Talk:John Cassian

We're having a dispute over exactly what nationality John Cassian should be listed. For now I've placed him in a container cat for the duration of the discussion. Benkenobi18 (talk) 00:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC) Whiteguru (talk) 23:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To bring others into the discussion, I am copying here a conversation on my Talk page:

John Cassian

If he's not French, then what would you prefer? I just finished diffusing the category. He's not going to stay without a nationality. Given that he spent significant time ministering in Marseilles, that is why I chose French to drop him in. Plus the fact that he is part of the 'French Wikiproject'. Benkenobi18 (talk) 07:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the revert. I didn't notice that you had reverted me once already. I really don't care what you choose to call him, provided; 1, he gets a nationality, 2, it's a nationality that we already have a box for. Benkenobi18 (talk) 07:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Categorizing as belonging to modern nations individuals who lived long before these nations arose is highly questionable. I do not think it at all necessary. John Cassian, according to the article on him, was born in an area today divided between Romania and Bulgaria. Was he a Romanian or a Bulgarian? I think either would be misleading. I think (without having checked) that the Bulgars had not arrived in what is now Bulgaria. The state that John Cassian was born in and lived his life in was the Roman Empire. Esoglou (talk) 07:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His feast is celebrated at Marseilles. That should be sufficient to tag him as a French saint even if he is not originally from France. Will add Greek, due to his association with Crystostem. Benkenobi18 (talk) 07:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should bring others in by discussing the question on the Talk page. I don't think we should classify him as French, since France did not then exist, nor as Romanian or Bulgarian, for similar reasons. He should certainly not be classified as Greek merely on the basis of an association with John Chrysostom, who was Bishop/Patriarch of Constantinople, which, as you know, is not in present-day Greece. (For all we know, Chrysostom may never have set foot in present-day Greece.) Was John Cassian Italian because of his association with Popes Innocent I and Leo I? Was he Turkish because of having been a member of the clergy of Constantinople? Was he Egyptian because of the years time he spent in a monastic settlement in Egypt? Esoglou (talk) 08:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the closest characterization that would fit him would be this, and even that does not fit, given that he was far, far from French, not in any way Greek, etc. He was "sent" to what became France later, he was not from there, etc. He is as French as Chris Columbus (who has a feast in NY city) was American. All you could say is "eastern European" at best. History2007 (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At the time, there was no 'Eastern European'. If you were from the East, you were Greek. Anyways, I'm tagging him with a nationality, because he should have something there. Also, he is a French Saint because he started a monastery there, has a feast day there, in Marseilles. Arguing, "He should have no nationality", isn't an option. Choose something that works, but he's not going to stay with none. Benkenobi18 (talk) 15:22, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

False. At that time, the Greek speakers of that area identified as Ῥωμαῖοι (Romans); by Ἕλληνες (Greeks) they understood the pre-Christian Greek speakers. Esoglou (talk) 18:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RE: "At the time, there was no 'Eastern European'", hence my joke about the European Economic Community in the link above... And there was no France either... But China existed, if you want to go that way... I will stop watching now. History2007 (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why is it necessary to identify his nationality? If we describe him in modern terms, we may feel better having done so, but it really is not helpful. His geographic origin is important. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 08:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject France. This article is within the scope of WikiProject France. Benkenobi18 (talk) 15:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Votes for French Nationality

1.

Votes for Greek Nationality

1.

Votes for Egyptian Nationality

1.

Votes for geographic location rather than nationality (added October 20, 2012)

1. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 08:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. If the subject doesn't fit neatly in modern national boxes, why force it? Dental plan / lisa needs braces! 15:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. I don't even know if this is the right option since there's no "None of the above", but I believe that it is an error to force him into any modern conceptualization when he lived before those borders were drawn. Andrew (talk) 23:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those are your options. Pick one, two or all three if you want. Benkenobi18 (talk) 15:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.allmercifulsavior.com/icons/Icons-Cassian-Roman.htm

Here are some good shots of his Icons and the Monastery in Marseilles. Do note that he's considered the Father of the Gaul Monasteries. Benkenobi18 (talk) 15:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot the option "None of the above". That is my choice and, it seems, the choice of History2007.

By the way, the saint is known in the Eastern Orthodox Church as "John Cassian the Roman", whatever the Eastern Orthodox mean by that term. I suppose, but I don't know, that it means someone from the Roman Empire, which in John Cassian's time was confined almost entirely to what had once been only the Eastern Roman Empire. You will find the description of him as Saint John Cassian the Roman on many Eastern Orthodox websites and also in the Wikipedia article itself. Esoglou (talk) 18:18, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And the Eastern Roman Empire is considered to be the equivalent of Greek. Why are you so opposed to having him be tagged, 'French', in recognition of the fact that the people of France honor him today, and he built a monastery there? Can you enlighten me as to why? I came across Cassian doing category maintenance. Benkenobi18 (talk) 00:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think nobody but you would consider him a Frenchman, a concept that did not exist in his day. Saint Nicholas is highly honoured in Bari, where his relics are, having been brought there long after his death, but that does not make him an Italian. Saint Antony of Padua, as he is generally called because of being so highly honoured there, was Portuguese, not Italian, and Wikipedia categorizes him as such. Esoglou (talk) 10:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Benkenobi18 but I think you are far off the track.

1. Argument for calling Cassian Roman - well, the lead says in bold text "or John Cassian the Roman" However, at this time "Roman" usually means "Roman citizen" and even then, no one calls the Apostle Paul a Roman even though he was a Roman citizen; we call him first a Jew and then a (Jewish) Christian. Similarly, we don't refer to people born in or living in Egypt or Britain while under Roman rule as "Romans". Well, Saint Patrick is identified as Romano-British.
2. Argument for calling Cassian "Scythian" - biographical section in the article says he was born in Scythia Minor (I don't understand why this hasn't been proposed)

I'm perfectly happy with Scythian, btw. My reasoning for putting him under French, is because that is where his cult is celebrated. "French saint", in the sense that he's been claimed by France as one of their own, and given that his most notably accomplishment in erecting a monastery in Marseilles is located in the France of today. It's not perfect, but it's better than nothing.Benkenobi18 (talk) 01:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Argument for calling Cassian "Gallic" - some scholars assume a Gallic origin but since it's only some scholars, this is probably not the best option. But at least calling him "Gallic" is better than calling him "French" which is anachronistic in the same way as it would be anachronistic to call Julius Caesar "Italian"
2. Argument against calling Cassian "French" - Would you call Vercingetorix "French"? Is Julius Caesar an "Italian" or a "Roman"? I note that Charlemagne is categorized as both a "French Roman Catholic" AND a "German Roman Catholic". Ugh. That seems a bit odd to me.
3. Argument against calling Cassian Greek - I understand the desire to equate the "Eastern Roman Empire" with being "Greek" as in "Greek Orthodox Church". This is not a good idea. Look at the article on the Byzantine Empire. The text reads "In 395 after the death of Emperor Theodosius I (r. 379–395), the Roman Empire was divided for the last time, politically separating the eastern and western halves of the empire forever." But look at the map that shows "he Empire at its greatest extent under Justinian I in 555 AD". At that point in time, the Eastern Roman Empire includes Italy, Egypt, parts of North Africa and the southern portion of Hispania (the Iberian peninsula). Would we call people born in and/or living in those areas "Greek". I think not.
4. Argument against calling Cassian "Egyptian" - The article text reads "Cassian accepted the invitation to found an Egyptian-style monastery in southern Gaul, near Marseilles. He may also have spent time as a priest in Antioch between 404 and 415". Francis Xavier traveled to Japan; do we refer to him as "Japanese"? We tend to identify people by where they were born, where they spent their formative years, what country they were citizens of. Thus, Mother Teresa was born in Albania but had Indian citizenship. People are not usually identified by where they studied although there are exceptions.

I don't see a strong need to label him with a "nationality" but, if we have to have such a label, I vote for "Roman" or "Scythian". I vote strenuously against "French", "Greek" or "Egyptian".

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 04:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I too see no strong need - indeed no need at all - to attach a label of some modern nationality to a saint who lived before the appearance of that nationality. Another example is Saint Augustine, whom someone has categorized as an Algerian Roman Catholic saint. Other categories into which the article on him has been put are "Romans from Africa", "4th-century Romans" and "5th-century Romans". He would certainly have identified as a Roman, and a Roman of the Province of Numidia, which geographically is only a relatively small part of present-day Algeria. He would obviously not have considered himself an Algerian.

A small point: Mother Teresa identified as an Albanian (by ethnicity), but she was not born in Albania. She was born in what is now the capital of the Republic of Macedonia, but was then a town in the Ottoman Empire. Esoglou (talk) 07:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re Mother Teresa - Ugh。and that's why Wikipedia is not a reliable source. I took my information from the lead of that article. Since you obviously know more about this than I do, would you care to fix the text in that article? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On this matter it is reliable: search for "was born in". Esoglou (talk) 19:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see that the text in the body of the article is accurate. My point is that the lead paragraph says "Albanian-born". Since you are such an expert in dealing with lead sentences (just a friendly jab), I though you would take a look at the one in the Mother Teresa article. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I can't think of any phrase, on the lines of "of Albanian parentage" that would fit into the phrase in the lead that neatly and briefly echoes the words of Mother Teresa herself. And "Albanian-born" can be defended. She was in fact born an Albanian, born of Albanians, even if not in Albania. Esoglou (talk) 19:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For John Cassian, "Roman" is extremely well sourced, more so than for Augustine, who is nevertheless put in three categories that call him a Roman. Calling John Cassian a "Scythian" is wide open to being faulted as an abstruse original-research synthesis. Even if born in Scythia Minor, he may have been a Scythian no more than Mother Teresa was Turkish or Macedonian. The article on the Scythians indicates that by John Cassian's time the Scythians had been for the most part displaced by Goths and were being assimilated by Turkic peoples. Many people in the area called Scythia Minor were of Greek ethnicity, as the article on Scythia Minor shows, and the article on John Cassian calls him "Latin-speaking", which could perhaps indicate that he was a descendant of the Roman soldiery settled there after Trajan's conquest of Dacia, a colonization that explains the existence there today of a Latin-derived language, namely Romanian. (Now I come to think of it, was that the reason that the Byzantines called John Cassian "the Roman"?)

In view of the repetition above of the view that the locality of present-day veneration decides nationality, I repeat that the present-day centres of veneration of Saint Nicholas and Saint Anthony of Padua do not justify calling them Italians. I wonder what would be the conclusion if that view were applied to Saint Valentine! Esoglou (talk) 06:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK... I withdraw my support for "Scythian". That leaves us with "Roman". Does that work or are there problems with that? Also, I would like to understand what the context of this discussion is. If we're talking about the article text, it's easy enough to say "born in Scythia", "lived in various parts of the Roman Empire". If the issue is categorization, I see that there are problems but we should fix the categories rather than forcibly shoehorn Cassian into categories that are not suitable. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, Benkenobi has on 10-12 October been on a campaign of moving all saints in the category:Roman Catholic saints (except a few, less than twenty, angels and New Testament saints and the like) into modern geographical subcategories of the subcategory "Roman Catholic saints by nationality". He calls this not shoehorning but diffusing. Is it necessary or useful to do so? I strongly doubt it. Are any of the other categorizations he has made as ill-judged (in my opinion) as calling John Cassian a Frenchman? I don't know. I haven't checked any whatever. But perhaps some are. Esoglou (talk) 19:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, seeing as we don't have "Roman" Nationality in with the nationality Category - I have diffused to that which was available, leaving those saints who either are too widely celebrated across the Church, and those who are angels. Cassian fits neither, as he has a local French cult in Marseilles. Benkenobi18 (talk) 18:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My first preference vote goes to "None of the above", my second preference vote goes to "Roman". What next - classifyinging Septimius Severus as Libyian? Only acute pedantry insists that everything must fit within modern constructs; the attempt is fatuous in this case. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

== Moving to newly created, "Latin Roman Catholic saints". Should solve all the problems. Benkenobi18 (talk) 18:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to say that it certainly does not solve the problems. John Cassian knew Latin, but was he a Latin (whatever you mean by that)? By "Latin" do you mean "of the Latin Church or Rite"? As a member of the clergy of Constantinople, John Cassian cannot be classified as such. You wrote immediately above: "We don't have 'Roman' Nationality in with the nationality Category". Do we have a "Latin" nationality within the "Roman Catholic saints by nationality" (sub)category? Pseudo-Richard complained about (your) shoehorning saints into a closed, fixed number of categories. If you can invent a "Latin" category (whatever you mean by "Latin"), what prevents you inventing a "Roman" category? Must I repeat yet again that the place of veneration does not make Saint Antony of Padua an Italian rather than a Portuguese (he is placed in the categories "Portuguese Roman Catholic saints", "Portuguese Friars Minor", "13th-century Portuguese people"), or Saint Nicholas an Italian rather than whatever other nationality if any fits him, and that the veneration of Saint John Cassian in Marseilles does not turn him into a Frenchman from whatever other nationality if any fits him? And haven't you noticed that John Cassian is already in category:4th-century Romans and category:5th-century Romans? So why cannot you too classify him as a Roman? That is, if he needs to be classified by any nationality whatever, which remains open to doubt. Esoglou (talk) 18:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're arguing that St. Anthony of Padua is not an Italian Saint despite having (of Padua), yet at the same time you're arguing that St. John Cassian the Roman is a Roman saint? St. John Cassian is listed as pertaining to the French wikiproject, the same as St. John of Padua to Portugal. Why is St. John Cassian a saint? Because he introduced Eastern monasticism to the west by founding his monastery in Marseilles. Given that his cult is restricted to Marseilles, that makes him, by definition, a French saint. If you feel that saints should be without nationalities, then feel free to nominate the category for deletion. You haven't explained to me why we should treat St. John Cassian differently from other saints who have a local cult. Benkenobi18 (talk) 08:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps more important for the fame of John Cassian are his writings, his spiritual teachings, as Whiteguru says below. That's why he is quoted as a saint in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2785, which also shows that veneration of him as a saint of the Catholic Church is not limited to Marseilles. Saint Antony of Padua is called "of Padua", because Padua is the locality on which veneration of him is centred, though not limited to there; but he was not a Paduan nor an Italian, but Portuguese. The locality on which the cult of John Cassian is centred, but to which it is not limited, is Marseilles; but he was not a Marseillais/Massilian nor a Frenchman, but one who belonged to the Roman Empire, a Roman, a 4th-century and a 5th-century Roman. That was his nationality. Esoglou (talk) 09:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The RFC Box should not be at the top of the page. This entire talk page is not the subject of the RFC. So someone should fix it. Otherwise, show cause why the entire page is up for comment.

Fixed location of the box. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 08:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to Casssian, show cause how or why his nationality is relevant to reception of his spiritual teachings today. Else, the RFC is pointless.Whiteguru (talk) 23:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cassian has a local cult, restricted to Marseilles, which is where he built a monastery and where they celebrate his feast day. Ergo, it seems reasonable to me to tag him as a French saint. Withouth the monastery that he built, he would not be notable either here, or with the Catholic church.Benkenobi18 (talk) 08:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is up to the editor who placed the box at the top of the page, and who is still active on this page, to move it to its logical position or to delete it. It is up to him also to respond to the request that he "show cause how or why his (John Cassian's) nationality is relevant to reception of his spiritual teachings today". It is those spiritual teachings that make Saint John Cassian notable throughout the Catholic Church and beyond. Esoglou (talk) 09:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DonaldRichardSands has commented above: "If we describe him in modern terms, we may feel better having done so, but it really is not helpful." Esoglou (talk) 06:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Summary. Benkenobi18's proposal to classify John Cassian as French was opposed by the editors Whiteguru, Esoglou, History2007, Dentalplan, DonaldRichardSands, Andrew, Pseudo-Richard, Laurel Lodged; and was supported by none. Esoglou (talk) 07:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And Esoglou's contention that John Cassian was a Italian Roman Catholic Saint was also supported by no editors. Hence there is no consensus. John Cassian's notability is tied to the fact that he founded an order in what is now Marseilles, France. He had a cult develop there, and was venerated by the French people of Marseilles. His cult is why he is considered to be a Saint, and why he has an article here on the Wikipedia. Ergo, yes, he is a French saint because the French honour him. He is considered relevant to the French wikiproject here at the top of the page. Ergo, he should be tagged a French saint, because he is honoured by the French.

Does anyone, including you, contest any of these facts Esoglou? The complaint is not that he has the wrong nationality, but that he has a nationality at all. That's like being asked the question, "why is the sky blue", and being told that "no, it's actually Orange". Benkenobi18 (talk) 04:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I proposed classifying John Cassian as Italian, I certainly withdraw so silly a proposal. And if anybody else supports the idea of classifying as French someone whose fame and influence derives from his writings rather than the monastery (which never developed into an order) that he founded, I will take it more seriously. Esoglou (talk) 07:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Benkenobi18's comment that Cassian is a French saint because it is the French who honour him suggests that it is (only) the French that honor him or that it is (primarily) the French that honor him. Are there sources to substantiate this? Does Benkenobi imagine that saints are national in scope and that only the Italians venerate Italian saints and only the English venerate English saints? How then to account for the many, many Catholic churches in the U.S. dedicated to St. Thomas More and St. Francis of Assisi? A "French saint" is one who was French, not one who is solely or primarily venerated by the French because such an assertion could lead one to puzzle whether St. Francis of Assisi was venerated more by Italians or more by Catholics of other nations.

• Is Father Damien a Belgian saint or a Hawaiian saint?

• Is Junipero Serra a Spanish saint, a Mexican saint or an American saint?

• When Pope John Paul II is eventually canonized, will anyone imagine that he is a Polish saint, venerated only or primarily by Poles?

What a crock. All Roman Cathoic saints are simply saints of the whole church who obviously originated from somewhere and, in some cases, are venerated more by people of one country, nationality or region but nonethless are universally venerated as saints.

Instead of the Benkenobi18's "why is the sky blue" analogy, I would suggest that trying to pin a nationality on John Cassian is perhaps more analogous to asking whether the apostle Paul was Catholic or Orthodox. To which, of course, the answer is "YES!" Was the apostle Paul Jewish or Roman? Once again, the answer is "YES!" Is he then an Italian saint? To which the answer is "NO!"

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 06:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

}}

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Cassian. 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/20101130102501/http://stpaulsirvine.org/html/Justification.htm to http://www.stpaulsirvine.org/html/Justification.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]