Talk:Ecumenical council

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Christianity / Theology / Catholicism / Eastern / Oriental / Anglicanism (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by theology work group (marked as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy (marked as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (marked as Top-importance).
 
WikiProject Religion (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Reliable sources noticeboard[edit]

What a lot of words have been spent on the question of who presided or was appointed to preside at the Council of Ephesus. I have posted the question on the appropriate noticeboard. Can we all agree to accept whatever verdict is rendered there? Esoglou (talk) 08:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

No, but I'll certainly consider all responses with all due respect. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 08:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Esoglou and Richard have done a gotcha on User:Montalban I think the term for what they did is called sandbagging or at least feigning incompetence. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

About Candidian and the reading of the Sacra[edit]

In my recent rewrite of the article text concerning the First Council of Ephesus, I deleted the text about the reading of the Sacra. My reasoning is that the discussion of the First Council of Ephesus should be succinct and get to the point quickly rather than getting into a lot of details. The article on the First Council of Ephesus is the right place for the details. The key points (IMO) are that the emperor sent Candidian to preside, Cyril outmaneuvered Candidian and Candidian presided over the council held by Nestorius and John of Antioch. Ultimately, Cyril's council was deemed to be ecumenical. I don't think the details about the reading of the Sacra are critical to making the point but I suppose we can mention it briefly if Montalban insists. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Original Research and Historical Disinformation[edit]

How is it that Esoglou could think its good for wikipedia to post this veiled attack and original on the fact the article shows that Papal primacy is a construct as the Pope did not call the catholic or ecumenical councils? [1] By obfuscating? The counter-councils to the ones the Esoglou were also called by successive Emperors. Which just shows Esoglou is creating original research to counter Eastern Christian history that puts his POV in a bad light. LoveMonkey (talk) 23:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Conflicting information for fourth council of Constantinople[edit]

Under "Councils recognised as ecumenical in the Roman Catholic Church", the article reads "8. Fourth Council of Constantinople (869–870) deposed Patriarch Photios I of Constantinople as an usurper and reinstated his predecessor Saint Ignatius. Photius had already been declared deposed by the Pope, an act which the Church of Constantinople accepted at this council."

Under Councils recognised as ecumenical by some Eastern Orthodox individuals", the article reads "Fourth Council of Constantinople (879–880) restored Photius to the See of Constantinople. This happened after the death of Ignatius and with papal approval."

If there is a reason for the difference, it is not readily apparent.

69.56.173.82 (talk) 12:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

They are both councils that happened in Constantinople and (since the ones who accept one reject the other) they are fourth of ecumenical councils that happened there to the side that accepts them. See Fourth Council of Constantinople, Fourth Council of Constantinople (Roman Catholic) and Fourth Council of Constantinople (Eastern Orthodox). --Martynas Patasius (talk) 13:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Clicking on the wikilinks show that the two councils were distinct, but the wikilinks also show up errors. This article (Ecumenical council) states that the Fourth Council of Constantinople (Eastern Orthodox) (879–880) "restored Photius to the See of Constantinople. This happened after the death of Ignatius and with papal approval". Photius didn't have to wait until 879 to be restored to the see of Constantinople. He had been restored as much as two years earlier, on the death of Ignatius in 877, and the Pope had expressed no objection (nor, until just before the council, explicit approval). So the information given here is incorrect. Corrections are needed also in the article that the wikilink leads to: Fourth Council of Constantinople (Eastern Orthodox). That article opens with the statement "The Fourth Council of Constantinople, as accepted by Eastern Orthodox churches as the Eighth Ecumenical Council, was held in 879–880", giving as a source for the italicized words page 103 of the Siecienski book. What Siecienski says of this council is: "In 879 the emperor called for another council to meet in Constantinople in the hopes that the new pope, John VIII (872-82) would recognize the validity of Photius's claim upon the patriarchate. This council, sometimes called the eighth ecumenical in the East was attended by the papal legates (who had brought with them a gift from the pope - a pallium for Photius) and by over 400 bishops, and who immediately confirmed Photius as rightful patriarch". Siecienski thus confirms what is stated here ("some Eastern Orthodox individuals recognize that council as ecumenical") and rejects what is attributed to him in the other article, namely that Eastern Orthodox churches accept that council as ecumenical (not even one of them does). Siecienski also confirms that, even before the council began, the pope had approved Photius as successor to Ignatius: he sent him a gift of a pallium, symbolic of papal approval, and his legates "immediately confirmed Photius as rightful patriarch". So the statement here, "restored Photius to the See of Constantinople. This happened after the death of Ignatius and with papal approval" needs to be corrected and clarified. Esoglou (talk) 15:38, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

I propose that Ancient church councils (pre-ecumenical ) be merged into Ecumenical council. As described in Wikipedia:Merging#Reasons_for_merger, the two pages have significant overlap, the former "is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time," and the later "requires the background material or context" in the former "in order for readers to understand it." Also, the two pages already contain a significant amount of duplicate information on ancient, pre-ecumenical Christian church councils. I welcome discussion on this proposal. Squideshi (talk) 00:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Support per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 00:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There is really no overlap. The idea that there was may have arisen from the false initial definition of "ecumenical council" previously given in this article, a definition that ignored the adjective "ecumenical" and was applicable to any church council whatever. The pre-ecumenical ancient church councils were local or at most regional councils like the many local and regional (non-ecumenical) councils that continued to be held also in the time of the ecumenical councils. Such local or regional councils must have been held in various parts of the Christian world practically every year from the third century onward. Esoglou (talk) 09:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
All of the above is true. But the present article would work well as a background section. It would provide the context for the full E councils. It would explain why as an illegal religion full E councils could not have been held up to Constantine. After that, the bluelinks take over. That's what they're there for. There's not enough here to justify an article and it impoverishes the main E article. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Maybe the article should be simply renamed / moved to Christian church councils and include information about both ecumenical and pre-ecumenical councils. There can be a section for each. As it stands it is really difficult to get a good picture of a complete listing of councils, ecumenical or not. Squideshi (talk) 20:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but if you want "a complete listing of councils", you need a list or a category (like, well, Category:Christian church councils). An article with such a list will be far too large. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
That's not a bad idea, and I am not opposed to that. I am concerned, however, that it will not fully address the concern I have raised, because there are not currently seperate articles for each council, and there is no way to tag the missing articles with such a category; therefore, the list generated would be incomplete. I came to this topic hoping to read about Christian church councils, starting with the earliest and moving to the most recent. I now understand that that there is a distinction between pre-ecumenical (which may have been local, appear to be accepted by most Christians, and appear to also be called synods) and ecumenical (which may have had wider participation and were recognized by the Roman Empire) but I really don't care about the distinction between ecumenical and pre-ecumenical. Since both types appear to be accepted by a large number of Christians, I just want to read about them all, with perhaps a note telling me which ones are "ecumenical." As it stands, it has been very difficult for me to get a good understanding about this topic; and I feel that the current structure has failed me, because I am still not convinced that I fully understand all of the distinctions between ecumenical and pre-ecumenical Christian church counils, and synods. I think that a good structure should make it easy for someone to learn about these topics as a whole. I think, perhaps, the solution is just to create a new article--named Christian church councils that serves my purpose and leave the existing two articles for people who ONLY want to write / read about ecumenical or pre-ecumenical councils. Squideshi (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but have you actually looked at the category in question..? If you want an article describing a church council that is not necessarily an ecumenical council, then we have an article "Synod". If you really want an article that would list, let's say, Provincial Councils of Baltimore, Synod of Dort, Council of Bourges, Council of Jerusalem and the like (and add some explanation about each of them), then, well, your wish is unreasonable (and that's why I do not think that it is what you want). Such an article would be a complete mess. If you want a list instead, with links (blue and red), then, well, someone will have to write it. As usually, writing something like that yourself might be a good way to learn something about the subject. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I want an article that covers Christian church councils, regardless of ecumenical status. Such an article should give a brief description of each council, including information about ecumenical status, with a link to a more detailed individual article for each council about which someone is interested in writing an standalone article. I do not think this is unreasonable and I do not believe that such an article would be a complete mess, so we will have to agree to disagree about that. In any case, I had always planned to do the work myself; so it wasn't really a request for action on anyone else's part. I just thought it might be a good idea to post the proposal here first, in order to seek consensus, which is obviously not going to happen. For this reason, I am withdrawing the proposal and removing the merger tags from both pages. Squideshi (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
In such case, create a text file (or something like that) and make a list of all councils in that category (and subcategories). Count them (and remember - as you said yourself, many councils have no articles yet; furthermore, sometimes one article describes many councils). Multiply the count by the number of bytes in the average description you imagine (each name itself will take about 20 bytes, if not more). And read WP:SIZE. Then you will see why I think that your proposal is unreasonable. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 00:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
That might have been true for the time when the merge was proposed ([2]), but now ([3]) the article is much longer. As for "impoverishment", I guess that one can add a short "Background" section, but there is no need to call that a merger (and turn the other article to a redirect). After all, they discuss related but separate things. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 21:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks to MP for pointing out that the goalposts have moved - a lot. I must object in strong terms to this egregious breech of wiki etiquette by Esoglou. It's a transparent attempt to bulk up a thin article by blantly cutting & pasting from all the bluelinks - especially after I had pointed out that they were present and perfectly adequate as they stood. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
So, you think that the text added by Esglou should not be in that article..? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 00:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I take the liberty of pointing out that there were no "blue links" to the information about the mid-2nd century councils concerning Montanism, which Hefele calls the first known church councils, nor to those on Quartodecimanism, which Hefele calls the second-earliest set of known church councils, nor to the information drawn from Hefele on participants, nor to the correction of the statement that (without distinction) the pre-ecumenical councils were held when Christianity was illegal, of the implied statement that after the Edict of Milan pre-ecumenical councils had civil status (not merely religious?), of the statement that ecumenical councils are seen as traditional (it was surely a novelty to hold a council of all the bishops of the Church without geographical distinction). I thought that my additions would show up how baseless was the claim (which in spite of my pointing out its falsehood was insisted on here) of overlap between the topics of "ecumenical councils" (which began in 325 and, according to some views, have continued until at least the 20th century) and what are here quite awkwardly called "ancient church councils (pre-ecumenical)" (a more appropriate name would be "pre-Nicene church councils"). It should have been obvious that any overlap that exists is instead between "ecumenical councils" and "church councils in general", not limited to the pre-325 period when there were no ecumenical councils. Since my work has been objected to and since, moreover, my aim has been achieved, I will add no more. Esoglou (talk) 08:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)