Talk:Ecumenical council

Merger proposal

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

• Support per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 00:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. There is really no overlap. The idea that there was may have arisen from the false initial definition of "ecumenical council" previously given in this article, a definition that ignored the adjective "ecumenical" and was applicable to any church council whatever. The pre-ecumenical ancient church councils were local or at most regional councils like the many local and regional (non-ecumenical) councils that continued to be held also in the time of the ecumenical councils. Such local or regional councils must have been held in various parts of the Christian world practically every year from the third century onward. Esoglou (talk) 09:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

All of the above is true. But the present article would work well as a background section. It would provide the context for the full E councils. It would explain why as an illegal religion full E councils could not have been held up to Constantine. After that, the bluelinks take over. That's what they're there for. There's not enough here to justify an article and it impoverishes the main E article. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the article should be simply renamed / moved to Christian church councils and include information about both ecumenical and pre-ecumenical councils. There can be a section for each. As it stands it is really difficult to get a good picture of a complete listing of councils, ecumenical or not. Squideshi (talk) 20:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but if you want "a complete listing of councils", you need a list or a category (like, well, Category:Christian church councils). An article with such a list will be far too large. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea, and I am not opposed to that. I am concerned, however, that it will not fully address the concern I have raised, because there are not currently seperate articles for each council, and there is no way to tag the missing articles with such a category; therefore, the list generated would be incomplete. I came to this topic hoping to read about Christian church councils, starting with the earliest and moving to the most recent. I now understand that that there is a distinction between pre-ecumenical (which may have been local, appear to be accepted by most Christians, and appear to also be called synods) and ecumenical (which may have had wider participation and were recognized by the Roman Empire) but I really don't care about the distinction between ecumenical and pre-ecumenical. Since both types appear to be accepted by a large number of Christians, I just want to read about them all, with perhaps a note telling me which ones are "ecumenical." As it stands, it has been very difficult for me to get a good understanding about this topic; and I feel that the current structure has failed me, because I am still not convinced that I fully understand all of the distinctions between ecumenical and pre-ecumenical Christian church counils, and synods. I think that a good structure should make it easy for someone to learn about these topics as a whole. I think, perhaps, the solution is just to create a new article--named Christian church councils that serves my purpose and leave the existing two articles for people who ONLY want to write / read about ecumenical or pre-ecumenical councils. Squideshi (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but have you actually looked at the category in question..? If you want an article describing a church council that is not necessarily an ecumenical council, then we have an article "Synod". If you really want an article that would list, let's say, Provincial Councils of Baltimore, Synod of Dort, Council of Bourges, Council of Jerusalem and the like (and add some explanation about each of them), then, well, your wish is unreasonable (and that's why I do not think that it is what you want). Such an article would be a complete mess. If you want a list instead, with links (blue and red), then, well, someone will have to write it. As usually, writing something like that yourself might be a good way to learn something about the subject. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I want an article that covers Christian church councils, regardless of ecumenical status. Such an article should give a brief description of each council, including information about ecumenical status, with a link to a more detailed individual article for each council about which someone is interested in writing an standalone article. I do not think this is unreasonable and I do not believe that such an article would be a complete mess, so we will have to agree to disagree about that. In any case, I had always planned to do the work myself; so it wasn't really a request for action on anyone else's part. I just thought it might be a good idea to post the proposal here first, in order to seek consensus, which is obviously not going to happen. For this reason, I am withdrawing the proposal and removing the merger tags from both pages. Squideshi (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

In such case, create a text file (or something like that) and make a list of all councils in that category (and subcategories). Count them (and remember - as you said yourself, many councils have no articles yet; furthermore, sometimes one article describes many councils). Multiply the count by the number of bytes in the average description you imagine (each name itself will take about 20 bytes, if not more). And read WP:SIZE. Then you will see why I think that your proposal is unreasonable. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 00:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

That might have been true for the time when the merge was proposed ([1]), but now ([2]) the article is much longer. As for "impoverishment", I guess that one can add a short "Background" section, but there is no need to call that a merger (and turn the other article to a redirect). After all, they discuss related but separate things. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 21:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to MP for pointing out that the goalposts have moved - a lot. I must object in strong terms to this egregious breech of wiki etiquette by Esoglou. It's a transparent attempt to bulk up a thin article by blantly cutting & pasting from all the bluelinks - especially after I had pointed out that they were present and perfectly adequate as they stood. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

So, you think that the text added by Esglou should not be in that article..? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 00:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I take the liberty of pointing out that there were no "blue links" to the information about the mid-2nd century councils concerning Montanism, which Hefele calls the first known church councils, nor to those on Quartodecimanism, which Hefele calls the second-earliest set of known church councils, nor to the information drawn from Hefele on participants, nor to the correction of the statement that (without distinction) the pre-ecumenical councils were held when Christianity was illegal, of the implied statement that after the Edict of Milan pre-ecumenical councils had civil status (not merely religious?), of the statement that ecumenical councils are seen as traditional (it was surely a novelty to hold a council of all the bishops of the Church without geographical distinction). I thought that my additions would show up how baseless was the claim (which in spite of my pointing out its falsehood was insisted on here) of overlap between the topics of "ecumenical councils" (which began in 325 and, according to some views, have continued until at least the 20th century) and what are here quite awkwardly called "ancient church councils (pre-ecumenical)" (a more appropriate name would be "pre-Nicene church councils"). It should have been obvious that any overlap that exists is instead between "ecumenical councils" and "church councils in general", not limited to the pre-325 period when there were no ecumenical councils. Since my work has been objected to and since, moreover, my aim has been achieved, I will add no more. Esoglou (talk) 08:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Navbox template: Ecumenical council

Greetings, Today I added Catholicism template which contains a link to Ecumenical Councils which is a pretty close match to this EC article. Even though each is a different topic, they are closely related. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Ecumenical council. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130303003725/http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P17.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P17.HTM
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110429072610/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/ENG0015/__P2A.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2A.HTM
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090104205725/http://www.vatican.va:80/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_11111994_assyrian-church_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_11111994_assyrian-church_en.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110429072610/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/ENG0015/__P2A.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2A.HTM
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120525120911/http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P17.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P17.HTM

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Anglican Communion

I am new(ish) to Wikipedia. I felt it would be better to receive guidance on editing the article here rather than go ahead and edit it. Your help is appreciated.

At the 2008 Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON), The Jerusalem Declaration was affirmed and states: "We uphold the four Ecumenical Councils and the three historic Creeds as expressing the rule of faith of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church." The current wording of the article seems hesitant/uncertain about where the Anglican church stands. Here's the full Declaration from the GAFCON website: https://www.gafcon.org/resources/the-jerusalem-declaration

Mary (talk) 19:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Council of Crete - Eight Ecumenical council

The Council of Crete 2016, according to the sources provided in the article is considered the Eighth Ecumenical council. The majority of the Orthodox Patriarchates and autocephalous churches consider it the 8th ecumenical council and its results are binding. Thus, the Council of Crete should be more adequately referred as "recognized as the 8th council by the majority of the autocephalous churches" or the sources provided should be updated if it is not so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apavlides24 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Biased in favour of a particular denomination families

The article gives preference to first Seven Ecumenical Councils. There is no universal acceptance and of all these seven Ecumenical Councils among all Churches which accept the decisions of Ecumenical Councils. The only universally accepted set of Ecumenical Councils among all these Churches are the First two Ecumenical Councils. Br Ibrahim john (talk) 08:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Br Ibrahim john, everything you said is in the article. The first seven councils are given a prominent position, but according to WP:DUE and their place in Christian history I can understand it. The Oriental Orthodox and the Church of the East are given adequate coverage IMHO. Can you point to some specific examples where the article is not neutral? Elizium23 (talk) 08:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

The article is biased over many aspects. First of all, there is no justifiable or logical prominence for the first Seven Ecumenical Councils. If the article is dealing with the prominence of getting universal acceptance, only the First two Ecumenical Councils have such a universal acceptance among all denominations which follows the decisions of Ecumenical Councils.

Secondly, there is no particular feature that is unique to the first Seven Ecumenical Councils other than its acceptance by The Eastern Orthodox Communion. In all other aspects the First Seven Ecumenical Councils resemble many of the other Ecumenical Councils.

The only logical reason for the 'prominence' of the first seven Ecumenical Councils is the acceptance by Eastern orthodox churches.

Thus, the article is undoubtedly biased in favour of a particular denomination, without any scientific basis for that Br Ibrahim john (talk) 09:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Elizium 23, giving prominence to the first Seven Ecumenical Councils, without having any unbiased and logical reason, is undoubtedly misleading. Br Ibrahim john (talk) 09:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I see, so you are unable to give specific examples. I understand your argument perfectly well. It's just that I am unable to proceed with improvement of the article without an idea of what you would change and how you would change it. The seven ECs are prominent because it is WP:DUE, they are covered by the vast majority of sources used here. If you took a survey of all the reliable sources used in Wikipedia for the Christian religions, you would see that they mention the Catholic Church, the Protestants, and Eastern Orthodoxy prominently, while Oriental Orthodoxy and Church of the East have a minority of coverage. They are all mentioned in this article, so nobody has given them short shrift. It's just that the seven ECs are the best documented and the most widely covered. Elizium23 (talk) 09:37, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

The question here is about the logical basis for prominence. In my opinion, the First Seven Ecumenical Councils doesn't have any particular prominence among the others. The only logical reason for this biased 'prominence' is their acceptance by a particular denomination, namely the Eastern orthodox Communion. And such a prominence is purely biased and misleading. I believe Wikepedia is not just for Eastern orthodox users.

In my opinion, only the first two Ecumenical Councils should be considered prominent, as they are the Ecumenical Councils accepted universally among all Churches. I believe this method is more logical and reasonable. Only the First Ecumenical Councils of Nicea and that of Constantinople should be given the label of 'prominence'. Br Ibrahim john (talk) 12:52, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

The weighting also reflects the relative sizes of the denominational families that adhere to the first 7 vs those that do not. This mathematics is what lied behind the WP:UNDUE weighting and determination. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:37, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

We see nothing wrong with the weighting currently in the article. Feel free to seek dispute resolution through an RFC or noticeboard posting. I would suggest the NPOV noticeboard or a WikiProject, although most of the WikiProjects will involve editors sympathetic to Protestant or Catholic churches. Elizium23 (talk) 05:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Weighting facts on the basis of size of denominations is a biased method of dealing with facts. A universally depended site like Wikepedia should be able to show facts impartially. Br Ibrahim john (talk) 06:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

The facts are not weighted. All the facts are presented. It is the order of their presentation that is influenced by weighting. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

It is called biased presentation. Not only facts need to be presented, but facts should be presented unbiased and impartially. Br Ibrahim john (talk) 08:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Br Ibrahim john, once again, I invite you to WP:DROPTHESTICK or pursue the dispute resolution avenues I outlined already above. You clearly don't understand how Wikipedia actually works, and you don't even know how to indent your replies properly. Please try to keep up. Elizium23 (talk) 09:19, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Elizium23, I am trying to keep up and I haven't edited the article in the way I feel good. I have opened this discussion just to understand why an article in Wikepedia gives prominence to some facts on the basis of the size of Churches. I never intended to do anything of my own in this article as I believe it is not the way to address the issue. I believe editors, whoever be, should be ready to take the matter by taking it objectively and constructively . I believe personal remarks are unfit for this space. I personally don't welcome personal comments regarding me. I wanted to point my concern over the questionable neutrality of the article. The article portrays the First Seven Ecumenical Councils as the prominent ones. Actually only the First Two Ecumenical Councils are the universally accepted Councils. Therefore, only the first two are prominent. The rest are all partially Ecumenical councils, atleast they are not universally accepted. I really can't believe that Wikepedia acts like official websites of Catholic and Eastern orthodox churches, by stressing on their ecclessiology and literally sidelining the views of the Oriental orthodox Communion and the Church of the East. Br Ibrahim john (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)