Talk:Ecumenical council/Archive 1

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

Protestants do not generally accept Nicea II which approved the use of Icons in veneration. This is definitely true of Lutherans, Calvinists, Baptists and most all others. I am not sure about Anglicans, but many if not most Anglicans at least in practice reject the veneration of Icons or statues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.78.230 (talk) 02:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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)

"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)

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)

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?

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)

"Pseudo-Christian"

The repeated addition by User:71.213.37.142 of the term pseudo-Christian[2] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [3] 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)

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 [4]. (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)

Moved from article

The article claimed many protestants do not accept the 7th Council:

"Many Protestants do not accept Nicea II, which allows for the veneration of Icons. This includes the historical Lutheran position as evidenced by the effacing of statues throughout Germany during the time of Luther. [5]"

This was disputed with a request for a citation. Do they or don't they? --Secisek (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, most Protestants reject the veneration of Saints and their intercession on our behalf. So I couldn't imagine how one could conceive these type to be accepting of venerating icons, save perhaps an icon of Jesus. Historically, however, it's quite evident that many of the Reformers were strongly iconoclast. There are even paintings of icons and statues being destroyed in that period. Deusveritasest (talk) 21:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The Reformed tradition "Calvinist" veiws are even less in line with veneration of Saints. Of course Anglicanism does venerate saints-- but this only indicates that it may accept the 7th Council.

Also note that some (many?) Protestant groups accept parts of this or that council, and may accept the parts of 7th Council concerning veneration of Icons of Jesus. Of course even if they have no formal view, Protestants do make images-- contra the Iconoclasm rejected at the 7th. --Carlaude ^(talk) 05:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Said Protestants can usually only be said to adhere to the 2nd Nicaea to a degree, not that they hold it fully as a binding and authoritative source of dogma like the EO and RC do. The only other place I have found true adherents of 2nd Nicaea outside of the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Old Catholic traditions is within minority Anglo-Catholic pockets. Deusveritasest (talk) 06:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Theotokos

Theotokos does not mean God-bearer, but Mother of God, or more literally, the one who gave birth to God.Grailknighthero (talk) 05:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

No, Theotokos does mean, even more literally, "God-bearer." See Theotokos.--Carlaude ^(talk) 12:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Theophoros (Θεοφορος) is the Greek term usually and more correctly translated as God-bearer, so using God-bearer for Theotokos in some sense "orphans" Theophoros when it comes time to translate that term. The most literally correct one is Birth-giver to God. Yes, this means that Mother of God technically isn't right, but it is how it is usually translated. Grailknighthero (talk) 18:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This change with "Birth-giver to God" is fine.--Carlaude ^(talk) 12:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Only "Meter Theou", which has actually been used by some of the Fathers rather than Theotokos, actually means Mother of God. Deusveritasest (talk) 21:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Anglican position

The 39 articles say there were 6, presumably the 1st 6. Peter jackson (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

No, they don't. The 39 articles list 4 councils and label them as "the first 4". Deusveritasest (talk)

Looked it up. We're both wrong. No number or names. Funny tricks the mind plays. Peter jackson (talk) 10:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. That's really weird. The Ten Articles specify 1st Nicaea, 1st Constantinople, 1st Ephesus, and Chalcedon. I could have sworn the 39 said something along those same lines. *shrugs* Deusveritasest (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Relations

I don't see how the last section on the relations between EO and RC is all that relevant to this article. Deusveritasest (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Maybe it could be cut to one sentance, but no more.--Carlaude ^(talk) 22:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Trullo and Biblical canon

The article previously claimed that the Council of Trullo pronounced on Biblical canon (i.e., which books are to be accepted as inspired Scripture by the church). After just having read all of the canons of this council in Schaff's translation, and finding nothing about Biblical canon, I've removed the claim from the article. However, in case I just missed it, or some other edition / primary source material does contain pronouncements on the topic, I wanted to put up a section here where they can be posted (in which case the article can be changed back). 64.234.67.2 (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Anglicanism and Protestantism

I've removed some unverified and POV text from the "Anglicanism" and "Protestantism" sections.

Most churches in the Anglican Communion teach the historic Anglo-Catholic position that the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the undivided Church have authority for the whole Christian Church today. This position is the product of centuries of theological development by the Caroline Divines, the Non-Juring Bishops and the Tractarians.

A statement about what "most" Anglican churches believe will require some sources.

The Anglican Church has at no time, in no formal, way rejected any of the first Seven Ecumenical Councils and never brought into question the legitimacy of any of their universally-received teachings. Even in the Thirty-Nine Articles this is supported. Article XXI is about popularly-held and practised medieval error, not ecumenically consentient teaching...

This seems an interesting interpretation of Article XXI. Even if it is the correct interpretation, it doesn't mean that the Articles "support" the authority of the councils.

Supporters of the councils contend that the councils did not create new doctrines but merely elucidated doctrines already in Scripture that had gone unrecognized. Proponents often argue that the early councils serve as a good benchmark or tool for scriptural interpretation to guard against the individualistic or idiosyncratic interpretations of Bible that ultimately leads to schism. The thinking is that an ecumenical council representing the whole church is much less likely to misunderstand the voice of the Holy Spirit in expounding the Scriptures than is a handful of zealous believers.

Who are these "supporters"? Furthermore, the paragraph seems to be talking about "authority" at all. Sir rupert orangepeel (talk) 07:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Orthodox - eighth and ninth councils

I see that one user has changed the part about Orthodox acception of later councils as ecumenical to say that there is consensus about acceptance of the eighth and ninth councils in Eastern Orthodoxy ([6], [7]). However, if I read the sources given in the previous version ([8]) and the corresponding article in the OrthodoxWiki ([9], [10]) correctly, they say that there is no consensus... Thus I am reverting those edits for now.

However, it would seem more fitting to give some examples of the Orthodox who consider the councils in question to be ecumenical and the ones who do not... The OrthodoxWiki seems to give some examples of the ones who do (well, did), and it does seem to indicate that disagreement with this has something to do with the Russian Orthodox Church, but a better source (not a wiki) is going to be necessary for that... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Quality of this article is severely deficient

Sorry to be so blunt but this article is in dire need of rewriting in some areas.

Lead section

I'll just start with some comments about the lead section for now. The lead doesn't actually explain to the reader what an ecumenical council is , why it is important and what the implications of accepting or rejecting the results of a council are. If the lead did nothing but clearly explain these three points, it would be an adequate lead. Without a clear exposition of these three points, the lead fails in its purpose. When time permits, I will try to rewrite to address these three points but, in the meantime, if anybody else wants to take a whack at it, please do so.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 04:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

• "Due to schisms, the acceptance of these councils varies widely between different branches of Christianity."
  • This sentence is true but doesn't present the reader with a complete understanding of the nature of schisms and the role of the councils in those schisms. In the present, it is true that different branches of Christianity accept different councils as a result of the schisms. What is not being said in the current lead is that the councils often represent critical events in the development of a schism. Schisms don't start with a council. Instead, there are doctrinal disputes which a council seeks to resolve. When a portion of a church rejects the results of a council, it may choose to break away and form a schismatic church. If the reader doesn't already understand these points, then this article will be opaque to him. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 05:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

• "Those churches that parted ways with the others over christological matters accept the councils prior to their separation; the Church of the East (Nestorian) accepts as ecumenical only the first two, the Oriental Orthodoxy Churches the first three."
  • This sentence assumes a lot of knowledge on the part of the reader. It would be far better to start by explaining that the early councils were convened to address doctrinal issues related to Christology and that certain branches of Christianity were formed by churches that rejected the results of some of the councils. Once that general concept has been presented, the text can then continue to provide details about those churches. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 05:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I added a whole section to what made a council ecumenical. Two editors removed the entire section based on their claim that a single point was not backed up by references. I believe it was removed because it didn't match their church's understanding of what it meant to be ecumenical. Anyway, one put their own section in to cover this - from a Catholic perspective. It's not called Essential conditions I've re-edited into this stuff including now a reference to the fact that all the councils were called by the Emperor. Montalban (talk) 06:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe you should stick to find sources that support your assertions and not make blind accusations about other editor's beliefs. Cheers. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for at last accepting the request by Kansas Bear and me that you discuss things on the Talk page. Please Assume Good Faith, and either modify your text to remedy the faults that others claim to find in your edits or defend your edits here on the Talk page. Esoglou (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Council documents

Oh lord, sorry to be so snarky but this is another atrociously written section.

• "Church councils were, from the beginning, bureaucratic exercises. Written documents were circulated, speeches made and responded to, votes taken, and final documents published and distributed. A large part of what we know about the beliefs of heresies comes from the documents quoted in councils in order to be refuted, or indeed only from the deductions based on the refutations."
  • What is meant by the phrase "bureaucratic exercises"? Do we mean to say that the proceedings of every council were very bureaucratic in nature? Or do we mean to say that everyone already knew what the result of the council would be and that the council proceedings were just a "bureaucratic exercise" whose purpose was to "rubber-stamp" the decision that had already been made prior to the convocation of the council? We should be clearer about what we mean and we should provide a citation to back up the assertion.
  • In general, I think the section title "Council documents" is uninteresting and insufficiently descriptive of the section content.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 07:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Picky points

I present these in no particular order, simply noting them as I find them.

• "Fifth Council of Constantinople (1341–1351) affirmed hesychastic theology according to Gregory Palamas and condemned the Barlaam of Seminara." There is a phrase missing between "condemned the" and "Barlaam of Seminara". Stylistically, this sentence fails to follow "parallel construction". The council affirmed the "x" of Gregory Palamas and condemned the "y" of Barlaam of Seminara. As the sentence now reads, it suggests that Barlaam is a title along the lines of "the Duke of Windsor". However, Barlaam was the man's name and thus, even if we were to ignore parallel construction, the sentence should read "condemned Barlaam of Seminara". I will make it read that now but someone else should take it one step further and provide a sentence which utilizes parallel construction. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 04:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Bishop of Constantinople present at 1st Ecumenical Council

Recently it was suggested that there was no "Bishop of Constantinople" present at the First Ecumenical Council. I believe that the author of this has his dates incorrect, however at worst, there was still a local bishop there, only he would have been called "Bishop of Byzantium" because the list of bishops for that place go back to St. Andrew See - List of Ecumenical Patriarchs of Constantinople

However his claim is further undermined in that it follows the line "Some have held that a council is ecumenical only when all five patriarchs of the Pentarchy are represented at it." with five different references attesting to this fact!

Montalban (talk) 11:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The point of this objection to the idea of the necessity of representation of all five patriarchs of the Pentarchy for the ecumenicity of a council was that at the time of the first ecumenical council there weren't five patriarchs. Esoglou (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

That's not what the objection stated. The objection stated that there was no bishop of Constantinople.

Montalban (talk) 22:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, more or less. Esoglou (talk) 06:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Trusting in other's resarch

It was suggested the other day that I read a web-site PAPAL AUTHORITY IN THE FIRST ECUMENICAL COUNCILS by Brian W. Harrison

It is interesting to note that they claim the historian Gelasius as a witness to Rome's case - that the Pope had representatives at the 1st Ecumenical Council. They do not note that Gelasius is not considered a reliable source by some. Gelasius work is considered little more than a compilation from pre-existing histories. One reason he is considered untrustworthy as an historian is that he claims that the First Ecumenical Council was summoned at the call of Pope Sylvester. He makes Rufinus of Aquileia to be a Roman legate at Nicea – but he was born in 345.

Montalban (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

If you distrust this website (which I certainly did not recommend to you), you did right to remove the citation of it that you yourself inserted. Esoglou (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The reason I cited it was to demonstrate that Catholic apologetics use faulty sources. I also never said you recommended it to me. Montalban (talk) 22:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Scarcely a sufficient reason for citing it in an encyclopedia article not dealing with Catholic apologetics. Esoglou (talk) 06:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Presiding

The Emperor presided over the council though presenting his Sacra. It had his authority.

If one has to be 'physically' there then Catholic apologist sites who say that Cyprian represented the Pope are false... because the Pope wasn't at that council, nor at any other. Presiding over, as Constantine did during the 1st Ecumenical Council does not mean 'directing'. For instance the Vice President of the United States presides over the Senate but can only vote in exceptional circumstances... where most power residing in the hands of party leaders.

Therefore one can preside over a council, where this doesn't have to be in person, and also not take part in directing decisions of the Council.

Another way of looking at this is that the church is presided over by God. For Catholics the Pope also presides, on behalf of God. When the Pope presides, God's power is in no way diminished. It would be illogical therefore to say that because the Pope presides God does not. For Catholics who believe Cyprian represented the Pope -would then meant that if Cyprian 'presided' then that the Pope did not?

Thus the Emperor presided, whether he was there or not. His sacra was present. Another could do the hands-on presiding of the Council without in any way diminishing the power of the Emperor. Montalban (talk) 23:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it best to make no comment on this understanding of what presiding means. Esoglou (talk) 06:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I've been thinking of how to re-write the bit about Cyril presiding. Cyril was the 'chief' cleric there, but could not convene his group as a council until the sacra of the emperor was read out before it - thus ultimately it was the Emperor who presided, even if in abstensia. For simplicity's sake it's very easy for historians and writers to say "Cyril presided". It reminds me of how the popes presided (from an Orthodox perspective) -the way I look at it is from the perspective of the Commonwealth of Nations. The Queen is the 'visible head of the Commonwealth' and 'presides' in that sense, but she's not even de jure leader of several member states - such as India - which is a republic. Thus although she presides over the Commonwealth she doesn't rule over it.

Montalban (talk) 12:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Acceptance of the councils

Recently the "Ecumenical Council" article was totally re-written by (I assume) a non-Orthodox to state falsely what Orthodox believe is essential to make a council Ecumenical.

For instance.... I stated the fact that all Councils were held in the east. It's now been re-written that it is an essential condition that they were held in the east. This is not the case.

I don't wish to get into (more of) an editing war, but I don't think people should re-write what we believe in - and then oddly add 'citation needed' to the re-write!

Montalban (talk) 23:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Esoglou under no circumstance should be doing any editing saying anything from the Eastern Orthodox perspective. Esoglou is under edit restrictions for edit warring trying to silence, marginalized, suffocate and or suppress what various Eastern Orthodox theologians actually say. Ecumenical councils are to define church theology.

I have posted to administrator Ed Johnson a request to review this latest episode of Esoglou's on going war to deny the Orthodox perspective and instead rewrite it so to make it Roman Catholic friendly. Eastern Orthodoxy can see what the uniate, ustashe movement has done and continues to do (Catholic clergy involvement with the Ustaše). This RC/EO conflict is a continuously on going thing that likes to flair into mass murder usually against the Eastern Orthodox in the name of the Pope and Jesus Christ. I can make a list of it as an unbroken chain going back at least to Charlemagne.LoveMonkey (talk) 23:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. I was going to propose that we simply break that topic down into "Catholic" and "Orthodox" perspectives as to what constitutes an EC, and anyone else, I suppose who has an idea could add to the topic. But the change he made actually misrepresented what we believe in. It wouldn't matter if they were all in the west. However it's a fact that they were all held in the east. Montalban (talk) 03:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I take it then that we all agree with and applaud [Laurel's action. I have already expressed by agreement and thanks. Esoglou (talk) 06:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I have moved all the text in the "Essential conditions" section into the section titled "Acceptance of the councils". In particular, I moved the text that focused on the acceptance or rejection of councils by a particular branch into the subsection about that branch. The "Essential conditions" section was an atrociously written section which had no structure or flow of logic and suffered from horrendous writing style to boot. Unfortunately, some of those problems still exist in the text after the move so more effort will be needed to resolve these problems. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 07:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't we have little grammar elves that can work on it over-night? Montalban (talk) 09:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I've re-written the Orthodox section. I hope it makes sense. Please do not hesitate to send criticisms, and to give feed-back of what you think it is trying to say - because I may not have conveyed the right message. Montalban (talk) 09:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations. You have improved it. Some things still require attention, such as the quotation, not merely a citation, of an unreliable source. You know that wikis are not considered reliable sources for Wikipedia. The little grammar elves have some things to attend to also. And can something be done about the ambiguous term "the whole church", since considerable parts of the church refused to accept Ephesus and Chalcedon? Esoglou (talk) 10:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

By whole church I mean to convey the congregation of believers. Would you accept the following as a reference? (it's only a dictionary one) http://dict.shmop.net/ecumenical%20council/

I've added a different one to the article. Let me know if one, both, or neither are acceptable I was not aware of what you say re: other Wikis - the irony is delicious. With Chalcedon, as certain churches didn't accept it and broke communion they cease to be part of the whole church - it's a funny thing Montalban (talk) 12:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

What am I saying about other wikis? I refer to the one you cite and quote: "An ecclesiological theory which has been popular since the time of the Slavophile philosopher Alexis Khomiakov first defined it is that ecumenicity—the idea that a particular council is of universal, infallible significance for the Church—is determined by the reception of the whole body of the Church. (this wiki).

You are right, it is a funny thing. With Chalcedon (from the point of view of the Alexandrians), as certain churches broke communion by adopting a heterodox credal formula, they ceased to be part of the whole church, and so (again from that point of view), the real "whole church" rejected the council of Chalcedon, so that it is not an ecumenical council. As that "whole church" sees it, Chalcedon "contradicted the faith expressed at the Council of Ephesus, wherein a perfect union of Christ's divinity and humanity was determined against the Nestorian heresy" (book written by a non-Copt); "We reject the Council of Chalcedon because it accepted the Tome of Leo (two natures after the union) instead of the Cyrillian expression 'One nature of God the Logos Incarnate'" (a Coptic study, p. 8)! For Chalcedonians, the Chalcedon council is ecumenical, since the whole Chalcedonian church accepted it, but for Oriental Orthodox, the Chalcedon council is not ecumenical, since the whole Oriental Orthodox Church rejected it! It's a matter of acceptance or rejection by the whole church that does the judging. But perhaps it is not altogether necessary to specify that by "the whole church" is meant in this section the whole Eastern Orthodox Church. However, it appears that acceptance/rejection is not an objective criterion for determining a council's ecumenicity: in actual practice it only tautologously says that a certain church considers a particular council to be or not to be ecumenical. Esoglou (talk) 16:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I've made some good faith edits that hopefully faithfully reflect the EO position on the conditions while simplifying the language. By bad if I've misinterpreted the EO position. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a good representation. I was going to plead "I'm an Australian man - I can't express myself" but I won't Montalban (talk) 22:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Montalban..I think a greater irony is as far as I can tell no Orthodox editors have went into Roman Catholic articles (buddies and all) and pulled an Esoglou (like they did on say the theoria article making it nothing more than a contemplation duplicate hence marginalizing the Orthodox understanding of the term). Hey if you would look over the Michel de Montaigne article..That would be dandy, I mean if you have time. Thanks again LoveMonkey (talk) 00:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Ta. I'll have a look. I've liked some of the readings of Michel de Montaigne "When we read in Bouchet about miracles associated with the relics of Saint Hilary we can shrug it off: His right to be believed is not great enough to take away our freedom to challenge him. But to go on from there and condemn all similar accounts seems to me to be impudent in the extreme. Such a great saint as Augustine swears that he saw: a blind child restored to sight by the relics of Saint Gervaise and Saint Protasius at Milan; a woman in Carthage cured of a cancer by the sign of the cross made by a woman who had just been baptised; his close friend Hesperius driving off devils (who were infesting his house) by using a little soil taken from the sepulchre of our Lord, and that same soil, borne into the Church, suddenly curing a paralytic; a woman who, having touched the reliquary of Saint Stephen with a posy of flowers during a procession, rubbed her eyes with them afterwards and recovered her sight which she had recently lost... What are we to accuse him of - hum and the two holy bishops, Aurelius and Maximinus, whom he calls on as witnesses? Is it of ignorance, simple-mindedness, credulity, deliberate deception or imposture? .... 'Qui, ut rationem mullan afferent, ipsa auhtoritate me frangerent (Why, even if they gave no reasons, they would convince me by their very authority) "That it is madness to judge the true and the false from our own capacities" in Michel de Montaigne (1993), "The Essays: A Selection", Penguin Classics It goes to an understanding of 'authority' Montalban (talk) 05:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

"Great Schism"

Perhaps, instead of waiting for Woohookitty or some other helpful disambiguator to discover the fault, it would be good if an involved editor would re-disambiguate Great Schism. This ambiguous term is in a section with an Eastern Orthodox heading that I refrain from editing. Esoglou (talk) 09:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

How about a 'not so great schism' article? Montalban (talk) 09:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Laurel, for fixing this. Esoglou (talk) 07:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Governor-General of Australia

On a slightly off-topic thing, but was raised here, the Senate is presided over by a President, but this in turn is presided over by an Executive Council, which in turn is presided over by the Governor-General. It is not wrong to say therefore that the Governor-General presides over the Senate. http://static.moadoph.gov.au/ophgovau/media/images/apmc/docs/61-System-of-government.pdf Although he is not directly there, one does not need to be present to preside. I state this fact to show that there can be several levels of presiding as well as to correct a non-fact about Australia's government

Montalban (talk) 07:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

More original-research arguing, of no relevance to Wikipedia. "I state this fact" is not enough: what you need is a reliable source that states it. There is none that states that the Governor-General of Australia presides over the Senate. There is none that states that the Emperor presided over the Council of Ephesus. Esoglou (talk) 09:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you mean that there are no sources that say that he sat there and officiated. However he was still Emperor, even in the precinct where the Council was held, (called for by him) and therefore his power extended to it, and over it, and therefore he presided, whether he was there in person OR had someone represent his authority. Montalban (talk) 10:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

What I mean is what I say: there is no reliable source that states "The Governor-General presides over the Senate". Is there? Leave your personal interpretations aside. Just report the reliable sources. Esoglou (talk) 10:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

You'll need perhaps to look up what a hierarchy is Montalban (talk) 11:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Another attempt to build an original-research argument. In the article, stick to what reliable sources say. That is a requirement on Wikipedia. By now you should know. Esoglou (talk) 11:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

It's called a fact. If "A" controls "B" and "B" controls "C" than "A" controls "C". This happens all the time with government (for Australia we have Ministerial Responsibility wherein ministers are ultimately responsible for all agencies, AND sub-agencies, etc in their departments) (or how in the US Truman said "The buck stops here"), corporations, etc. It's also to do with ultimate responsibility, and who's ultimately in charge. Anyway, I don't see anything by way of progress in this -the continual repeating of charges endlessly isn't helpful. I added more from one source, and from Runciman too to the article. Any and all constructive thoughts will be much appreciated. Montalban (talk) 12:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree that the continual repeating of charges arguments isn't helpful - especially arguments that say that the Governor-General of Australia is ultimately responsible for and presides over (!) the way people use the toilet in the Senate and therefore indeed throughout Australia :-D Wikipedia wants reliable sources, not arguments. Esoglou (talk) 16:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing of edits

1. Congratulations and warm thanks for removing the false, as well as unsourced, statement that Constantine presided over the first ecumenical council: he only presided over the opening session.
2. Candidian had been sent by the Emperor to preside over the council (in a civil sense) - Runciman says: "(Theodosius's) representative (Count Candidian) was quite unable to control proceedings", but does not say Candidian was sent to preside over the council. The police control open-air meetings of political movements, but it isn't they who preside over the meetings. At any rate, the statement that Candidian was sent to preside in any sense over the council is unsourced.
3. A reliable source, written by a specialist in church history, expressly says Theodosius did not name anyone other than Cyril of Alexandria to preside over the council: Philip Hughes, The Church in Crisis. If the question of presidency is raised in relation to Theodosius, deliberate omission - worse, deletion! - of this reliably sourced statement is inexcusable.
4. although Cyril of Alexandria as a senior cleric of one group sought to conduct proceedings and presided over one group in theological matters - This may be true of the preliminary skirmishes, but once the council got going, with both parties participating - and that is far more important - who presided? It was Cyril of Alexandria. No argument about it. This is stated clearly in the reliable sources which, unfortunately, one editor, with support from nobody else, insists on removing from the article for no discoverable reason other than that they did not fit in with his own unsourced personal point of view. These reliable sources state it expressly, with no need for interpretation. They put in no ridiculous limiting phrases like the unsourced original-research "in theological matters". The citations removed were: Philip Hughes, The Church in Crisis; Daniel J. Castellano, "Commentary on the Council of Ephesus" (2007;)Seven Ecumenical Councils; 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica, article "Council of Ephesus". Those four are surely enough to show the weight of the statement, although it would be possible to add more. They, and the sourced statement they support, should certainly be restored to the article.
5. Cyril had canonical grounds for opening the First session - A source (McGuckin?) should really be cited for this statement, which has undoubted importance because it indicates that civil law, dependent on the emperor, was not the only basis for a council.
6. the Council of Hieria ... was not legally assembled and so is not considered to be ecumenical - No source is given for the statement that this council was not legally assembled. There may be grounds for saying it was not canonically assembled, and the Wikipedia article on that council indicates various such grounds, but it was duly convoked by Emperor Constantine IV and so was indubitably a legal council. The same holds for the Second Council of Ephesus, convoked by Emperor Theodosius II. If convocation by the emperor made a council legal, these two councils were obviously legal, and no Wikipedia editor should falsely and (more important for Wikipedia) unsourcedly claim that at least one of the two was not legally assembled. The article thus wrongly makes legality appear central in making a council ecumenical, when in reality what made a council ecumenical was its canonicity. At any rate, the statement that legality was essential is unsourced.

This is Wikipedia, not a discussion forum; and "Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies, along with No original research and Neutral point of view." Esoglou (talk) 16:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Use of unreliable source

"An ecclesiological theory which has been popular since the time of the Slavophile philosopher Alexis Khomiakov first defined it is that ecumenicity—the idea that a particular council is of universal, infallible significance for the Church—is determined by the reception of the whole body of the Church." This quotation is still in the article, although it both contradicts what the article says about the greater antiquity of the theory of the necessity of "reception" and is based on a wiki and thus on what Wikipedia classifies as an unreliable source. Esoglou (talk) 07:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

No action has yet been taken on this fault. Esoglou (talk) 06:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

All bishops attending

I note there's a wee bit of a difference between editors on this point.

To those who believe that a council is Ecumenical because bishops attend from all parts, how many of these Councils had representatives from India (church founded by St. Thomas)? Prior to the Synod of Whitby the churches in Ireland differed in practice on dating Easter, and some other differences. Were they still allowed to attend?

Montalban (talk) 22:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what editors Montalban interprets as claiming (contrary to the Catholic Church's teaching) that a council cannot be ecumenical unless bishops from all parts attend, but in any case this seems to be just another red herring meant to evade his duty of providing a reliable source for the statement he wishes Wikipedia to make about the emperor presiding over the Council of Ephesus and his duty to justify his deletion of the citation of a reliable source that says the emperor did not. (Part of the red herring displays ignorance that in several countries Catholics, including members of the Latin Church, celebrate Easter on a date different from the date on which it is celebrated in Rome: for instance, in Greece they celebrate the feast as in the calendar of the Greek Orthodox Church and in Ethiopia as in the calendar of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church.)

In saying that Rome did not accept the changes that the First Council of Constantinople made in the Nicene Creed until seventy years after that council, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is certainly not stating that the Pope presided over that council. Montalban's unfounded claim above that the Catechism of the Catholic Church equivalently says the Pope presided over the Council of Ephesus is just another red herring to distract from his similarly unfounded claim that the emperor presided. Esoglou (talk) 06:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I have no recollection of mentioning anything here about the Nicene Creed Montalban (talk) 08:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

But you did suggest that the Catechism of the Catholic Church says the Pope presided over the Council of Ephesus, didn't you? It says nothing of the sort about any of the earliest ecumenical councils. Esoglou (talk) 09:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Does the Pope's powers cease to take effect in the precinct of a council? Montalban (talk) 10:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course not. Just cite sources, don't build arguments, which don't count on Wikipedia. Esoglou (talk) 10:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Was Cyril the Papal Legate?

Michael Whelton deals extensively with the idea that Cyril was not representing the Pope, but rather Arcadius, Projectus and Philip are the only ones mentioned by the Pope as his delegates there. Whelton, M., (1998) Two Paths: Papal Monarchy - Collegial Tradition, (Regina Orthodox Press; Salisbury, MA),p60ff.

Montalban (talk) 08:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

One of the reliable sources that say Cyril presided also says Cyril was not delegated. Why did you delete it and the others? Esoglou (talk) 09:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you agreeing that Cyril was not papal legate? Montalban (talk) 10:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Whether I do or do not is irrelevant. Reliable sources say he was not. If other reliable sources say he was, cite them also, if you want to. So please undo your deletion of what reliable sources do say, and don't add to them your own unsourced personal arguments. Esoglou (talk) 10:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Why discuss who presided at Ephesus

Being a latecomer to these discussions and not very well informed regarding the subject matter, I am confused as to why pinning down the nature of Cyril's role at the Council of Ephesus is important in this particular article. It seems to me that these topics would be more properly discussed in the article on the Council of Ephesus rather than in this broader summary article about ecumenical councils in general.

Based on my reading of the foregoing discussions, it would seem that Montalban's agenda is related not so much to historical accuracy as to building support for arguments regarding the powers of the Pope and the Emperor. If this is so, then we should spend less effort trying to establish whether Cyril "presided" over the council and focus directly on the implications of who had the power to convoke a council and who presided over councils once they were convened. I'm sure there are reliable sources who discuss these issues and there are probably strong differences of opinion regarding the implications as to what makes a council "ecumenical". Discussing those topics would be absolutely appropriate for this article and would improve it immensely. Getting wrapped up in the issue of whether or not Cyril "presided" over the Council of Ephesus is not improving the article.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 21:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree fully. There is really no need at all to raise the question of what individual presided at one particular council. For a while the article had inserted into it an unsourced claim that the emperors presided over all the earliest ecumenical councils. Laurel Lodged laudably removed that. The article also had in it an unsourced claim that Count Candidian presided over this particular council in the emperor's name. This has now been softened into an unsourced claim that Count Candidian "was sent by the Emperor to preside". All of us know that in Wikipedia an unsourced claim, if challenged and not defended by a citation from a reliable source, may be removed. So would you, Richard, or some other editor (as you know, I myself am not free to act) simply remove that claim. The long disquisition about Cyril will then fall away also, since it is in the article simply to counter the claim about Candidian (originally to counter what was said about the emperor). A simple clean solution that only requires action by some editor other than me. Why not by you?

The lengthy matter that would fall away would include the remark that I see has now been inserted about Cyril sharing presidency with papal legates - a remark that amazingly speaks not of presidency over the council proper but instead of presidency "over one group" or faction, while a rival group was meeting elsewhere, before both groups came together to form what we would look on as the council proper! Esoglou (talk) 06:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I did a Google search on "presided Council of Ephesus" and found this source. It's an interesting story. There is perhaps something to be made of the fact that Cyril chose to begin proceedings before the papal legates arrived. According to the source, Candidian did protest Cyril's having done so. Nonetheless, until someone offers a secondary source who makes an assertion about the importance of Cyril's actions wrt episcopal, papal and imperial authority vis-a-vis ecumenical councils, I would assert that none of this detail belongs in this article and will remove it. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

As I said, the only reason to mention Cyril is because of the unsourced claim about Candidian presiding. So do remove the unsourced claim and then there will be no need to say a single word about Cyril or the Council of Ephesus.

By the way, where I am Google only grants a snippet view of your source, and since I don't even have a search string to apply, that is of no use whatever to me. I have looked hurriedly at what Google turns up for "Candidian Cyril Ephesus". "Hurriedly", because I don't think we need say anything about the Council of Ephesus. The first source Google turns up is McGuckin's book, which I find, unless in my hurry I am mistaken, does not say what Montalban attributes to it: that two groups assembled, each claiming to be the official council, and that Candidian demanded that Cyril and his bishops join the other group - Candidian only demanded a delay, maintaining that the opening of the council by Cyril was premature and therefore illegal. I also found that Candidian had to accept that he must, in line with the emperor's instructions, remove himself from the assembly. This obviously excludes the Montalban's claim about Candidian being sent to preside over the council. It was only later that a rival "conciliabulum" was set up under John of Antioch, not Nestorius. But more than enough of that. Esoglou (talk) 19:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I was puzzled today at no longer being able to access most of McGuckin's book, as I could yesterday; but I have now found the explanation. I cannot get it at Google.com, but I can on a mirror site. Perhaps I could also get access to Richard's source on the mirror site. I haven't checked, since I have preferred to use only McGuckin in my revision of what Richard moved to the Council of Ephesus article, because it is McGuckin that Montalban has been (inaccurately) citing. Esoglou (talk) 11:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

You proposed a surgicial excision; I have gone after the EO section with a machete. There is a tendency among some editors to put an excessive level of detail into high-level summary articles such as this one. I have moved the detailed discussion of Candidian and Cyril to the article on the First Council of Ephesus. When time allows, I will provide the text of the Tixeront source at Talk:First Council of Ephesus. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 21:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I should like someone more knowledgeable than I to review the text of the EO section after my most recent edit excising the detailed discussion of Candidian and Cyril. In particular, to confirm or challenge the accuracy of the statements that the Council of Hieria and the First Council of Ephesus were not legally assembled. It seems to me that, at least wrt the First Council of Ephesus, the question of whether it was legally assembled or not is either in dispute or considered to have been rendered moot by subsequent events. However, my grasp of the history is weak and so I would like to enlist the help of someone more familiar with the historical events. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 21:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Correction: wrt the First Council of Ephesus, it is considered to be ecumenical. Only the sub-group that refused to join the main body was not ecumenical. Without the sacra, how could that sub-group be legal? Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Laurel, that is exactly the point - it goes to show what Orthodox consider to be a legal and valid council. The sources I cited say that. Montalban (talk) 01:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I have moved my comments back to the section where I originally placed them, thus they're in context

Montalban (talk) 12:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Not only Eastern Orthodox (who, Montalban says without citing a source, consider the emperor's convocation essential for ecumenicity and, I suppose, for validity) consider the First Council of Ephesus valid and ecumenical, but also Roman Catholics (who certainly do not consider the emperor's convocation to be essential for validity and ecumenicity) and Oriental Orthodox (who, as far as I know, also do not consider the emperor's convocation to be essential for validity and ecumenicity). I wonder how many Eastern Orthodox really consider, Montalban-like, that the church cannot determine its teaching definitively without getting the civil authority to make the church's action "legal". McGuckin seems to contradict Montalban's unsourced view, saying that at the time of the Council of Ephesus the hierarchy as a whole "saw the definition of the church's faith and canons of good order as supremely their affair, with or without the leave of the Emperor. They also needed no one to remind them that Synodical process pre-dated the christianisation of the royal court by several centuries. In the fifth century it would not be a Constantine who took the presidential chair of a council, but as it had been in the days even before there was a christian Basileus, the senior bishop present" (p. 69, emphasis added). Esoglou (talk) 11:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Laurel, the bishops who "refused to join the main group" did not (in spite of what Montalban said) set up a rival council. They simply opposed opening the council on 22 June instead of waiting a while longer. When the Syrian bishops arrived, they did hold a synod of their own, but I don't think (I haven't checked) that they claimed to be the council called by the emperor. In any case, they were not the sub-group that had earlier, before their arrival, refused to join the main group. Esoglou (talk) 11:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Laurel, not only does Runicman state that there was a rival council, but any seach on google can find the evidence that some here crave "Cyril used the delayed arrival of the Assyrians to accomplish the triumph of his doctrines. When the Easterners arrived, they were outraged and set up a rival council and condemned Cyril." http://www.nestorian.org/the_christological_controversi.html The "Easterners" being John of Antioch and his party. There was a feeling that the bishops should have waited for him and his fellow bishops to arrive before the council was started. Montalban (talk) 22:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Oops sorry Laurel, forgot to add other references

Jesus, the Christ: Contemporary Perspectives' By Brennan R. Hill p230 (anyone can check Google books)

Introducing early Christianity: a topical survey of its life, beliefs, and ... By Laurie Guy p291 (also Google books)

support the contention that a rival council existed under Nestorius. Runicman (I don't have the book before me) contends that the emperor deposed both Cyril and Nestorius.

Words, imagery, and the mystery of Christ: a reconstruction of Cyril of ... By Steven Alan McKinion p13 (also Google Books) supports this too

However 'the church' followed the teachings of Ephesus 'under Cyril'. It is thus too simplistic to say "the Council of Epehsus was under the presidency of Cyril" Montalban (talk) 22:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

"When the Easterners arrived, they ... set up a rival council" (Runciman) - just as I said. Only on Friday 26 June did the Easterners arrive and set up their rival council of a mere 43 bishops under John of Antioch to excommunicate and depose Cyril of Alexandria and Memnon of Ephesus, the leaders of the over-200-strong council. Contrary to what has been put in the article, there was no rival council on Monday 22 June, when Cyril and his supporters opened the Council of Ephesus. Contrary to what has been put in the article, there was never any rival council presided over by Nestorius. So it is nonsense to say, as the article now says, that Candidian "went to the group supporting Cyril and demanded that they reconvene with Nestorius' group".

The emperor's ratification on Tuesday 7 July of both councils (one of which was initiated on 26 June), with their depositions of Nestorius, Cyril and Memnon is much later than the alleged existence of two rival councils in the lead-up to 22 June.

On Friday 10 July, when news of the emperor's decision had not yet reached Ephesus, the Roman delegation arrived. Cyril held a second session of the Council of Ephesus, at which the Romans read Pope Celestine's letter requesting confirmation of the Roman condemnation of Nestorius. At a third session on Saturday 11 July, the Roman legates formally accepted and signed the acts of the previous two sessions. Four more sessions were held, ending on 31 July. If one or more of the Roman legates presided at one or more of those sessions, or if "it is too simplistic to say 'the Council of Ephesus was under the presidency of Cyril'", that has nothing to do with the unsourced claim inserted into the article that Candidian was to preside over the council. It also contradicts the claim that has been put in the article that "there is some suggestion that (Cyril) shared the presidency with the papal legates" in the period leading to 22 June, when the legates had not yet arrived!

All that information can be found in McGuckin, and elsewhere.

The imaginative unsourced information that has been put in the article needs to be removed. That unsourced information includes not only what I have already mentioned, but also matters such as the presentation of receptionism as the view of Eastern Orthodoxy, contrary to what is clearly stated in the OrthodoxWiki article, and the claim that the Council of Hieria, convoked and supported by the emperor, was not "legally" assembled. Esoglou (talk) 07:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

It may be time to move to an Request for comment. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 07:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

If there is no other way to get a lone editor to accept what the others say, then yes. Esoglou (talk) 07:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Montalban's withdrawal of his "wow!" comment may mean that he has come to realize his misunderstanding. It may therefore be easier to remove his unsourced and highly questionable text. Putting it as a Note, as Laurel has now done, is no solution. Perhaps wait until tomorrow to see if Montalban still defends it. If he does not, another editor will be even more evidently free than now to delete it. Esoglou (talk) 11:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Let us see if, after today making some changes, Montalban will now attend to the further faults pointed out below. Esoglou (talk) 13:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments

I see that Montalban has reverted the removal of the details about the Council of Ephesus. If they are to be kept here - something I do not favour - perhaps my sourced edits in relation to the same text in the First Council of Ephesus should be copied to here.

I see that Montalban has removed, without replying to it, Richard's query tag about the Council of Hieria. The statement that the Council of Hieria "was not legally assembled" is surely not only unsourced but false: it was convoked by Emperor Constantine V (just look up the article on the council), who enforced its iconoclast decrees with such force that in a later period, when the opposing view had prevailed, his body was dug up and thrown into the sea. How can there be any doubt that the Council of Hieria was legal? The same holds for the Second Council of Ephesus, held 17 years after the Council of Ephesus discussed above.

This wiki (and therefore unreliable) source has not yet been removed or replaced. I see that the same source concludes for more than one reason that "receptionism", the idea advanced by Khomiakov that ecumenicity is determined by the reception of the whole body of the church is not a valid theory. So the source is cited for the contrary of what it maintains! Esoglou (talk) 11:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I wish to re-emphasize that I think the discussion of what makes a council "ecumenical" is important and even critical to this article. I just think the current article text presents the material in an extremely backasswards way. Part of this is due to a desire to promote the EO perspective instead of stepping back and presenting the entire issue in a dispassionate NPOV style. The other problem is that there is a tendency to assume too much knowledge on the part of the reader. We really need to bring the reader along more rather than just jumping into the details of the argument.

A combination of real-world obligations and personal ignorance of the topic preclude me from giving this topic the complete rewrite that it cries out for. For now, I will comment that the Orthodox Wiki's article on Ecumenicity does a better job of discussing the issues although it is, as Esoglou points out, unsourced.

I have not had a chance to read this entire blog post but, at first glance, it seems to provide a cogent discussion of some of the issues. It is, admittedly, a blog and therefore not considered a reliable source. However, it does cite a number of reliable sources and we might benefit from presenting some of Perry's key points here in this article.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

In place of the idiosyncratic view recently inserted here as that of the Eastern Orthodox, it should surely be possible to put (with the required link back to OrthodoxWiki) the OrthodoxWiki text, provided with precise citations from reliable sources for each of its statements (at present it only has imprecise references to certain writers. Perhaps Richard or someone else will do something on those lines? I am not free to do it, other than by sandboxing a text without then being able to do further editing when my work might would be mangled afterwards, a prospect that I do not wish to face. Esoglou (talk) 18:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Who presided over the Council of Ephesus

There has been a POV suppression of this well-sourced information, although not a single source has been produced to contest it:

Cyril of Alexandria presided, since neither pope nor emperor had named another to preside.<reference: Philip Hughes, The Church in Crisis><reference: Daniel J. Castellano, "Commentary on the Council of Ephesus" (2007)><reference: Seven Ecumenical Councils><reference: 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica, article "Council of Ephesus">

Many more sources could be cited. That Cyril presided over the Council of Ephesus is unquestioned except by one Wikipedia editor, who says that "Candidian had been sent by the Emperor "to preside". (I presume he means "preside over the council": otherwise he would have no difficulty in accepting that Cyril presided over the council.). He does not explicitly cite a source for this statement. If he claims that it is what McGuckin says, the McGuckin source should be verified in view of the many sources that seem to contradict it. Indeed, the quoted passage of McGuckin describes the function of Candidian as no more than pronouncing officially the emperor's decree of convocation and thus declaring the council open. At most, it could be said that Candidian presided over the opening session, as Constantine presided over the opening session of the First Council of Nicaea.

The same editor adds the unsourced statement: "This follows in the pattern of the first ecumenical Council in which the emperor Constantine the Great presided but did not direct theological debate." On the contrary, the pattern of the first ecumenical council was that the emperor presided over the opening session, not over the council as a whole (see Encyclopaedia Britannica). Alexandria provided the first council's president, as it also provided the president of the Ephesus council. Esoglou (talk) 07:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I thought that I explained that one can preside, and another can preside, in different meanings of the word. For instance the Queen sits in a joint sitting of parliament and in a sense 'presides' over parliament, but it is parliament who instructs her. But as with the Councils they had to be called by the Emperor - who thus 'presides' whether he's there or not. Because legally it couldn't exist without him. It's also, as I explained how the Catholic Church can argue that the Pope presided, or are they now going to say that the Pope was head of the church, except at the Ecumenical Councils which were an entity apart from the church because it was presided over by someone else?

Both accounts are correct. Both Cyril and the Emperor presided (orthodox view),or both the Pope (through Cyril) and the Emperor presided (which should be the Catholic view) - unless that conclave was a special enclave outside the judicial power of the Emperor.

The fact that they convened at the behest of the Emperor shows who 'presided' even if in abstensia Montalban (talk) 08:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The Queen may summon your Australian Parliament, but she does not preside over either house: the President of the Australian Senate (who is not designated by the Queen) presides, as the title indicates, over the upper house; the Speaker of the Australian House of Representatives (who also is not designated by the Queen) is the presiding officer of the lower house. It is the same for the British parliament and all similar parliaments, even in republics. The President of the United States does not preside over either house of Congress. The United States Constitution designates the Vice President of the United States as President of the United States Senate and he does actually preside over it. Like the Speaker of a British-style parliament, he only has a casting vote in the case of a tied vote. When you want to include in a Wikipedia article a statement such as that an emperor presided over a council, you must be prepared to back it up with citations from a reliable source. So try to find a reliable source that says this. And please undo - or let someone else undo - your excision of the statement that Cyril presided over the Council of Ephesus, with neither pope nor emperor having designated anyone to preside over it, and your excision of the citation of reliable sources for this statement. Esoglou (talk) 09:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The Catholic argument "The Pope may, however, exercise this presidency in person, or he may be represented, as has frequently been the case, by his legates" http://readinghall.org/Western-Civilization-Jewels/HEFELE/Introduction/5.html Thus in that sense ALL Ecumenical Councils were presided over by a Pope - even when they also say that Cyril presided over Ephesus. So by the Catholic argument Cyril presided. And so did the Pope. IF Catholics wish to say that the Pope ceased to preside over an Ecumenical Council because they had handed over all powers (like a dictator of ancient Rome) for the duration of the Council, then I would be happy to see Cyril re-stated into the argument as having the presidency.

The Catholic argument also runs into the problem of Meletius. Meletius could be said to have 'presided' over a council, whilst (according to L. D. Davis) not currently be in communion with the Pope. (Davis, L. D., (1990), The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787) Their History and Theology (Liturgical Press, Minnesota), pp128-129.) Montalban (talk) 09:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with the sourced statement that Cyril presided over the Council of Ephesus, without having been designated by either pope or emperor. And of course the pope - or the emperor - could have exercised a presidency in person or be represented by legates, but in the case of the Council of Ephesus, neither pope nor emperor seem to have exercised the presidency of the council either in person or by being represented by legates. Esoglou (talk) 09:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe it has everything to do with it, because it can be said to be true both

a) the Emperor presided over the council and

b) Cyril presided over the council

I see no conflict. Why I removed the text was because it suggested only b) was true.

Furthermore, I posed problems here regarding 'presiding' negating the Supreme Pontiff's power over the whole church.

Ephesus was called into being by the reading of the sacra. That's what my source says. I can reconcile both a) and b). To suggest ONLY Cyril presided not only causes problems to that, but also to Catholic teaching on the supremacy of the Papacy

Montalban (talk) 11:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

1. What is lacking is a reliable source, even one, that says the emperor presided over the Council of Ephesus. Citation of a reliable source, at least one, is a requirement for including a statement in Wikipedia.
2. Calling a meeting into being is not the same as presiding over it.
3. The claim that the emperor presided over the Council of Ephesus appears to be non-existent apart from you. If some people like you advance a claim that the popes presided, even by proxy, over the earliest ecumenical councils, that claim is just as unfounded as your claim that the emperors presided. Or, to put it another way, your claim is just as unfounded as that claim. Or more.
4. A reliable source, the citation of which you have abusively removed, expressly says that the emperor named no proxy to preside in his name. Esoglou (talk) 11:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The Catholic Catechism: 937 The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, "supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls"

However if Cyril presided in toto then it should read 937 The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, "supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls, except in the precinct of an Ecumenical Council"

The Magisterium didn't count there

Montalban (talk) 11:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Neither the Catechism of the Catholic Church nor any other document of the Catholic Church that I know of says that a Pope presided even by proxy over the Council of Ephesus. Esoglou (talk) 11:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

So the Pope ceased being head of the Catholic Church in the proximity of the EC? Fair enough, if that's your stance. Do you have any evidence to that? Does Jesus also not 'preside' there too? Montalban (talk) 22:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

It is probably anachronistic to assume that all councils had the same protocols. The relationship between the Roman emperor and patriarch-level bishops has a long and complicated history. There once was a position of high priest (Pontifex Maximus) which was subsumed into the emperor's duties but was once again separated when the Roman Empire became Christian. (I don't claim to be an expert in this area so I may not get everything 100% right.) Thus, there is the question of who had the right to convene an ecumenical council and who should preside over it. My understanding is that emperors convened the councils but the bishops were in charge of the proceedings (with, of course, the usual political interference from the sidelines).

With the fall of the Roman Empire in the West, the right to convene councils was assumed by the Pontifex Maximus (the Pope). In the East, I gather that the Emperor still retained the right to convene councils. Of course, sometimes the Emperor dominated the Patriarch and other times the Patriarch dominated the Emperor.

Along the lines of the comment above about the Queen of England and the Australian Parliament, I would point out that the Vice-President of the United States is the "President" of the United States Senate. One can "preside" over a deliberative body without having ultimate authority.

There is some debate (though not much) as to the extent of power that the bishops of the Catholic Church have without the approval of the Pope. This is the heresy known as conciliarism which has been condemned by the Catholic Church. Clearly, the Eastern Orthodox have a different view.

It is not our place to determine which side is "right" in their claims. It is our job to simply report the claims of each side without giving undue weight to either side's claims.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 00:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Once again, conceding a lack of expertise in this area, I will say that it seems Montalban is engaging in original research and synthesis by retrojecting the statements in the Catholic Catechism on the events of the Council of Ephesus. The catechism is prescriptive regarding how the Catholic Church and the Catholic faithful should act in the present day. It is not primarily a historical document and it does not necessarily assert that what is correct procedure today has always been followed in the past. If it is desired to make an assertion about the presidency of the Council of Ephesus, Montalban should provide a reliable source to back up that assertion. We should not be constructing syllogisms based on our own chains of reasoning. This is the essence of original research. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 05:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I already provided evidence by way of quote that Cyril did not act until the sacra was read out before his meeting. He had no power to act of his own accord. The emperor's sacra gave the meeting that gathered around him weight - furthermore the judgment of the council is worded in terms of 'we'.

"Neither of the Emperors could personally attend the Council of Ephesus and accordingly Theodosius II. appointed the Count Candidian, Captain of the imperial bodyguard, the protector of the council, to sit in the room of the Emperors. In making this appointment he addressed an edict to the synod which will be found in the Concilia and of which Hefele gives the following synopsis. Note on the Emperor’s Edict to the Synod… http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.iii.html

The instructions read in part… But above all, Candidian was to take care that no member of the Synod should attempt, before the close of the transactions, to go home, or to the court, or elsewhere. Moreover, he was not to allow that any other matter of controversy should be taken into consideration before the settlement of the principal point of doctrine before the Council.

Therefore Candidian can be said to 'preside' on behalf of the Emperor and make sure that the council followed through to a conclusion.

We (Orthodox) also maintain and have always maintained that all bishops are equal. I accept that he can be said to 'preside' without having power. I suggest that so detailed an explanation to the article is not warranted. Montalban (talk) 06:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Simple dates and terms are often used. For instance 1054 is given as the date of the Schism of the Catholic Church away from the Orthodox church. It is a neat, clean date much used. It doesn't take into account the centuries of drift apart, nor the fact that Humbert had no authority to excommunicate the whole eastern communion. Likewise it's easy to say "Cyril presided". I have never argued that this is wrong, only that it doesn't convey enough meaning Montalban (talk) 06:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

We're not interested in your "evidence" and chains of logic. That constitutes original research and synthesis. If a reliable source says "Cyril presided" and you do not have an equally reliable source that challenges or qualifies that assertion then the assertion should remain in the article regardless of whatever objections you and other EO editors may have. Please stop arguing from your own opinion and find a reliable source that makes the argument that you believe is correct. We can then add that assertion into the article as well. This is the way WP:NPOV works. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 06:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Montalban's use of "therefore" is an admission that he is making an argument, i.e., using original research, to attempt to justify insertion of his claim that the emperor presided over the Council of Ephesus. To justify that insertion, all he needs to do is to cite a single reliable source that says the emperor did preside over the council.

Montalban has also not made even the ghost of an effort to justify his deletion of the citation of a reliable source that explicitly says the emperor appointed nobody to "preside" in his name. Esoglou (talk) 06:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

And since Montalban has not justified the insertion of his claim about the emperor, it is time for someone to undo his edit. Esoglou (talk) 09:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm slowly coming up to speed on this topic. Let's hold off on an RFC for the time being and see if we can't work out mutually agreeable wording. See the section titled "Papal legates" below. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Cyril "presided"

As I said I don't deny Cyril presided in a sense I don't know what it is you're not reading. Can you show that Cyril presided to the sense that it excluded the Pope because this is some retro-reworking of events? That in fact is your interpretation of events. What's stranger to me is that one can recognise several people can preside without having power, but question this. If anyone wants a statement like "Cyril presided (in the sense of being a single source of unity without any de jure power over the council), you're welcome to add that into the article Good luck. Montalban (talk) 07:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Apparently a commission from the Emperor with the power to prevent people to leave the council (that the Emperor had called) until they had come to a conclusion - to say such a person who has power over, presides is mere conjecture. Montalban (talk) 07:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

That Cyril of Alexandria "presided" over the Council of Ephesus is clearly stated by many reliable sources. To show it, there is no need to build an original-research argument such as Montalban tried above in order to have the emperor preside over the council. Montalban's arguments about the meaning of the word "preside" are only arguments, original-research arguments, and have no place in Wikipedia. He has made no attempt to cite even one reliable source that disputes that Cyril of Alexandria "presided". So it is time for someone to restore the sourced statement that Cyril of Alexandria presided over the Council of Ephesus, and the citations on which it is based, undoing their unjustified deletion. Esoglou (talk) 09:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Probably because I've never disputed that Cyril presided! I simply state that your understanding of it - based on no evidence limits the powers of popes (for Catholic understanding) or emperors (for Orthodox). I am again more than happy to include an explanation of what presiding means, in the Wiki article. Something along the lines of "Cyril conducted the religious debate of the council as called for by the Emperor". The way you have it is a novel understanding of situating a Council outside the realm of the empire (or the Papacy) for its duration in which Cyril 'presided' with none above him to answer to. That is original research because you offer no evidence for that - and it's an interpretation. Montalban (talk) 10:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't state my understanding. Don't state your understanding. Reliable sources say Cyril presided. Report what they say. Esoglou (talk) 10:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Papal legates

I found this source:

The pope was pleased that the whole East should be united to condemn the new heresy. He sent two bishops, Arcadius and Projectus, to represent himself and his Roman council, and the Roman priest, Philip, as his personal representative. Philip, therefore, takes the first place, though, not being a bishop, he could not preside. It was probably a matter of course that the Patriarch of Alexandria should be president. The legates were directed not to take part in the discussions, but to give judgment on them. It seems that Chalcedon, twenty years later, set the precedent that the papal legates should always be technically presidents at an ecumenical council , and this was henceforth looked upon as a matter of course, and Greek historians assumed that it must have been the case at Nicaea.

Yes, I know it's a Roman Catholic source. That notwithstanding, is there any objection to the accuracy of this text?

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Surely no one can reasonably object to this confirmation that the Catholic Church does not claim that papal legates presided over any of the first three ecumenical councils. (McGuckin too says the exact equivalent of "The legates were directed not to take part in the discussions, but to give judgment on them".) As to who presided over the third ecumenical council, abundant reliable sources say without qualification that it was Cyril. Not one reliable source states as a fact that anybody else presided. This article does not need to say who presided over that council, but if Wikipedia somewhere does say something about it, what it should say is clear. Esoglou (talk) 19:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)