Talk:Metousiosis

message: OK, due to the edit warring, I've protected the article.  Please note, as the tag itself indicates, that this is not an endorsement of the current version.
What I'd like to see is for everybody to calm down a little bit.  Discuss your viewpoint, rather than throw insults at each other, here, as to why you believe that the article should be edited the way that you believe to be correct.  Make a genuine effort to listen to each other.  I do plan to unprotect in a few days.  --Nlu (talk) 14:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: Now that we have come to an official impasse, I would like to offer a summary of what this article should contain, as I see it.
I think it has been well established by the supplied quotations and other sources that "metousiosis"
*Was not written of by any recognized Father from the era of the Ecumenical Councils.
*Did not appear in the Christian East until Gennadius Scholarius, then a layman named George, wrote about it at the Council of Florence.
*Was intended as a direct translation of "transubstantiation".
*Had no conciliar recognition among the Orthodox until the 17th Century in the reaction to the Calvinism of Cyril Lucaris in an atmosphere of academic stagnation during the Turkocratia.
*Was accepted after that, if at all, only in a qualified sense that was careful to distance this term from any implied acceptance of Aristotelean categories. (A distinct issue from whether the Roman Catholics intend any such acceptance by "transubstantiation", which need not be addressed in any depth.)
*And finally, that any discussion of this term must be distinct from a discussion of Orthodox Eucharistic theology, which was already well developed before it was introduced, and upon which it shed no significant light.
Because of that last point, Orthodox quotations concerning the Eucharist are really beside the point. A detailed article on Orthodox Eucharistic theology would be welcome, but this really isn't the place for it considering the term's marginal status.
Now, it seems to me the article Nrgdocadams wants to write is from another angle entirely, how certain independent churches have developed this idea further.  That this has little to do in the end with Orthodox theology is, I think, both self-evident from what was written and from the persistent inclusion of a link as to a source text of a treatise by C. W. Leadbeater who, as a bishop of the Liberal Catholic Church, was naturally also a prominent Theosophist. Now, such an article is perfectly proper if 1) It is not a presentation of a synthesis original to Nrgdocadams himself; 2) It really is believed and taught by some notable religious communion; and 3) "Metousiosis" really is the term used by that communion.  References are, of course, necessary to establish all of these conditions -- I hasten to clarify that this is not me "laying down the law", but simply Wikipedia policy, and one that is particularly applicable, I think, to esoteric subjects where the vast majority of editors are unlikely to be familiar with it, as in this case.  In the case of number 3, if that cannot be established it doesn't mean the article cannot exist as Nrgdocadams wants it, but simply that some other title would be more appropriate.
I would therefore not object to an article that consisted of two distinct sections: the first being a brief discussion of the Orthodox use of the term as outlined above, and the second a discussion of how the idea was elaborated by more recent groups. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto on all of this from both Csernica and Lima.  My own position is the same.  —Preost talk contribs 00:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content Discussion 

message: If we seem to have come to a consensus, I am planning to unprotect the article in a few hours, unless there are objections.  --Nlu (talk) 04:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My feeling is that there is generally a consensus of most of us excepting Nrgdocadams, who hasn't weighed in since the protection.  (Of course, considering this edit, he may not.) —Preost talk contribs 12:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotecting 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Metousiosis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060527042415/http://19.1911encyclopedia.org/J/JE/JERUSALEM_SYNOD_OF.htm to http://19.1911encyclopedia.org/J/JE/JERUSALEM_SYNOD_OF.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)