Talk:Council of Ephesus

When speaking about the nature of Nestorianism, the article includes these statements: "The Logos occupied the part of the human soul (the part of man that was stained by the Fall). But wouldn't the absence of a human soul make Jesus less human? No, Nestorius answered because the human soul was based on the archetype of the Logos only to become polluted by the Fall, therefore Jesus was "more" human for having the Logos and not "less"." I find this characterization less than convincing. Last time I checked depriving Christ of a human soul and replacing it with the Logos was part of the error of Apollinaris. Theodore of Mopsuestia, the teacher of Nestorius, was one of the primary opponents of Apollinaris and stressed the fullness of all aspects of human nature within Christ. How could it thus make any sense to attribute the same error to Theodore's student? Deusveritasest (talk) 00:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean Apollinaris made an error, what do the Apostolic Fathers talk about on the soul of Christ? 174.4.163.53 (talk) 09:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it worth mentioning things like the 1994

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 06:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some suggestions for revision (RP): The account of Nestorianism is desperately inaccurate (esp., as has been pointed out, in confusing Nestorianism with Apollinarianism -- its polar opposite). Pulcheria did not turn against Nestorius till well after the council -- despite (as Cyril's agent there lamented) receiving lavish bribes from Cyril (see Studies in Church History 39, 2004, pp. 32-4). The Council did not formally declare Mary 'Theotokos', for two reasons: first, by the time of the council not even Nestorius rejected the title (see his sermon of 7 December 430, Codex Casinensis 78); secondly, at the council both the Cyrillian and Antiochenes stressed that they had no wish to add anything to the Nicene Creed. The most contentious doctrinal issue at the council was not Nestorius' teaching, but the orthodoxy or otherwise of Cyril's Twelve Chapters; Cyril was on trial at the council just as much as Nestorius. The '7 sessions' is a modern numeration, without support in the Acts: the latter are so incomplete as a record of the meetings that we do not know how often the Cyrillian council met. The Council did not issue '8 canons' as such: these are a Byzantine compilation on the basis of some of the decisions recorded in various sections of the the Acts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.87.7 (talk) 10:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted this recent title change. "First Council of Ephesus" has some use in the sources, and is suitable

I shall seek a move through RM when I have time. Perhaps a less unwieldy title is more appropriate, but "First" is simply wrong since the others on the disambiguation page are opposing councils; also, it is always known in written sources as simply "the Council of Ephesus). Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 13:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. However, I've found a number of sources that do call it the "First Council of Ephesus" to distinguish it from the later ones,[1][2][3] so I still think

natural disambiguation is the way to go here. Anyway, we can leave that for the RM when it starts up.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for the reference which surprises me; however, I'd venture to say that I could find hundreds of scholarly references (including the one most used in the Wikipedia article) that refer to it as "The Council of Ephesus" and that that is its usual designation and that "First Council of Ephesus" is quite rare. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 14:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That may be, but if disambiguation is required natural disambiguation is preferable to using parentheses. However, it may be that this council is actually the primary topic of the title "Council of Ephesus".--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever we do, we should do it for all councils. This would render

WP:NPOV). ReformedArsenal (talk) 14:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Wikipedia already uses the standard names for the other Ecumenical Councils. There are two Councils of Nicaea but only one of Ephesus just as there's only one of Calcedon. Sure, other councils have been held in many cities; for example, in Constantinople there were several Ecumenical Councils (four by Roman Catholic reckoning, three by Eastern Orthodox, and one by Oriental Orthodox) but there have been dozens of other councils held at Constantinople, but these do not enter into the numbering of the Ecumenical Councils (the Oriental Orthodox, however, refer simply to "The Council of Constantinople", analogous to the usual designation of "The Council of Ephesus"). Methinks that the article should be the "Council of Ephesus" with a note at the top pointing to the disambiguation page. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 16:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly the point. The Catholic Church has 22 councils they consider Ecumenical, the Eastern/Greek Orthodox has 7, the Oriental have less. Why should we favor one perspective (typically the Eastern/Greek Orthodox) pov over another? If we drop "Eccumenical" from the title and simply indicate that 1) it was a council in a given city 2) that it was a Church council, and 3) the year in which it took place (via the dismbiguation) we don't need to worry about what groups consider what to be ecumenical or not, nor what NUMBER of council it is? ReformedArsenal (talk) 16:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because it looks like it is commonly called "Council of Ephesus" and that name is commonly used for this council. Do you have any evidence to the contrary..? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 17:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because that is ambiguous. Does it refer to the First Council or the Second? What about the Third? If we say "First Ecumenical Council" we are POV Pushing for the Orthodox (rather than the Oriental)... if we call it the Council of Ephesus, we are being ambiguous. I'm proposing an overhaul for the naming convention of all of the Councils, not just this one. ReformedArsenal (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox all call it the "Council of Ephesus". Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 20:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have yet to demonstrate that it actually is ambiguous. How many sources (how many percent, approximately) use the words "Council of Ephesus" while referring to something else? I suspect that not too many... Do you have any evidence to the contrary..?

And if the sources use the name "Council of Ephesus" for this council, we should have this article with that name, and Council of Ephesus (disambiguation) for all others. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 20:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{{Ecumenical councils of the Catholic Church}} and the link at the bottom of {{Ecumenical council}} to [[Chronological list of Ecumenical councils]] both refer to the "Council of Ephesus" using [[First Council of Ephesus|Council of Ephesus]], as do many, perhaps most, of the references in the "WhatLinksHere" link in the article we're discussing. That, together with the fact that nearly all printed sources refer simply to the "Council of Ephesus" and that "The Council of Ephesus" always refers to the council we're discussing settles, in my mind at least, that this article should simply be "Council of Ephesus" and that the present article by that name should be a disambiguation page. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 14:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, more than a week has passed and no one has objected to the name "Council of Ephesus" nor has anyone supported the claim that it is ambiguous with any evidence. Does it mean that we have consensus in favour of that name, or does it merely mean that the ones who object didn't notice the "challenge"..? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 10:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously when one talk of THE Council of Ephesus it should be understood as the 431 council. A quick Google Books test to check popularity yields the following results:

"Council of Ephesus" -first -second returns over 29,900 hits.

"first Council of Ephesus" a mere 181.--Kathovo talk 22:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly false to say simply that Protestants accept the Council of Ephesus. The many who reject the description of Mary as Mother of God include eminent ones such as Philip Schaff. See what he wrote on The Exaltation of the Virgin: Mariology. See also Protestant views on Mary#Mother of God, which says use of the term "Mother of God"among Protestants has been controversial. You can perhaps say it is accepted by Anglicans, Lutherans and Methodists, but not simply by "Protestants". Esoglou (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Show me a formal Protestant doctrinal statement that rejects the Council of Ephesus or the Theotokos (which doesn't mean "Mother of God" it means "bearer of God") or a source that shows that there is substantial rejection among protestant doctrine and we can change it. Until then Westminster Confession 8.2-3 affirms the theology of the theotokos if not explicitly the term (that will cover Reformed and Presbyterian Christianity), London Baptist Confession 1689 8.2 also does (that covers the Baptists), Methodist Articles of Religion Article II also does (Covering Methodists and associated groups like the Nazarene), and the Solid Declaration of the Formula VIII.24 also does (Covering the Lutherans). All that's left is the Arminians, which don't typically have a formal creed statment, and I think that the Evangelical Free Church, the Evangelical Covenant Church, and the Assemblies of God Church are fair representatives and all of them affirm the hypostatic union of the divine son to a human nature and the birth of the divine son with a human nature to Mary (which is the theological underpinnings of the Theotokos). That covers just about all of the formal Protestant bodies.

Protestants accept (or at least did so) that Mary is Mother of God. Protestants also reject and condemn the expression. Ian Paisley, founder of the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster wrote: "What are the three names which Rome uses which more than any others exalt Mary? She is called the Daughter of God the Father, the Mother of God the Son, and the Spouse of the Holy Ghost. Such names most plainly imply that Mary is honoured as the fourth person of the Godhead, for more exalted names could not be given to the Divine Being." And see this sermon by him. Reliable sources state that Protestants "reject this term as idolatrous", that "Protestantism, almost universally, denies" the term, that "although the Protestant Reformers accepted the Trinity without protest they rejected the phrase describing Jesus' mother as 'the Mother of God'", that Calvin would not go beyond "mother of our Lord" {Inst 2.14.4) and disapproved of use of the title "Mother of God", and today "what many Protestants identify as Mariolatry persuades them not to call her 'Mother of God'".

So there are reliable sources that say Protestants accept the title "Mother of God" and reliable sources that say Protestans reject the title "Mother of God". Unfortunately, only the "accepted by" is made visible in the article at present. That can be remedied by putting the "rejected by" information also in the body of the article. Either both statements should remain in the article or both should be removed until, in line with

WP:BRD, agreement is reached on the talk page. Esoglou (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Theotokos is better translated as "Bearer of God" which all protestants affirm theologically. ReformedArsenal (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do they? What gave you that idea? Esoglou (talk) 08:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that every major Protestant tradition's confessional doctrine affirms that the person that Mary bore was God the Son. ReformedArsenal (talk) 21:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is precisely the synthesis accepted, at the Council of Ephesus, by what Schaff called "the Catholic church, both Latin and Greek", but that is rejected by Nestorians and, according to reliable sources, by Protestants of the 18th, 19th, 20th and 21st centuries. Its use is also

WP:BRD, I am therefore removing from the article both the claim that "Protestants" accept the Council, and the claim that "Protestants" reject the Council. Esoglou (talk) 06:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Again, theotokos means "God-Bearer" not necessarily "Mother of God" (which would be something like theomater). Calvin was rejecting the term "Mother of God" because of what it was being used to indicate by the Catholics of his day, not because of the reason that the Council advocated the use of theotokos. You are committing "synth" just as much, because you are equating what would have been a Latin Term for "Mother of God" (Probably something like Mater Dei) with the Greek term for "God Bearer" (theotokos). Unless Calvin explicitly rejects the use of theotokos as defined and used by the Council, that's not a valid use (which is the same case as the rest of our sources. Rejecting the elevation of Mary with the term "Mother of God" rather than making a Christological statement with Theotokos). ReformedArsenal (talk) 13:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A woman can be referred to as someone's mother without having given birth to that person, but a woman who gives birth to someone (the verb τίκτω in Greek) cannot be denied the title of mother. So it is surprising that you unsourcedly attribute to Calvin a notion (Θεοτόκος - The One Who Gave Birth to God) still stronger than the notion of Μήτηρ Θεοῦ (Mother of God ). But the essential point is that we have no (non-synthetic) evidence that "Protestants" (or even Calvin alone!) apply the term Θεοτόκος to Mary, as did the Council of Ephesus. Esoglou (talk) 15:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is why Christians should not have a religious denomination, so they aren't accepting the Roman Empire councils or any other cult doctrines. 174.4.163.53 (talk) 09:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Council of Ephesus. 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/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

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

This message was posted before February 2018.

• 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) 12:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

McGuckin's work is cited in the article, isn't that already enough? This name currently appears almost every other sentence in the article, McGuckin said this, McGuckin stated that, McGuckin theorized, etc. Is that truly necessary?  Latin Beau  18:00, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]