Talk:First seven Ecumenical Councils
|WikiProject Christianity / Anglicanism||(Rated B-class, Low-importance)|
- You're welcome. Glad that my "help" was appreciated as well as needed. Soidi (talk) 00:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Chalcedon, Monophysites, Alexandria
For one thing, "Monophysite" isn't really commonly understood to be an appropriate title for us Non-Chalcedonians anymore.
However, you're grossly underestimating our numbers in Alexandria. That was one of the regions where Oriental Orthodox majority was quite clear. The Coptic Orthodox Church composed more like nine tenths of the Egyptian Christians, not one tenth. Deusveritasest (talk) 22:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Recent addition concerning sees subordinate to
I'd like to discuss the recent addition of this phrase by Esoglou: "but already by 787 no major western see was subject to the Byzantine emperor and the Pope was to crown Charlemagne as emperor 13 years later."
1) I thought Episcopal Sees would be subordinate to the Patriarch of Constantinople, not the secular Emperor of Byzantium. 2) When would any "western" (or should it be "Western"?) sees be subordinate to the Patriarch of Constantinople? What is this referring to? Ravenna and other places around Italy that Byzantium controlled off and on up until the 8th century? That seems like the most likely candidate, but I fail to see how that has much to do with the Seven Ecumenical Councils. Other than that, it would always have been expected that "western/Western" sees would be under the Pope of Rome. 3) What does the Pope of Rome crowning Charlemagne have to do with the Seven Ecumenical Councils? Again, this seems like a completely unrelated bit of information.
Basically, I would recommend that that whole phrase get deleted and the text go back to what it was before. It's not like there's a citation or anything either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dechrwr (talk • contribs) 03:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- The additional phrase concerned the claim in the article that "the first seven Ecumenical Councils, from the First Council of Nicaea (325) to the Second Council of Nicaea (787), represented an attempt to reach an orthodox consensus and to establish a unified Christendom as the state church of the Roman Empire. It may be true that, for the authorities of that empire, even the 787 council was called for the sake of unity in its state church, but by then the unity aimed at was, at least as viewed outside the empire, decidedly broader than that of its much reduced state church. Even if the claim can be defended, it may be best to omit it. Then there will no longer be need for the phrase that limits the applicability of the claim. Esoglou (talk) 07:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)