Talk:Fifth Council of the Lateran

Dates: surely it ended 1517? Date in box must be incorrent. Usserius (talk) 13:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The scholarship with which I'm familiar refers to the "fifth Lateran Council" (and indeed to the "first Lateran Council" and so on; cf. the first and second Vatican Councils or Concilium Lateranense). "Council of the Lateran" sounds very awkward.

Clerics taught philosophy at universities

@InedibleHulk: I partially reverted your edit, the cited source does not state or imply a "forbiddance of clergy to teach philosophy". Clerics taught philosophy to other clerics. The Catholic Church invented the university and philosophy was required study (see, for example, cited sources at Medieval university#Course of study). The first very specific regulation was about what and how to teach about the "nature of the rational soul." The second very specific regulation was about "the study of philosophy or poetry for longer than five years after the study of grammar and dialectic, without [...] study of theology or pontifical law."

This is what the source states about both very specific regulations

[...] in our days [...] the ancient enemy of the human race, [...] scatter[ed] [...] errors, [...] on the nature of the rational soul, with the claim that it is mortal, or only one among all human beings, and [...] some, playing the philosopher [...] assert that this proposition is true at least according to philosophy, [... as] our [...] remedies against this [...] we condemn and reject [...] those who insist that the intellectual soul is mortal, or that it is only one among all human beings, and those who suggest doubts on this topic. [...] [...] since truth cannot contradict truth, we define that every statement contrary to the enlightened truth of the faith is totally false and we [...] forbid teaching otherwise to be permitted. We decree that [...] those who cling to erroneous statements of this kind, [...] should be avoided in every way and punished as [...] heretics and infidels who are undermining the catholic faith. [...] we [...] enjoin on [...] every philosopher who teaches publicly [...] that when they explain [...] principles or conclusions of philosophers, where these are known to deviate from the true faith [...] they are obliged [...] to clarify [...] the truth of the christian religion, to teach it by convincing arguments, [...] and to apply themselves [...] to refuting [...] opposing arguments, [...] [...] since [...] prolonged study of human philosophy [...] sometimes leads to error [...] we [...] rule [...] that [...] none of those in sacred orders, [...] when they follow courses in universities or other public institutions, may devote themselves to the study of philosophy or poetry for longer than five years after the study of grammar and dialectic, without their giving some time to the study of theology or pontifical law. Once these five years are past, [...] he may do so only if at the same time, [...] he actively devotes himself to theology or the sacred canons; [...]

—BoBoMisiu (talk) 20:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

It says "we forbid teaching otherwise to be permitted". Philosophy, as defined by the Wikilink, is inherently going to stray beyond Christian views on the soul and reality. Would it better to say "restrictions on clergy who"? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Background sections

The section called 'Background' is five paragraphs long, and does not get around to the topic of the article. It tries to explain the military history of the reign of Julius II.

The section 'Conciliabulum of Pisa' is too long and detailed, repeating material which is in the linked article on the subject. The conciliabulum was a political ploy of Louis XII of France, not a church event. What is needed is an explanation of why councils had not been held since Florence, and why a council was needed in 1511.

--Vicedomino (talk) 03:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Quash

wikt:quash is a legal term that describes the action of this Council. It was originally used by the author of this article and gradually distorted through people who did not understand its meaning. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 20:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

The person who originally used "quash" doesn't have any more authority with this article than any other editor, nor do you. It's a choice of words, no more than that. 173.209.178.244 (talk) 20:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Except that it is the most accurate description of the legal action of the Council, and I agree with it. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 20:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

So you in fact ARE saying that your opinion is more important here? Sorry, that's not how things work here. And by the way, feel free to express your opinions, but drop the personalized comments. 173.209.178.244 (talk) 20:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I am saying that the accuracy of a term is more important than your spurious demands for reliable sources and other reliance on your misinterpretation of policies and definitions and things. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 20:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)