User talk:Cody7777777

Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello Cody7777777! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. You may also push the signature button located above the edit window. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. Below are some pages to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! -- Kukini ^{háblame aquí} 04:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects
Getting your info out there
Citing sources Neutral Point of View Describing points of view Attribution Uploading images Image use policy
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Policy Library

Getting Help
New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions
Getting along
Etiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Resolving disputes
Getting technical
Cleaning up vandalism Pages needing attention Peer review Tools Village pump

Byzantium

Please do the job properly. You should have:

preferably discussed first on a talk page and wait a few days for comments
stated clearly in the first edit summary that History of the Eastern Roman Empire was chopped out of Byzantine Empire. The article has had countless editors. Creating History of the Eastern Roman Empire without that edit summary is an insult to those editors.
repeated the above statement at talk:History of the Eastern Roman Empire and provided a link back to the discussion of the split
reduced the same text in Byzantine Empire to a short summary.

— RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 12:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't meant to take credit for any of the work there. (I guess I need more experience about editing on wikipedia.) I thought that the history section on the Eastern Roman Empire was too long, and needed a subarticle. The history section on the Eastern Roman Empire would've been reduced in time. There were some discussions for creating this article here Talk:Roman Empire/Archive 5#Resolving the Roman/Byzantine mess. Cody7777777 (talk) 12:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good - you have added the required talk page. But not "reduced in time" - reduced immediately and by you. Duplicated text can give rise to confusion if different editors work on different copies of the text. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 12:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey now the filioque

Well I am now in the middle trying to added to the filique article and was hoping for some assistance. Thanks. P.S. You don't have too you have already went above and beyond so it's OK if you don't. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a set of on going issues on the talkpage..

LoveMonkey (talk) 13:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a good source about Noesis and nous

[1] Thanks LoveMonkey (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for the theoria article and the nous

Since I am retired and did not complete all of the work on Orthodox theology that I intended I am asking you to please help if and when you can. As an Orthodox brother. Here are two very current articles on theoria and the nous. [2], [3] They explain allot and I was hoping to intregrate them into the theoria, nous, gnosis and Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences articles. But I am done so maybe just maybe you could help and source the article with the info including in Metropolitan Hierotheos' work. God Bless you. Christ is Risen. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

“The man divinized by grace will be everything that God is, apart from identity of essence.” Saint John Maximus the Confessor Ad Thalassium 22, PG 90:320a

LoveMonkey (talk) 13:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantium

I hope you can forgive me for calling you ignorant, but the issue here has been going on and on. No one here denies what Byzantium was. Gabr-el 23:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see from above that you are Greek Orthodox? Interesting. I hope you do not find me offending you. I have great respect for the Apostolicity and authenticity of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Gabr-el 23:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's really no need for apology, and I don't find you (or anyone else) offending. I am sorry in case you felt offended by my posts, I was simply disagreeing with you on some issues. Actually, I'm Romanian Orthodox. Cody7777777 (talk) 19:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orthdox and Catholic Church

Multumesc frumos pentru link. Eu nu ma pricep prea mult in teologie si nu stiu toate subtilitatile argumentelor. In general, linkul spune unele lucruri bine-cunoscute, plus unele inexactitati grosolane (Turcii, nu Arabii au cucerit Constantinopolul in 1054), dar nu prea inteleg care-i ideea. Ca n-o fi corect ca Biserica Catolica sa se numeansca Catolica? Problema e ca daca cu 2,000 de ani in urma, cuvantul "catolic" insemna un lucru, astazi inseamna alt lucru, si bazandu-se pe intelesul de astazi al cuvantului, birerica se considera/i se spune catolica. A numi biserica condusa de Papa catolica nu e nimic gresit. Se poate intradevar argumenta (cum faci tu) ca cuvatul si-a pierdut mult din sensul original si ca acum asiastam la o alta realitate. Dar anume la realitatea de astazi se refera si senusul de astasi al cuvantului e redat de cuvintele "Biserica Catolica". Asta nu pune copyright pe acest cuvat, evident. Biserica Ortodoxa se considera si catoalica (alaturi de ortodoxa), doar ca numele dupa care e cunoscut este "Biserica Ortodoxa" (fara Catolica). De exemplu Cezar este cunoscut de noi sub acest nume, desi se scria Caesar si se pronunta "Kaizar". Nu toate numele folosit de oameni sunt "corecte". De fapt cred ca majoritate sunt "incorecte". Noi putem mentiona acest lucru in textul articolului, dar titlul pe care l-ai propus tu nu spune mimic nimanui (este foarte vag si e greu de aceea sa-l identifici cu Biserica cunoscuta ca Orthodoxa. Eu cred ca ar fi bine sa adaugi aceste informatii interesante in textul articolluui, dar nu in titlu. Dc76\^talk 08:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nu am vrut zic ca Biserica in frunte cu papa din Roma, nu are dreptul sa aiba un articol pe wiki, care sa contina "Catholic Church", vroiam sa subliniez punctul de vedere ortodox in legatura cu acest titlu

Exact asta eu n-am inteles si cred ca si ceilalti la asta s-au inpotmolit. Exista un punct de vedere ortodox aspura folosirii acestui cuvant de catre romano-catolici? Daca da, cel putin ar trebui sa gasim o refereinta la asa ceva din gura vreunuia din Partiarhi, ca sa nu mai spunem ca ar trebui sa fie scris sus si tare. Daca Bisericile Ortodoxe nu spun asta raspicat, inseamna ca nu au nimic impotriva faptului ca Biserica condusa de Papa sa se numeasca Biserica Catolica.

eu din cate vad regulile sustin pentru articolul numit acuma "Eastern Orthodox Church" o schimbare in "Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church" sau "Orthodox Catholic Church (Eastern)" deoarece e mai oficial

E intradevar mai oficial? Daca cineva spune "Biserica Ortodoxa Catolica de Est", tu recunosti ca e vorba despre tine? Eu nu. Poate nu stiu eu destul teologie... ca doar na, sunt amator.

si mai putin "ambiguos" in engleza in legatura cu non-chalcedonienii (sau miafizitii/monofizitii, care in engleza isi spun deobicei "Orthodox Church")

Nu, asta articolele ne-calcedonienilor se muta la Oriental Ortodox Church. Nu mutam noi Orthodox Church pentru ei. Asa mai poate veni unul si inventa inca nu stiu ce denumire. Biserica este si prin asta ortodoxa (traditionala) ca nu se inchina dupa cum bate vantul. Cuvantul "Eastern" este deja un compromis nejustificat (d.p.m.d.v.) facut pentru unii vorbitori de engleza, si anume pentru cei ignoranti. In nicio limba dominata de ortodocsi n-o sa-l gasesti ca adjectiv.

In legatura cu redenumirea recenta a articolului "Roman Catholic Church" in pur si simplu "Catholic Church", dupa parerea mea a fost realizata contrar regulilor de pe wikipedia, ar fi trebuit sa puna macar ceva in paranteze, dar prea putini s-au opus in aceea discutie

A pune in paranteze la cea mai numeroasa boiserica este deja prea mult. Unica alternativa era sa ramana la Roman Catholic Church. Eu nu inteleg un lucru: unde sunt acele voci din lumea reala (de exemplu clerici si teologi ortodocsi) care sa se opuna?

Dar desigur, in caz de mai pariticipi in dezbatere poti sprijini orice optiune doresti

Eu nu vreau sa ma bag in discutii unde nu pricep. Daca sustin o versiune vreau sa fiu sigur ca am/cunosc argumentele necesare si ca intradevar e logic ce sustin, altfel de ce sa ma bag? Observa, te rog, ca de fapt nimeni nu te-a sustinut pa pagina de discutie. Incerca sa fii mai explicit cu cei care cunosc mai bine ca mine, si poate atunci pricep si eu. Incearca sa adresezi exact ce ti-am spus mai sus: unde este opozitia ortodoxa folosirii cuvantului "catolic"? Dc76\^talk 15:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

O sa am nevoie de ceva timp sa citesc mesajul tau si linkurile de acolo, e foarte multa informatie... N-o sa mai comentez pe pagina de discutie a articolului pana atunici Dc76\^talk 18:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cody, we've been through a similar issue with the Byzantine Empire. I am familiar with the doctrines of the Orthodox Church, after all, I suffered through several years of religious education at school... The point is, even in everyday usage among the Orthodox (including priests), "Catholic" has come to mean the Roman church, and "Orthodox" ours. Usage also tends to emphasize the "Orthodox" part since the Church prides itself explicitly on that: the orthodoxy of its teachings and beliefs in contrast to Roman Catholicism. (Believe me, if you were to go to some of the more fanatical Orthodox I've come across, and ask them "Are you Orthodox Catholics?", they would most likely retort "We are Orthodox, not Catholic." in a quite angered manner.) It is simply a matter of conventional usage: the official names of an institution and the vernacular names are very rarely the same. Nor will the name "Orthodox Church" deny the ecumenical dimension and claims of Orthodoxy. Constantine ✍ 14:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[4]LoveMonkey,[5] (talk) 20:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cody, thank you very much for your message. I am well aware of "catholic" (in English and Greek) vs. "soborniceasca" and "universala" in Romanian. In fact, although I personally also use "soborniceasca", it does strike me very odd that this is in fact a modification in the original text, and I hope the last words of the Bible do not apply to this prayer as well, for then punishment is awaiting us. Or maybe this is exactly how God punishes radical anti-ecumenists: in their desire to be the most orthodox they went as far as to remove (replace/modify) a word in a central prayer, and as a punishment that word is now impossible to stick to the name of the Church. But let's not be pessimistic: God works better ways then the best we can imagine. Everything can be solved if we approach things humbly, not with declarations "we are the most orthodox, you are all sinners". We can say "doing that is a sin", but only God can say "x is a sinner". And there is no logical contradiction here, because only God knows to what extent and who what kind of sinner is. Dc76\^talk 00:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please review

My current discussion yes, pretty please:>) ousia LoveMonkey (talk) 03:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but we both believe in the project here and must accept defeat as we accept success. We fought that good fight and are on record as such..LoveMonkey (talk) 05:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the nonsense someone posted on my talkpage today.LoveMonkey (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know sometimes I wonder...I mean the discussion on the name of the Orthodox Church. Even the OCA's original name was the Greek Catholic Church.. Hope all is well Cody..LoveMonkey (talk) 23:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for posting!

Yes, I've heard you and understood, and yes, had noticed the change in the western article to Catholic Church. I still can't say I support this; your evidence that you have provided me is excellent and I confess I'd never come across so much material before that says how recent 'Orthodox' is. However, does this have to be the only variable? Your operationalization is one thing, but that doesn't mean as Wikipedians we'd have employed the most sound methodology for tackling this. However, since I'm not much of a (social or natural) scientist I'd leave that to others. Personally I'd still say that it's precisely the things you note that make me want to keep Eastern Orthodox, just because I've always known I was Catholic, I've always known in my own case I'm Roman as well as Greek; so why the Orthodox Catholic? My most optimal thing would be Eastern Orthodox Church aka Orthodox Catholic Church (of the East) That's just me, and in the end, if there's a change, I've had my say, and I have complete trust in Wikipedians, and believe this site is a great system. It might not be that some optimal formula was found for the name but at least we had a good discussion about it !! One further thing for you consideration: google orthodox catholic and some of the things that come up <href>http://www.orthodoxcatholicchurch.org/history.html</ref> (non canonical) <href>http://www.evangelicalorthodoxcatholic.org/</ref> (non canonical) <href>http://orthodoxcatholicfamily.blogspot.com/</ref> (non canonical) <href>http://www.apostle1.com/</ref> (non canonical) etc Eugene-elgato (talk) 08:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well.....we shall see what's to be seen. It's the ongoing saga that is wikipedia, and in future there may be further refinement and more logical ways of determinining....if for now that's the name of the article then concentrate on the substance. I mean, for one thing this article is way too long, not easy on the eyeEugene-elgato (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know again bout the debate; aint been online for ages though might have a look at it once have more time Eugene-elgato (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Separation of church and state

I wonder if you would look at this [section] which I've been working on. The condition of this section before I started working on it can only be described as "god awful". It is somewhat improved now but it needs a lot more work, especially in the section describing the Eastern Roman Empire. Could you take a look at it? This is all historical background and thus does not need a lot of detail but I suspect that the section on the Eastern Roman Empire needs a few more sentences. I am particularly interested in the role of emperors in convening councils of the Church. Why is it that the emperor convened the councils and not a bishop such as the Bishop of Rome or the Bishop of Constantinople? --Richard (talk) 16:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

libertarianism

[6], [7]..LoveMonkey (talk) 03:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

You are a party in a request for an Arbitration: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#.3CCatholic_Church_and_Renaming.3E --Rockstone (talk) 01:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been mentioned as a party in an incident at ANI

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Cody7777777 and disruptive Byzantine Empire FA additions - you may wish to participate in the discussion. - Sinneed (talk) 20:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

You have done 3 reverts within 24 hours, and more over the past few days, against 2 other editors. wp:edit warring against multiple editors, even if you are right, is not generally productive. Edit warring is not allowed. It can result in a block or page or topic bans. While you have not hit the tripwire of "more than 3 reversions in 24 hours"(wp:3rr), if you continue this pattern of reversion, it will still likely be seen as an edit war. I would encourage you to pursue wp:conflict resolution, or find more convincing arguments, painful though that may be, as I fear that unless you can find a way to gather more support for your position, you will not be able to make the change you want, and that if you continue to revert against multiple editors, you will very possibly be unable to edit. - Sinneed (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note

Hi Cody. Thanks for the note on Byzantine Empire. I've floated a suggestion on the talk page. Hopefully all of the involved editors can dialogue their way to a consensus over th enext few days. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 01:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Romania

Hi. Thanks for your useful note. I find it astonishing that there is a move to remove Romania from the Byzantine empire infobox, despite the overwhelming evidence that the term was precisely how the Byzantines themselves referred to their empire. Unfortunately,, Wikipedia is populated by too many self-appointed "experts" who actually know little or nothing about the subjects that they interfere with. I fully support your resistance to this change. Regards EraNavigator (talk) 11:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantine Empire

Thank you very much for your support. Cody7777777 (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Perhaps I was too long-winded. I was trying to be diplomatic.

I had some frustrating dialogue with Miskin a long while back. I never found a way to deal with that and have avoided ever since.

--Mcorazao (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mersi

Multumesc frumos pentru articol. Nu, nu-l stam. O sa-l citesc cu atentie. Poate ar fi bine sa creezi un articol pentru autor daca el este notabil. Daca ai timp, poate ne-ai putea ajuta sa imbunatatim articolele:

Ca sa nu mai zic ca multe alte articole inca lipsesc si nu e nimeni sa se ocupe de ele. Toata lumea e indiferenta si are preocupari complezente. Iar cand se gasesc comunisti care sa le atace, nimeni nu vine sa le apere. Dc76\^talk 11:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nu te nelinisti, acele articole vor astepta. Asa cum nu s-a intamplat nimic cu ele pana acum. Peste vreo luna sau cateva luni vei avea timp si e foarte bine daca le imbunatatesti abia atunci. Intre timp, nici nu stii cum iti cade in fata vreo carte sau vreun articol pe care-l poti pune deoparte si folosi la vremea potrivita. De fapt e ami bine mai tarziu si mai cu citari decat mai repede, pentru ca s-au mai luat pro-sovietici de ele, si e una cand ai surse si alta cand nu ai. Cu surse, ii reperezi repede. Fara surse, o terta persoana poate sa zica "si eu de unde stiu care din voi are dreptate daca nu citati surse". Recunosc ca nici eu nu m-am ocupat de aceste articole cum trebuie. Cele mai bune urari, Dc76\^talk 21:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation

You have been named as an involved party in a request for mediation WP:Requests for mediation/Byzantine Empire for your involvement in the article Byzantine Empire. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 23:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring

Please see my note at AN3 noticeboard. Abecedare (talk) 08:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Byzantine Empire.

For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 23:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

militant atheism in Romania

I would like to add a section into the militant atheism article. I have created a small comment section on the articles talk page and I was wondering if you could contribute to the talkpage for some more material and historical facts and figures and secondary sources. Thanks LoveMonkey (talk)

What sources do you have for Eugen Ţurcanu?LoveMonkey (talk) 00:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regrettably, I was unable to find yet some sources which explcitly describe him as a militant atheist (although, it is obvious enough, that he was). Cody7777777 (talk) 23:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I think that there needs to be a bit of clarification as no one is claiming that Vladimir Bukovsky (for example) was a victim of the Znanie cult. I think though that if you could you should post your sources to validate them on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard just to see the excuses they make here. I mean at least they are not rounding us up for this, I mean you could disappear (with the help of the Znanie of course) for just printing religious material until the early 80s. At least now it can be somewhat talked about. There in Russia everyone is still waiting for the hammer to come back down so everyone is being very silent. They see this whole last 20 years as a big elaborate catharsis to get people to uncover themselves. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Orthodox theological differences

Hello Brother Cody pray for me a sinner. I hope all is well. Richard has finally returned to the older articles. Could you when you get time read over the talkpage of article Talk:Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences so as to call into question what I might say as unworthy of a brother.
May the Theotokos bless you always
LoveMonkey (talk) 16:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In memory of the beloved Dimitri

I would hope out of the kindness of your heart that you might take the time to read Father Dimitri's defense of Dionysus[8] and maybe just maybe it could be added to the Areopagite's article here as contra to the established but reject position of the West, by the East. Christ is with us. 16:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Roman Imperial Church

I just wanted to say thanks for being the voice of reason in the discussion. I hope that I have been at least somewhat reasonable.

The point I was making wrt terminology is that I want to try to avoid leading with terms that have loaded meanings or meanings that could lead to misunderstanding. Obviously with religious topics that is particularly tricky. Since catholic and orthodox have such specific interpretations today, and there is long-standing controversy about the relationship of those two church entities to the apostles and the Roman Church, I figure it is best to stay away from them when defining the topic (and in general I used them very sparingly in the rest of the article as well).

Please feel free to edit the article as you see fit. Certainly I am a supporter of WP:BOLD.

--Mcorazao (talk) 22:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad I could be of some help. The reason I claimed earlier that "Catholic (or Orthodox) Church" did not look ambiguous in my opinion, was because, since the "Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church" and the "Roman Catholic Church" claim to be continuations of the Roman Imperial Church, I thought that term could be also used there. However, as I said, on the talk page there, I have no problem using a different term there. Cody7777777 (talk) 17:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I figured that was what you were trying to get at but the question is how to say that in a neutral way. Saying "Catholic or Orthodox" implies only one is right. "Catholic (or Orthodox)" says it is probably the Catholics that are right. Saying "Catholic and Orthodox" would include both but it would imply that the Anglican and Lutheran claims of being descended directly from that church are untrue. My point was that there is no reason to try to address the connection of that church in history to the modern churches in the lead sentence. Since that is a thorny issue it seems best just describe it in the historical context first and then afterward carefully get into its relationship with modern entities. I tried to address the connections to the modern entities in as objective and respectful way as I could but certainly there may be better ways to address that. And part of the thorniness comes from the issues that the other editors are bringing up in that there is a valid distinction between the political/temporal body that was the Roman Church and the larger spiritual communion that extended beyond the Empire. So do the modern churches descend from the political/temporal body or from the larger communion? Complex topic and really beyond the scope of the article. --Mcorazao (talk) 17:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State church of the Roman Empire (formerly Roman imperial church). Johnbod (talk) 23:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was sorry to see this canvassing, which blatently misrepresents the arguments! Johnbod (talk) 21:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic-Orthodox theological differences (again)

Hi. Is there any chance you could be convinced to come back and help some more at Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences? There has been a dispute going on there regarding the EOC's beliefs on the nature of man's physical body — specifically centering on a claim that the EOC teaches the physical, material body did not exist before the fall of man and will not exist after the resurrection. LoveMonkey (talk · contribs) and Esoglou (talk · contribs) appear unable to agree over whether Vladimir Lossky and others are making such a claim, and (if they are) whether this claim accurately describes and interprets EOC belief. I have been trying (without much success) to mediate between these two, but it seems evident that the only viable solution is to get a larger number of knowledgeable Orthodox (or, at least, Orthodoxy-knowledgeable) editors involved with the article. Richwales (talk · contribs) 15:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Great_Schism_1054_with_former_borders.png —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.147.171 (talk) 11:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Existences and realities of God

Hi Cody, I have some questions about the text of Essence-Energies distinction. They are posed here and here. LoveMonkey is a bit irritated with me (as I am with him) and so he is disinclined to educate me and has referred me to you. When you have time, perhaps you could answer some of my questions. Your assistance would be much appreciated. --Richard S (talk) 22:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

Christ is born! LoveMonkey (talk) 18:17, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Essence-Energies distinction

Hi Cody, I wonder if you could look at the current dispute at Talk:Essence-Energies distinction and weigh in. I always value your opinion as it is generally less combative than LoveMonkey's and might serve to help calm the waters. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of Eastern Orthodox Christian theology

I wanted to let you know about History of Eastern Orthodox Christian theology, an article that I just created. It takes a look at the history of EO theology (i.e. the history of the EO church theology that omits most of the political and ecclesiological aspects except the ones that directly impacted the theology). I confess that the motivation for creating this article is that I wanted a place to discuss the Neo-Patristic theology of Florovsky as well as the work of Meyendorff, Romandes, Lossky and Yannaras. I stopped where I did because there is a plausible argument that discussing them is recentism. I don't think it is but I wanted to stop and check with others before continuing. My thought was to create a section titled "20th century theologians" or "Modern theologians" and then create subsections discussing the works of the these theologians.

What do you think?

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have since expanded the coverage of the 19th and 20th centuries quite a bit. If you have time, please take a look at those sections and give me some feedback for further improvement. I feel the discussion of the Slavophile movement is inadequate but I have been having difficulty finding online resources that discuss this topic. If you can point me towards any, it would be a great help. Thanx. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Synergy and the Essence-Energies distinction

Hi Cody, I am having difficulty understanding the relationship of synergy and the Essence-Energies distinction as presented by David Bradshaw. Could you take a look at this discussion and give us your opinion?

Does this article belong under the title Essence-Energies distinction or has its scope expanded to where a title such as Conception of God (Eastern Orthodox) or Nature of God (Eastern Orthodox)?

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Authority of a bishop in the Orthodox Church

Hi Cody, I am having some difficulty understanding the extent of a bishop's authority in the Orthodox Church. I know you've explained this to me before but perhaps I'm just a bit thick. Bishop Auxentios of Photiki criticized John Meyendorff's analysis of Palamas as flawed (here).

To me, this is just one more opinion on the matter but LoveMonkey asserts that the authority of the bishop is such that it can be taken as the official position of the Orthodox Church and thus binding on all Orthodox theologians and indeed all Orthodox Christians. I have a bit of a tough time swallowing this assertion because that is so far from how the Catholic Church operates that it is, frankly, a bit of culture shock for me. LoveMonkey's argument is that, if there were any dissent from the Bishop of Photiki's position, it would have been escalated to a Metropolitan or a Patriarch for resolution and that, absent any such escalation, the Bishop of Photiki's position may be considered to be that of the Orthodox Church.

I wonder if you could help by explaining if LoveMonkey's depiction of the authority of an Orthodox bishop is accurate. I just find it easier to understand when things are explained to me in a more collegial manner rather than a hostile and contemptuous one.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basileia (ton) R(h)omaion

Hello, just a short remark regarding the comment in your edit summary of today that "currently "Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων" does not even have results on "Google Books", while "Ῥωμανία" does"[9]: This is correct, but if you query Βασιλεία Ρωμαίων instead of Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων several results will come up. Regards, Iblardi (talk) 19:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What on Earth are you people talking about? Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων is Byzantine Greek for Roman Empire. What does Google have to do with it? Also Romania (Rhomania) is just a latinization of a Greek word, that's it. Justinian I - the last emperor who spoke Latin at home never called his empire 'Romania' - for him it was the same Roman Empire of Constantine I. Also, 'Romania' was the name crusaders used for Latin Empire of the XIII century, not for Byzantine.--Alvez3 (talk) 23:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Romania' in Latin? Tell me you are not biased

I am not going to start a war on that page. You just didn't convince me you are not biased. I don't speak modern Romanian myself (I speak Italian, Spanish and Portuguese, though), but I happen know an anecdotal story about the spelling of modern România came to be. Tell me you are not a Romanian who is knowingly or subconsciously trying to associate his country with a great medieval empire by such unsophisticated method (no offence). And give me a link not in Romanian, but in English or Latin any other western European language that unequivocally states that the name Romania widely existed as part of Latin language (vulgar Latin at least) before VII century and I'll be happy to acknowledge your position is correct.--Alvez3 (talk) 04:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I skipped your link to Jordanes's text in Latin. I still need more convincing though. See, fact is - the elites of VI century Byzantium were fluent in both languages and Latin was still the language of official documents. My point is - Jordanes's references to 'Romania' in that particular text still look like transcription from contemporary Greek equivalent. The Scandianvian author isn't very convincing either - he says 'in later Greek and Latin...'. But during the times of 'later' Greek, Latin or rather the languages that derived from it were only spoken on the outskirts of the Empire in Illyria and where is now modern Romania. I'm almost ready to agree with you though, so if could show me more links, I'll admit I was wrong.--Alvez3 (talk) 04:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Dacia

Hi! From your edits, it looks like you might be interested in ancient Dacia. Would you like to join the WikiProject Dacia? It is a project aimed to better organize and improve the quality and accuracy of the articles related to these topics. We need help expanding and reviewing many articles, and we also need more images. Your input is welcomed! Thanks and best regards!

--Codrin.B (talk) 04:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Cody7777777. You have new messages at Codrinb's talk page.
Message added 19:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Thanks for getting back. Wrote you a note. Codrin.B (talk) 19:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course

If you need anything else let me know. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Rome-Byzantium

..au contraire, I am very interested, and certainly grateful you pointed this new thread out to me; it has been a long time since our previous discussions about the eastern Orthodox church and I was glad it was re-re-named (!)Eugene-elgato (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

filioque

Hey Cody, could you look over my recent additions to the filioque article and (please) reword them and source them? That way it doesn't look like I am posting my opinion (which I am not) rather it is common to the position of the church -Christos voskrese!! LoveMonkey (talk) 02:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you get time

Hello Cody if you get time could you look into the militant atheism article again. In specific the talkpage. As the issue of militant atheism appears to be one where editors are implying that militant atheism is a communist or Russian thing exclusively. Thanks LoveMonkey (talk) 19:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantine Empire warning

Regarding [10][11][12], in connection with this prior warning:

In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user editing Balkans-related articles in a disruptive way. If you engage in further inappropriate behaviour in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article/topic ban. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion requested on an RFC regarding Ecumenical council

Could you look at and express your views about this RFC? And while you're at it, could you look at the whole article and provide suggestions for improving it?

Thanx.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MA

After what you've been through put some brandy in it – Lionel ^(talk) 03:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Primacy of the Roman Pontiff

Hey if you could look at my comments on this article talk page. Thanx LoveMonkey (talk) 17:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of Eastern Orthodox Churches in the 20th century

Cody, I wonder if you could take a look at History of Eastern Orthodox Churches in the 20th century. I created this article back in January 2009 as a way of trimming detail out of History of the Eastern Orthodox Church. However, on reviewing this article today, I find that it seems to be a jumble of information that sort of hints at but doesn't really do a very good job of telling the story of the Orthodox Church in the 20th century. I wonder if you could take a step back and reflect on what this story is and how best to present it. I admit that I am not very knowledgeable regarding the Orthodox Church but it seems to me that there were four major themes in the history of that church in the 20th century:

the continuing decline and fall of the Ottoman Empire and the development of relations with its successor colonial territories and post-colonial regimes,
the experience of the Russian Orthodox Church under the Soviets and in the post-Soviet era
the experience of the Orthodox Church in the diaspora
the relations between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church and attempts at reconciliation

Have I captured the key themes of the 20th century history of the Orthodox Church? Have I missed any important themes? Do you know of any reliable sources who lay out an outline of this history? It would seem preferable to be able to cite a source who identifies these themes rather than relying it on my personal judgment as to what the major themes were.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 05:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for the long delay in response, but I'm no longer an active editor, and there are periods when I do not have enough time for Wikipedia. Your selection of key themes looks largely ok to me. The following website presents some excerpts regarding this period, from Kallistos Ware's book "The Orthodox Church" (it also speaks about the schism of the Old Calendarists). Another theme which I think should have some additional discussion would be the persecution of serbs during World War II, which is also mentioned in the following "Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodox Christianity" (which also discusses about some of the other themes). Also some sections from the article do not seem necessary, like "Russia under Muslim Mongol rule" and also the subsection "Medieval period" from the "Orthodox Church in China" section. Cody7777777 (talk) 16:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help with the filioque

Made some Romanides clarifications on the article talkpage please help. LoveMonkey (talk) 04:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey could you source this one for me?

While the phrase "who proceeds from the Father" is found in John 15:26, no direct statement about the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son is found in the New Testament.

thanks LoveMonkey (talk) 03:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about this one? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 04:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for mentioning that book, but regrettably "Google Books" does not give me a preview of it. Cody7777777 (talk) 11:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the following could be used for that statement. "According to the Scriptures, the Son Jesus Christ only sends the Holy Spirit in time, saying: “I will send unto you from the Father even the Spirit of truth which proceedeth from the Father, he shall bear witness of me” (John xv, 26). It is evident from the Scripture that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only; this was the belief from the very beginning of the One Undivided Church. When the church in the West inserted the “filioque” phrase into the Creed, this innovation precipitated the Great Schism of the Undivided Church. The “filioque” phrase is an error. It is not found in the Scripture". Cody7777777 (talk) 11:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pontifex Maximus

I made this comment over at Talk:Primacy of the Roman Pontiff...

In pre-Christian times, there was no single "Roman pontiff", there were, using the example of 46 BCE per Esoglou, as many as 16 Roman pontiffs of whom the Pontifex Maximus was supreme. Augustus Caesar assumed the title of Pontifex Maximus and it became a title of the emperor until the time of Theodosius I when it fell into disuse. In 382, Gratian formally renounced the title and it is said by some that Pope Damasus I was the first pope to assume the title. So there was (in pre-Christian times) no single "Roman pontiff". However, there is now a "Roman Pontiff" and, as James Coriden asserts, the preferred title for the Pope is "Roman Pontiff" An Introduction to Canon Law by James Coriden. The pope is both "the Supreme Pontiff" (Pontifex Maximus) and "the Roman Pontiff".

It occured to me that the above text summarizes the history of the term in the Western Roman Empire. I'm curious whether emperors of the Eastern Roman Empire also renounced the title (I assumed they did) and whether anybody started using it in the east (e.g. the Bishop of Constantinople). I'm guessing that the bishops of Constantinople did not take on the title perhaps because they (at least initially) accepted the Bishop of Rome taking it. I'm assuming that there was no problem with the Bishop of Rome being Pontifex Maximus as long as his primacy was understood to be "primus inter pares" (first among equals).

However, since my knowledge of the east is meager, all of the above is based on my own personal supposition.

Can you shed any light on the topic?

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, Theodosius I was the first Eastern Roman Emperor to refuse the title "Pontifex Maximus", around the same time as Gratian did([13],[14]). Regarding the use of "Pontifex Maximus" by other bishops, previously I also thought that only the Bishop of Rome used it, however I tried nonetheless to search for more information, and I found the following book, which claims "But Pontifex Maximus was not as yet restricted just for use by the 'pope.' Around the start of the 5th century, it appears to have been used to designate the bishops of the various capital cities of the Roman provinces (ie, the so called metropolitan bishops) with other bishops being referred to as just Pontiff". Cody7777777 (talk) 19:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx. That's at least partly enlightening. What's not said in the quote is when Pontifex Maximus became "restricted just for use by the 'pope'" and what the Eastern bishops thought about that. Presumably they at least grumbled. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Filioque

Hi Cody, could you look at the Filioque article, specifically the section titled Recent theological perspectives? I didn't write this text although I have just finished reorganizing it with a more logical flow of ideas (I hope!) to make it more readable. This section has been the locus of a recent edit war with LoveMonkey who kept insisting on inserting text about how the Eastern Orthodox delegation to the Council of Florence had the Filioque rammed down their throats (my words). I objected on the grounds that doing so was repeating information that should be presented in the "History" section, not in the "Recent theological perspectives" section. However, that is not what I wanted to ask you about.

It seems to me that some Orthodox theologians are willing to accept that the Filioque might be theologically acceptable provided that it does not imply a "first cause" nature to the Son (the Father is the monarch of the Trinity and there is no "double procession"). This view, however, is not shared by all Orthodox theologians but who exactly are these? We know Lossky rejected the Filioque but he is of a different generation. Who in the current generation of Orthodox theologians still rejects the Filioque?

Overall, I wanted to ask you if the text of the "recent theological perspectives" section accurately presents the current state of Orthodox theological thought.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 03:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The section's content looks largely ok to me. However, contemporary Orthodox theologians do not actually have a different view now, than before, about the inlcusion of the filioque in the Creed (they still oppose it in that context). The fact that there are theologians who consider that, the West using the expression "and from the Son" meant to say "through the Son", does not mean they would accept the expression "and from the Son" (filioque) in the Creed (whose context, is considered to be about the eternal origination of the Spirit). The Eastern Orthodox can accept the filioque (outside the Creed) when it refers to the Spirit's role in the economy of salvation, that the Spirit is sent in time by the Son, just like the Son is other times sent by the Spirit.

Contemporary Orthodox priests, John W. Morris (from the Antiochian Orthodox Church) and John Anthony McGuckin (from the Romanian Orthodox Church), explain in their books that Eastern Orthodox theologians do not accept the filioque when it refers to the eternal relations in the Trinity. The metropolitan John Zizioulas also states that "The Filioque in no way can be projected from the Economy into the immanent Trinity". (And I notice, the article currently does not speak too much about the distinction, the Eastern Orthodox do here, when referring to the economy of Salvation, and the eternal relations within Trinity.)

Also, I notice that Sergei Bulgakov is listed as an Orthodox theologian, but this is controversial, and if he is shown there, I think it should also be mentioned (probably in parentheses) that some of his works were condemned as erroneous.

I wish you (and everyone else) a Merry Christmas. Cody7777777 (talk) 18:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		All Around Amazing Barnstar
		Dear Cody7777777, thank you for writing about the positive aspects of my contributions before the community; it means so much to me that words cannot describe. Throughout our interactions at Wikipedia, you have devoted so much in ensuring that the community is aware of my intention to make Wikipedia a better place. This barnstar is titled the The All-Around Amazing Barnstar and you deserve it because you are an amazing person. Your friend, Anupam^Talk 17:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the barnstar (however, I do not really consider myself an amazing person).Cody7777777 (talk) 19:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about User:Esoglou at ANI

Hello Cody7777777. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Request experimental lifting of edit restriction on Esoglou. If you have an opinion on lifting Esoglou's editing restriction from Orthodox articles you can join the discussion. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 22:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cody, in light of objections from Taiwan boi, I have withdrawn the above-referenced proposal; however, I would still like to hear your thoughts on the proposal if you have the time and inclination. Thank you. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 22:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, in the past I also got the feeling that Esoglou was seeking to promote certain "Roman Catholic" views on "Eastern Orthodox" topics (which has contributed to his previous conflicts with other users), but I do not think he is unable to improve his editing behaviour. However, since I was not directly invloved in those conflictual edits (my interaction with Esoglou being largely limited to talk pages), I would prefer to leave this discussion to people who were more involved in these conflicts.Cody7777777 (talk) 11:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Palamism

Hi Cody,

I wonder if you would be so kind as to take a look at the article on Palamism and also at LoveMonkey's criticism of it posted here.

I recognize that there are issues with the very concept of Palamism as being perhaps a POV term used by the West to describe and malign a set of theological concepts that are not given this name in the East. I have tried very hard to take an NPOV stance in constructing that article but I think LoveMonkey objects to the very existence of an article under that title. I fear that there is nothing that can be done to satisfy him short of deleting the article.

What is your opinion in this regard?

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 07:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a comment at the talk page there. The article looks well written and provides a lot of useful information, but as I was searching for sources about "Palamism", I found books explicitly equating it with "Hesychasm", which could mean we have two articles that are supposed to discuss the same topic.Cody7777777 (talk) 13:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cody for your comment. Hey I still think it better to leave and or retire, considering the verbal abuse and conduct of administrators here and it is fruitless to try and contribute to only have the contributions attacked and deleted by administrators User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise (as on the Byzantine Empire article) and hostile editors here. It is not exclusive and contributors being abused is actually very common knowledge. When you have time take a look at a very tame and old review of it all in this ZDnet article. [15] If you ain't in the niche crowd, your outta luck and just wasting your time here. As for personal and professional people I know I go out of my way to steer them clear of this place and from the content now being produced here people are very rapidly ignoring and or not using Wikipedia. It is a cult now. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad I could be of some help. I understand your reasons for retiring. I have also cosnidered to fully retire, but currently I'm just semi-retired, since I still check my watchlist from time to time. (There were indeed heated and conflictual debates which have wasted a lot of time, but these are not necessarily the main reasons for my semi-retirement, and some discussions also encouraged me to search for sources, and learn more.)Cody7777777 (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantine Empire

Just in case you've missed it, the discussion is being continued here. Michael! (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notification. I saw the discussion, but currently I do not really have anything new to add. Cody7777777 (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:Butovo Martyrs Icon.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Butovo Martyrs Icon.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 00:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]