Talk:First seven ecumenical councils

Christianity: Anglicanism Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (assessed as Low-importance).

I started turning this page into a proper page with historical context, etc. I immediately got some great help, so thanks! Leadwind (talk) 17:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Glad that my "help" was appreciated as well as needed. Soidi (talk) 00:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like help to me. As someone who tries to base conclusions on evidence, I don't have any problem with others correcting me where I need it. Leadwind (talk) 03:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chalcedon, Monophysites, Alexandria

When the Monophysites, so common in Alexandria, split with the church, what portion of the church did they compose? A tenth? Anyone know? Leadwind (talk) 04:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

90 %. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.199.36.10 (talk) 11:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For one thing, "Monophysite" isn't really commonly understood to be an appropriate title for us Non-Chalcedonians anymore.

However, you're grossly underestimating our numbers in Alexandria. That was one of the regions where Oriental Orthodox majority was quite clear. The Coptic Orthodox Church composed more like nine tenths of the Egyptian Christians, not one tenth. Deusveritasest (talk) 22:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent addition concerning sees subordinate to

I'd like to discuss the recent addition of this phrase by Esoglou: "but already by 787 no major western see was subject to the Byzantine emperor and the Pope was to crown Charlemagne as emperor 13 years later."

1) I thought Episcopal Sees would be subordinate to the Patriarch of Constantinople, not the secular Emperor of Byzantium. 2) When would any "western" (or should it be "Western"?) sees be subordinate to the Patriarch of Constantinople? What is this referring to? Ravenna and other places around Italy that Byzantium controlled off and on up until the 8th century? That seems like the most likely candidate, but I fail to see how that has much to do with the Seven Ecumenical Councils. Other than that, it would always have been expected that "western/Western" sees would be under the Pope of Rome. 3) What does the Pope of Rome crowning Charlemagne have to do with the Seven Ecumenical Councils? Again, this seems like a completely unrelated bit of information.

Basically, I would recommend that that whole phrase get deleted and the text go back to what it was before. It's not like there's a citation or anything either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dechrwr (talk • contribs) 03:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The additional phrase concerned the claim in the article that "the first seven Ecumenical Councils, from the First Council of Nicaea (325) to the Second Council of Nicaea (787), represented an attempt to reach an orthodox consensus and to establish a unified Christendom as the state church of the Roman Empire. It may be true that, for the authorities of that empire, even the 787 council was called for the sake of unity in its state church, but by then the unity aimed at was, at least as viewed outside the empire, decidedly broader than that of its much reduced state church. Even if the claim can be defended, it may be best to omit it. Then there will no longer be need for the phrase that limits the applicability of the claim. Esoglou (talk) 07:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on First seven Ecumenical Councils. 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:

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) 10:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]