meditation. Somehow the Vatican Index used the "the" in their title, but I agree that it is better without. Now they have various coded messages below it. I recognized Acta Apos Sedis, here, but there are other things that you may recognize: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/doc_doc_index.htm Letter on certain aspects of the Christian meditation on the Vatican Document Index . Cheers History2007 (talk) 07:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- The "coded messages" are references to printed sources for the text of the document. I too by no means understand all of the abbreviations. I presume that those in bold have the (authoritative) Latin text, while the others provide translations. The "coded messages" are, as you know:
- AAS 82 (1990) 362-379; DeS 13 (1991). OR 15.12.1989 [Ital.]; DocCath 87 (1990) 16-22 [Gall.]; EV 11, 1668-1705; LE 5360; Dokumenty, II, 24
- Of these, I know that "AAS" stands for Acta Apostolicae Sedis, as you do. "OR 15.12.1989 [Ital.]" stands for L'Osservatore Romano of 15 December 1989 (in Italian); "DocCath ... [Gall.]" for Documentation catholique ... (in French - "Gallice" is Latin for "in French"). I presume that "EV" stands for Enchiridion Vaticanum a series of volumes that, beginning with those of the Second Vatican Council, gives the texts of official documents of the Holy See in the original/official language (mostly Latin) with a facing translation in Italian (unless, of course, the original/official language was Italian). Dokumenty is obviously a source for Polish translations. I am surprised that Origins, a similar documentary service of the United States Catholic News Service, is not mentioned.
- As for the English grammatical error on the Holy See website, it isn't the only one. The site is only as error-free as whatever employee is working on it Esoglou (talk) 09:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, on that note I wonder about Consueverunt Romani Pontifices which everyone says was issued in the 16th century, but the Vatican website attributes to JP II, but I may have confused it in any case. Do they use the same title twice? History2007 (talk) 02:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- It happens rather frequently that the first two or three words (the "incipit") of many documents are the same. There is no thought of avoiding that kind of repetition. It is not a mistake. Neither the person who drew up the Latin document nor whoever put the text on the website made an error in the case you mention. Esoglou (talk) 06:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, I will remove the link to the JPII document and probably make a separate doc for that. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 12:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- It happens rather frequently that the first two or three words (the "incipit") of many documents are the same. There is no thought of avoiding that kind of repetition. It is not a mistake. Neither the person who drew up the Latin document nor whoever put the text on the website made an error in the case you mention. Esoglou (talk) 06:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, on that note I wonder about Consueverunt Romani Pontifices which everyone says was issued in the 16th century, but the Vatican website attributes to JP II, but I may have confused it in any case. Do they use the same title twice? History2007 (talk) 02:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- On that note, someone should call the Vatican and tell them that the The Story of a Soul was not written by Teresa of Avila, as they seem to think in the English version of Maria Candida of the Eucharist[10]. The Italian version seems to think so too, but says Teresa of Jesus. I thought you would get a laugh out of that one. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 20:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps there is, after all, no error in the text, which might also be interpreted as follows. Maria Candida of the Eucharist was first attracted to Carmelite spirituality by reading the Story of a Soul by Theresa of the Child Jesus. But that was only the beginning of a fuller acquaintance with Carmelite spirituality. She read also the works of Teresa of Jesus, who is "the Foundress" (of the Discalced Carmelites). Whoever prepared the Portuguese translation must have interpreted the text as you did and, taking it that the name of the Spanish Carmelite was a mistake, changed it to the name of the French Carmelite. Esoglou (talk) 22:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- On that note, someone should call the Vatican and tell them that the The Story of a Soul was not written by Teresa of Avila, as they seem to think in the English version of Maria Candida of the Eucharist[10]. The Italian version seems to think so too, but says Teresa of Jesus. I thought you would get a laugh out of that one. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 20:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I think it must have been "Child Jesus" in some early text, but then translations went wrong. But I think it was Thérèse of Lisieux who influenced her, not of Avila. In fact I am not sure exactly which writings of Teresa of Avila refer to the Eucharist that they mention, but Thérèse of Lisieux's writings on that are better known. I even did a quick search on Teresa of Avila's writings on Eucharist and nothing major showed up. Is there? That would be interesting to clarify, since I am trying to expand a few Carmelite pages. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 04:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- I am sorry I cannot help, at least not this evening. Like you, I haven't found anything "major", but I did find Teresa of Jesus mentioned as one of the Eucharistic Saints. But T don't really think that what Theresa of the Child Jesus recounts can be classified as major doctrine on the Eucharist. So I would not count on the Portuguese version being the original. The most likely original for such documents is the Italian. Esoglou (talk) 20:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- No problem and no need for apologies. I am beginning to try to understand the writings of various people on Eucharistic meditations. It will take research, but I am sure I will learn in the process. In general, Thérèse of Lisieux (whose own article is now really long and in need of help) is noted, I think, more for her inspirations than her doctrines. The Eucharistic meditations topic is spread in various places and JP II emphasized it a lot, but his views are not yet brought in together with others in a central place in Wikipedia. But let us see what I can find in the next month. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 08:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Ottaviani
As far as I could retrieve from the article history, you were the one, who corrected the "press version" of the Crimen sollicitationis-part in the Ottaviani article. I would like to do the same for the German wikipedia - as there is still the "press version", which is probably incorrect. Now checking the references for the original document I discovered some questions. Stated in the references is just the beginning paragraph of the crimen sollicitationis document in Latin. Do you have it in hard copy at your hands? Do you know, who has this? Do you have a reliable translation (as my Latin is far from sufficient)? Is it possible to bring all this online (preferably as scanned picture), to make it an online reference?
- Just found a link to the "unofficial translation" from vatican by google: http://www.vatican.va/resources/resources_crimen-sollicitationis-1962_en.html
{{Unsigned|92.231.41.10))
- Someone has already added this translation to the external links of the Crimen sollicitationis article. I haven't examined it minutely, but it seems to be an excellent translation. Esoglou (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Edit Warring on the filioque article
I have posted on the edit warring noticeboard [11] the behavior I have noted on the filioque article talkpage.LoveMonkey (talk) 13:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)