Talk:Ecumenical council

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Magisterial tradition?

I'm sure I wouldn't count Calvinism as part of a magisterial tradition (I'd substitute Anglicans, instead). From my Calvinist childhood and youth I agree that Calvinists accept the CREEDS of the early councils, but little else. They sure don't accept the disciplinary measures or even the Canon of the Old Testament. Calvinism isn't exactly sola scriptura, despite saying the contrary (no Trinitarian can get away without some serious theology above and beyond Sacred Writ to explain the Trinity). --MichaelTinkler

Well, I've always heard Calvinism and Lutheranism called the magisterial reformation, in opposition to the radical reformation (i.e. the Anabaptists). Not too sure where Anglicans fit in.

As to acceptance of the early councils, how much of their pronouncements concerned things other than doctrine? In my mind the main thing associated with the early councils is doctrine, especially the christological controversies -- Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism. When I said they accepted their teachings, it was their doctrine on issues such as christology I was mainly thinking of.-- Simon J Kissane

Yep, that's the first thing in most people's minds, but in fact the Canons of each council (the technical term for the pronouncements) are usually made of three things: doctrinal pronouncements, anathemas (anathemata, technically) against those teaching in opposition to the doctrinal pronouncements, and disciplinary measures. For instance, the whole leavened/unleavened bread dispute between the East and West falls into that one, or bearded/shaved priests (and believe me, that's a HUGE issue among the Orthodox today, with people anathematizing their opponents as 'bare-chinned clerics' in a way that clearly implies that they are eunuchs!), or celebration of Easter. It goes on. I'll integrate it into the article. A majority of the canons are disciplinary rather than doctrinal. For instance, and only because my copy is within arm's reach, Canon 22 at the Second Council of Nicaea is titled "It is the duty of monks to say grace and to eat with great parsimony and propriety when occasion arises to eat in the company of women." --MichaelTinkler
Calvinists and Lutherans are part of the "magisterial reformation" because their goal was the reform of the official doctrine of the Catholic church, not because of their adherence to Catholic tradition - in contrast to the Anabaptists as Simon said, who rejected the Catholic church and all identification with it, either historically or doctrinally, since the time of the Apostles. Sola scriptura does not mean the rejection of theology above and beyond the Bible (if by that you mean, rejection of theology, period - Lutherans and Calvinists are both confessional movements from the beginning, however both reject secret histories and other secret sources of doctrine and practice). Anglicans are part of the Calvinist reformation, although the modern Anglican who considers himself a Calvinist is rare indeed. Lutherans also subscribe to sola scriptura, just as the Calvinists do, although neither group denies the need of theology. Calvinists do not deny the canonicity of the Old Testament - however, it is a diverse group that uses this name, and I don't doubt that there are "Calvinists" who deny the Old Testament, just as there are "Catholics" who call the pope the Antichrist. Mkmcconn

[edit] LDS and later councils

The article says the LDS church rejects the early ecumenical councils. Are there later councils that it accepts? Would it be possible to enumerate the councils it accepts, the way the article currently enumerates which councils are accepted by the Eastern Orthodox, Nestorians, etc.? Wesley 05:55 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)

I'm going to take the deafening silence as a no, and assume the LDS don't accept any of the ecumenical councils. The later councils generally begin by reaffirming the earlier councils, after all. If I'm mistaken, I hope someone will correct me. Wesley 15:53 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The section on LDS speaks of not accepting the councils on the basis of revelation. That is only a partial and actually very insignificant partial reason. The actual reason is that, like the gnostics the mormons believe in a special revelation given to some at the time of christ and that after the death of the apostles this knowledge was lost or rejected. (see talmage The Great Apostasy) If it is ok I am going to alter the LDS section to describe this doctrine. JWPhil 6Jul 2006

[edit] other councils?

Were not there a number of other councils that accepted such things as Nestorianism, Arianism, or Monophysitism, and whose results were rejected by the councils mentioned? Some note should be taken of them if they in fact existed. -- IHCOYC 15:44 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

There were probably some local or regional councils that did, in areas where Arianism (to pick an example) had large number of supporters. I don't think that such councils would be considered ecumenical by anyone, though. Wesley 15:53 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)
As I posted elsewhere, I would strongly encourage the creation of either one article or separate articles on France's revolutionary and Napoleonic church councils that occurred in 1797, 1801, and 1811, respectively. Because there were three of them and the final one included Italians and at least one German and was (according to Napoleon) intended as a precursor to a General Council a la Constantine, such an artilce would be significant enough to merit inclusion in any reputable encyclopedia. I'd be happy to contribute and help edit, but I'll leave it to someone with better Wiki knowledge to get something started. Best, --164.107.92.120 22:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC) --164.107.92.120 22:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "cor"?

Could someone please explain what this means, when used to annotate the Roman Catholic ECs #8 and 9? TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

My guess is that it stands for "Church of Rome," which is not altogether clear. —Preost talk contribs 18:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
If this is what "cor" stands for, could we change this to "rc" not only for easier understanding, but because "Cor" is an exclamation in British English, & I for one find this confusion distracting. -- llywrch 19:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Done, thanks. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Byzantine Confusion

I find it odd to read: "The first seven councils were called by the emperor (first the Christian Roman Emperors and later the so-called Byzantine Emperors, i.e., the Roman Emperors with the capital in the East)" Which emperor with a capital in the West ever called an ecumenical council? Although the Byzantine Emperors list on WIkipedia starts from Constantine, he was not the first to rule from the East, that was Diocletian (a brutal persecutor of the church and two emperors before Constantine). "Byzantine" is in fact a 19th Western POV invention. To the members of the "Byzantine Empire" they were still the Roman Empire. Westerners find it difficult to talk of the Roman Empire after the collapse of the Western Empire in 475, but it was a 19th century version of POV to deny the continuity of the Roman Empire until 1453. It is one thing to suggest that the Byzantine Empire might have begun with Diocletian or Constantine the Great, as the Wikipedia Byzantine Empire article does, but it is incredulous to imply that Constantine was not a Roman Emperor because he had moved to the East just prior to calling the First Ecumenical Council. Suggest removing the entire clause in brackets, or at least changing the definition of Byzantine Emperor to "a Roman Emperor based in Constantinople after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire." MnJWalker 16:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe that "Byzantine" is there so that Western readers familiar with the 19th century term understand what era is under discussion, and the "Roman Emperors with the capital in the East" is an attempt to do explain exactly what you're suggesting. It is, no doubt, awkwardly phrased, and if you can improve it please feel free to do so. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Council of Hipona

How come the Council of Hipona (which exist on the Spanish version of Wikipedia) does not appear in here? Will there be any harmonization between both contents?

[edit] Bias

By showing a list of non christian churches that reject the councils does nothing for this page since they would obviouly reject the councils. There is no need for this information to be displayed as only serves as a vehicle for anti-catholic hate speech. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.61.95.109 (talk • contribs) .

It's extraordinarily uncivil to refer to non-Roman Catholic churches as "non-Christian". TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I might be inclined to agree with 220.61.95.109. Everyone knows that non-Catholic (I'm sure non-Christian was simply an error) churches reject papal infallibility and all these different categories say basically the same thing (Wikipedia's full of similar problems). That said, I am persuaded, having read the contents, that each category does add something and that each religion listed explicitly rejects infallibility in a different way and I think removing this information is probably a bad idea. I'm Catholic myself and I don't consider this a hate speech - the rest of the article also does much to address common misconceptions that fuel anti-Catholicism
BTW it's prob not a good idea to remove large amounts of content. It wasn't vandalism but it does tend to wind people up - it's a I made myself a couple of times.--Lo2u 12:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually these comments were written with the Papal infallibility article in mind in which similar sections were removed by this user - I'm afraid I forgot where I was editing. Anyway I think they're still appropriate here.--Lo2u 12:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It is my understanding that Protestants do not reject out of hand the ecumenical councils. Nearly all protestant "statements of faith" are based on the nicean creed and the development of the other protestant creeds owe much to the councils. The rejection of papal infallibility is hardly a reason to remove the articles as that issue was not settled until the later councils. By the way the orthodox church also rejects infallibility as they reject those councils that settled this issue in the west. JWPhil

Rejecting the council does not make them Anti-catholic. For example there are some Catholics who reject the council or some councils. That is the view from my porch. (Seenitall 13:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seenitall (talk • contribs)

[edit] "Pseudo-Christian"

The repeated addition by User:71.213.37.142 of the term pseudo-Christian[1] to the article's reference to non-Trinitarian churches, while of course consonant with the personal feelings of many Christians, is clearly a blatant POV problem. Those churches certainly do not consider themselves "pseudo-Christian." —Preost talk contribs 02:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems he doesn't wish to discuss it. Besides "pseudo-Christian" he appears to object to "preposterous". Although I disagree with them, this simply describes Mormon beliefs. If they find a proposition preposterous, then we should report that. TCC (talk) (contribs) 18:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing Councils

Several historically-important councils, including Antioch and Sirmium, are missing. The current article is POV by including councils which some churches accept (and other churches reject) but not including other councils.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jacob Haller (talk • contribs) 19:55, July 28, 2006 (UTC).

Which churches consider those councils to be ecumenical? —Preost talk contribs 20:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any present-day churches which recognize these councils, but they did happen. Which ones happened is NPOV, which ones are recognized by each church is NPOV, which ones are 'legitimate' is POV. Moreover, can we discuss 325 or 381 without discussing the intervening councils? see the (somewhat misleading) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Sirmium (which calls all the then-present non-Nicaean theologies 'Arian') Jacob Haller 23:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
This article is not about all councils that "happened". It's about the councils know as the "Ecumenical councils". Whether or not one agrees with the dogma they formulated, they are of singular importance in the history of Christianity. There were many local councils that were perfectly Orthodox in doctrine that are also not included here for the same reason. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
These were not *regional* councils, these were *ecumenical* councils for their supporters (as are Nicaea, Constantinople, Chalcedon, etc. with different supporters). http://ecole.evansville.edu/arians/arianchr.htm provides a quick overview (although it glides over some issues). Several of these councils covered both west and east, and therefore they were as close to ecumenical as any council ever was. Jacob Haller 06:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Do you have any citations indicating that these councils were considered ecumenical?
This is also something of a namespace issue, i.e., who gets to call which councils "ecumenical." Scholarship in English has historically referred only to certain councils as "ecumenical." This may be a matter of "winners writing the history," but in any event, WP is not in the business of historical revisionism and new interpretations. We need reputable, citable secondary sources.
Even mainstream sources do not accord the title ecumenical for all councils which involved both East and West. —Preost talk contribs 16:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LDS assertion

My comments relate to the following sentence as it stands in this article under the heading, Mormonism: accept none: "They (LDS) see the calling of such councils, for example, by a Roman Emperor lacking the divine authority as groundless and assert that the emperors used the councils to exercise their influence to shape and institute Christianity to their liking." This sentence really contains two statements. One is "calling of such councils, for example, by a Roman Emperor lacking the divine authority as groundless" which is correct and in keeping with the theme of the entire paragraph. However, the second statement that the LDS "assert that the emperors used the councils to exercise their influence to shape and institute Christianity to their liking" is problematic. First, because it really has nothing to do with LDS rejection of the councils and second, because, to my knowledge, it is not a position held by the LDS church. I suggest that the sentence be reworded with the second portion omitted or, since the first portion is redundant anyway, the entire sentence be removed. Dembqs 05:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

For the above reason, I removed the referenced sentence. Dembqs 21:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Useless line

"As Pope John Paul II often put it, the Church needs to breathe "with its two lungs" (he was, however, referring to the Eastern Rite churches in full communion with Rome)." - So, if he wasn't referring to the subject at hand, why is this in here? --213.84.161.16 00:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eastern Rite or Eastern Catholic?

The phrase "Eastern Catholic Churches" is certainly ambigious. Some people may use it to refer to the Eastern Rite Churches accepting papal preeminence. Other people, including myself, use it to refer to the eastern Nicaean churches (including Chalcedonian, Nestorian, and Monothelite ones) not accepting papal preeminence. (I don't call them "Orthodox" because I don't share their doctrines). I think "Eastern Rite" is the better description vecause it is more common and less ambigious. Jacob Haller 23:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Very, very few people use "Catholic" in this way. Perhaps only you and those in your immediate circle. But if you balk at "Orthodox", even as a proper noun, "Catholic" should be even more objectionable. It's a far more startling claim.
Orthodox has a common meaning in English. Catholic doesn't. Jacob Haller 12:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
But this is the wrong place to hash this out. See the discussions here. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
The point is, people sometimes use Eastern Catholic to refer to the first, as opposed to the second, and sometimes use it to refer to the second, and not the first. So it is a recipe for confusion. Jacob Haller 12:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Nonsense. No-one in academic writing uses 'Eastern Catholic' to refer to any bodies other than those in communion with the Pope of Rome. As it happens, 'Eastern Catholic' is the common terminology, not 'Eastern Rite', unless one is stuck in the 19th century. 'Eastern Catholic' is clear and unambiguous. If any should who think 'Catholic' does not have a common meaning in English, I suggest walking into a Greek Orthodox church and insisting they are Catholics and see what they say. Better yet, Go into a Protestant church in Northern Ireland and insist they are Catholics. Incidentally, Nestorians haven't been around for quite a while, and Monothelites even longer. Did you mean Monophysites? If one cannot get one's terminology for the Assyrians and Miaphysites right, one cannot expect one's opinions on the naming of Chalcedonian Churches to be taken seriously. InfernoXV 19:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Nonsense. I'm not stuck in the 19th century, and I've often heard these churches referred to as "Eastern Rite" (Or "Eastern Rite Catholics" but never as "Eastern Catholics" until the recent edit here. It's a massive double-take. The more specific, more widely-used, and les ambiguous terminology is much, much, better. Jacob Haller 22:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Inferno has a valid point. The correct term is Eastern Catholic Churches. Here are facts and references:
1. The Vatican has, for the past 25+ years, spoken of them as Eastern Catholic Churches. See Pope John Paul II's Apostolic Letter Orientale Lumen [2] It is quite clear on the matter. It uses the term "Church" rather than "Rite" throughout. In section 21 John Paul II refers to the "Eastern Catholic Churches". Another point. The Vatican houses the Congregation for the Oriental [Eastern] Churches -- note the use of the term "Churches", not "Rite".
2. The entities in question refer to themselves as churches --see their web sites.
Hope that this helps. Majoreditor 01:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
If not the 19th century, then certainly before the 1960s. These Churches have not been called 'Eastern Rite Catholics' since Vatican II. 'Eastern Catholic' is perfectly specific and far more widely used today. If one claims never to have heard them referred to as 'Eastern Catholics', as they have been called in every single document from Rome, from the Eastern Catholic Churches themselves, and from the Orthodox Churches in the oecumenical dialogue since the 1960s, then what can I say, except possibly that one should get out a bit more and familiarise oneself with the conventions and current terminology? InfernoXV 03:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
What is the Wikipedia standard when naming religious traditions? Of the traditions relating to the subjects I follow on wikipedia, few get their official names, few get their names from their own literature, and most get their names from their opponents' literature. Compared to the mess of derogatory names elsewhere, the use of neutral names like "Eastern Rite" "Eastern Rite Catholics" "Eastern Rite Churches," etc. doesn't pose such problems. Jacob Haller 02:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I happen to be an 'Eastern Catholic' and I can tell you for a fact that to those of us who are native speakers of English, 'Eastern Rite Catholic' is a mildly offensive term. Having had a look at your edit history - I don't see any relevant edits on topics even vaguely related to the Eastern Churches - much less those in communion with Rome. Might one be so bold as to ask why you suddenly seem to have a bee in your bonnet? InfernoXV 03:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Because I thought the old phrase was unambiguous and inoffensive, but somebody subbed in a new phrase which I found ambiguous. I saw the change. I'm not actually sure why the article is on my watchlist since (1) I have no chance of editing the article for accuracy or to reduce POV without getting reverted (2) I have little interest in any of the edits which have happened. Jacob Haller 04:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
TCC has a good point, see Talk:Eastern Catholic Churches for details and to discuss the issue. Jacob, thanks for posing the question -- I hope that the archived discussion on the Eastern Catholic Churches page helps. Majoreditor 22:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ecumenical Councils are Infallible

  • I have inserted the word infallible into the document as the Magisterium considers Vatican II to be infallible.
  • Pope Benedict XVI has declared this himself by quoting the Catechism of the Catholic Church which states in #891. "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium, above all in an Ecumenical Council." The Popes quotation of the CCC #891 can be found on [3]. (Runwiththewind 15:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC))

Um, "[Roman Catholic and pre-Schism] ecumenical councils are infallible" is the point-of-view of the Roman Catholic Church; "The Roman Catholic Church considers these ecumenical councils valid and infallible [list follows]" would approach neutrality. See? Jacob Haller 18:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)