Talk:Councils of Carthage

Council or synod epitaphs

It seems to me that the the more proper term for the meetings at Carthage is "council." In modern usage, "council" and "synod" have acquired a somewhat more precise distinction in their meaning, at least in the Catholic Church.

A meeting of the entire episcopate of a region, nation, etc. for the purposes of enacting binding legislation on faith, morals or discipline is a "council." A synod is an ecclesiastical meeting which does not meet all of these requirements: only certain bishops, a mix of bishops and others, deliberative purpose rather than specifically legislative etc.

By these definitions, the meetings at Carthage were definitely councils and not merely synods. If the status is uncertain or other editors do not wish to follow this distinction, could we at least name the article Councils and Synods of Carthage? In Catholic use, I have never come across "Synod of Carthage." --Vita Dulcedo et Spes Nostra 15:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm... I'm sorry, please read the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on African Synods. Namely the first sentence: There was no general council of the entire Church held at any time in North Africa. It sounds like you know more than the Catholics of 1907 on this topic (or vice versa). "Synod of Carthage" is the name most commonly used by historians and secular scholars. I think if you seriously want to try to rename or move the article, you are going to have to come up with your sources (and even then, we are going to have competing sources, so I'm not sure how this can be settled). If it ends up that secular and religious sources use "Synods of Carthage" but only a minor POV uses "Councils of Carthage", then we have to go with the former to be more inclusive, while mentioning the latter in brief. This isn't a matter of us deciding the "Proper" definition for these meetings, but simply using the terms that our sources use. Keep in mind WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CITE and WP:NPOV.--Andrew c 00:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew c, we meet again. I was just looking into the article, Biblical canon which refers to the "third Synod of Carthage" which took place in 397ad and was the first such council to approve the 27-book NT common to the Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant churches to the present day. This is no small oversight in this article. So I am including it.

In relation to the above discussion I have Googlled both forms with these results:

"Synod of Carthage": 675 hits[1]
"Council of Carthage": 39,000 hits[2]

There appears to be no contest between the relative frequency of the two forms.

An additional note: The terms synod and council are derived from the Greek and the Latin terms which are considered equivalent. The term synod has remained relatively more common in references to Eastern meetings with council generally being more common in Western usage (at least among the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, see Synod. General Council and General Synod have both been employed to refer to what is presently called an Ecumenical Council. Preference between the two terms' synod and council, has alternated in various eras.

The division of the terms into council for a universal meeting and synod for a regional one is a false one and of expressly modern origin. As the Orthodox Churches have not had a universal meeting of bishops since the medieval period and the Catholic Church has continued with the practice, synod has become associated with regional meetings and councils with universal meetings. However, Catholics still have regional councils and Anglican universal meetings are called general synods.

So the question remains, what about the North African meetings? As they were clearly features of the Western Church, Council should be preferred and as Google demonstrates, actually is.

The venerable though frequently archaic Catholic Encyclopedia notwithstanding, I would propose that this article move to the preferred and historically more sensible term, "Councils of Carthage," which is the likely term on which the reader is likely to search. Vaquero100 18:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about the Council of Carthage of 397 A.D.? Winston.PL 10:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books ngram viewer shows Council of Carthage as the preferred usage. I added some {{anchor}}s but the article will need to be harmonized with the inbound links. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Names of books

User:Latreia recently renamed the books explicitly mentioned by the canons of the council to better match those names used by the King James Bible and its successors. I find this new translation problematic:

The council canon implies that David wrote the psalter. This implication is lost in the new translation.
The new translation restricts the 12 prophets to the 12 minor prophets, which is not explicit in the original.
The new translation expands the two books of Esdras into three books, one of Nehemiah and two of Ezra. It is not obvious that this translation is correct. In fact, I am confident that it is wrong.
The new translation mentions the Septuagint, which is not mentioned at all in the original.
The old translation mentions explicitly that Hebrews was written by Paul. The new translation omits this interesting datum.

In sum, the new translation seems to anachronistically project modern ideas concerning the biblical canon into an ancient document. For that and all the specific reasons listed above, I purpose to revert this latest edit. Rwflammang (talk) 22:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With the addition of the phrase "quoted as" it is now clearer that the list is a quotation from the document itself; given this, I fully agree with your revert. I wasn't projecting new ideas onto a translation; I was simply not aware that this was a quote; this wasn't obvious enough. Latreia (talk) 18:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source Documents Without Titles & Dates are Absolutely Useless

Did someone forget something? Kind of like getting in your car without the keys... Or maybe going to get a drink of water and forgetting the cup... The SOURCE section does not list the names of any of the books, the publisher, the date published, the edition - rendering them absolutely unobtainable... Essentially this page is entirely unsourced, since no one can ascertain what publications are being referred to, after all of that work the editor basically achieved nothing... Maybe they were going to come back to it at a later time & add the rest? I am marking this article as unreferenced since for all intensive purposes, it is... Stevenmitchell (talk) 19:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Count of prophet books

The entry currently contains a listing of the books in the canonization of the bible as including "12 books of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, 2 books of Ezra,[5] 2 books of Maccabees...". But that only adds up to 11 books, not 12! Is this an error inthe quote, or an error by the Council of Carthage? Andylatto (talk) 20:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 12 books do not include Isaias, Jeremias, etc. They are the twelve minor prophets.

Rwflammang (talk) 23:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Councils of Carthage. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 17:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Historicity

Some of the early African councils mentioned in this article are only known through the writings of Cyprian.^[1] Edward John Shepherd argued in the 19th century that some of the writings attributed to Cyprian were forgeries written against Pelagianism, and that the early African councils mentioned in them never happened.^[2]^[1] I have noted sources on both sides of the debate on the authenticity of Cyprian's letters at s:Talk:Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume V/Cyprian/The Epistles of Cyprian/Part 58. However, I can't find a modern scholar who discusses the matter. Given this, I'm presuming the letters are authentic and the councils are historical, but can someone come up with a WP:RS to back this up? I'm considering adding this to the article. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Vandalism by user Mainbody

I reverted an addition made by user Mainbody. The citations do not check out. The only verifiable cite in there was one attributed to a sermon given to fellow pastors. All the cites were cites given in the bibliography published by the pastor without any actual reading of the Latin original text cited in the pastoral sermon. Perhaps the edit was agenda driven by the editor whose profile appears to be of that nature. It might be a good idea to review any past edits by this user as a precaution. DeusImperator (talk) 21:48, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ^a ^b "Shepherd's Letters on Cyprian". The Christian Observer. 54. Hatchard and Company: 313-314. 1854. Retrieved 14 August 2017.
^ Shepherd, Edward John (1853). Four letters to the Rev. S. R. Maitland, D.D., on the genuineness of the writings ascribed to Cyprian, bishop of Carthage. London: Longmans.

User:DeusImperator, before you make any edits please show us here how those Latin texts were mistranslated by Philip Schwerin.

For example, P. Schwerin's statement on the council condemning Rome('s bishopric primacy) is in conformity with The Canons Of The CCXVII Blessed Fathers Who Assembled At Carthage. Commonly Called The Code Of Canons Of The African Church. (www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/0419-0419,_Synodum_Cartaginense,_Canones_[Schaff],_EN.pdf), p654 and p716. What's the reason for removing it? Enlighten us.

You can't remove content just because you feel uncomfortable with it. Solid evidences please! - MainBody (talk) 05:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uncomfortable? I am merely going by the Canons. There was no Canon XVII in 418. The council in 419 did have Canon XVII which you mention has nothing to with your claim.

Canon XVII from 419 reads as follows: Canon 17. That any province on account of its distance, may have its own Primate It seemed good that Mauretania Sitiphensis, as it asked, should have a Primate of its own, with the consent of the Primate of Numidia from whose synod it had been separated. And with the consent of all the primates of the African Provinces and of all the bishops permission was given, by reason of the great distance between them. Furthermore it was a regional synod not a major synod (bishops under a patriarch) and not in the last a great synod (East and West). I will make the changes as source material contemporaneous to the time trumps what someone might claim later. DeusImperator (talk) 08:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mainbody do you realize that there is nothing in there mentioning the synod of 418. I am reading pages 313-314 I don't see it there. Did you make a mistake in the page numbers perhaps? What are you basing the deletion of primary sources? These are not great or major synods. This is a minor synod and these are held yearly within a region. You can find the primary documents here: http://www.earlychurchtexts.com/public/carthage_canons_on_sin_and_grace.htm

here is the primary source for the Synod of 419 again a minor synod but which appears to have for more importance. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3816.htm

You cannot remove primary source citations and substitution ambiguous commentary DeusImperator (talk) 08:52, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mainbody did you bother reading what the very link your provided www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/0419-0419,_Synodum_Cartaginense,_Canones_[Schaff],_EN.pdf Dud you read the title page? Look at the date of the council. You got the wrong council! Please check your documentation next time before editing. Thank you. DeusImperator (talk) 09:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have two or three fundamental questions for you, UserDeusImperator.

First, what on earth is the use of (keeping) telling me "There was no Canon XVII in 418"? I am all along focusing on the 419 Council and neither Canons 39 nor 105 mentions anything about 418.
Secondly, you at the first place removed the content which reports the African councilors' rejection of the Roman primacy in 419, (I repeat: 419!) "Keep the Roman nose out of African affairs", with an edit note which seems questioning the credibility of Philip Schwerin who comes with references to "Mansi 4, 515; Migne, P. L. 50, 422-425". Are you saying P. Schwerin mistranslates Mansi and Migne? Yes or No?
Furthering the 2nd question: what is the exact meaning of "the only cites does not check out the one scition from Phillip Scherwin is from a sermon a nondescript pastor of no consequence gave"? Be reminded that he makes references to Mansi and Migne in reporting the African Councilor's rejection.
Thirdly. Why removed the "no primacy/supremacy" clause which's also reported in NewAdvent?

My first and basic edit:

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Councils_of_Carthage&diff=826635163&oldid=800604942

Your removal with edit note:

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Councils_of_Carthage&diff=next&oldid=826635163

Once again, P. Schwerin's statements are supported by external and even Catholic sources:

Power relations were also at the center of Augustine’s ecclesiastical politics in this period. When Apiarius, an unruly priest excommunicated in Africa, went to Rome for reinstatement in 419, Pope Zosimus sent delegates to Africa in order to investigate. A special council was called in Carthage (220 bishops attending, which shows the gravity of the matter) to deny the pope jurisdiction. When the pope’s envoys tried to defend his authority by quoting the canons of the ecumenical Council of Nicaea (325), Aurelius and Augustine showed their greater mastery of relevant documents, as they had in the Confrontation with the Donatists: Nicaea gave no authority for appeals by priests against their episcopal superiors. When the envoys challenged the Africans’ documents, Augustine suggested that a special mission be sent to the East to verify the records’ accuracy. The pope’s delegates had to settle for that.The Africans were courteous but firm. This was not the first time they had stymied Pope Zosimus. When, in 418, the pope exonerated Pelagius of charges of heresy, the Africans sent a secret mission to Emperor Honorius, who condemned Pelagius - a condemnation promptly echoed by a plenary council at Carthage. Zosimus was forced to back down and issue his own condemnation. Perversely, this defeat of Rome was later claimed as a victory for papal supremacy. After the pope’s second, compelled decision, Augustine told his congregation:In this proceeding [causa], two council findings were sent to the Apostolic See, and a report has come back. The proceeding is ended - I wish the heresy were. That message would later be transformed by papal apologists into: “Rome has spoken, the matter [causa] is ended.” --Wills, G., Saint Augustine: A Life, Penguin Books

Zosimus became involved in a dispute with the African bishops in regard to the right of appeal to the Roman See clerics who had been condemned by their bishops. When the priest Apiarius of Sicca had been excommunicated by his bishop on account of his crimes he appealed directly to the pope, without regard to the regular course of appeal in Africa which was exactly prescribed. The pope at once accepted the appeal, and sent legates with letters to Africa to investigate the matter. A wiser course would have been to have first referred Apiarius to the ordinary course of appeal in Africa itself. Zosimus next made the further mistake of basing his action on a reputed canon of the Council of Nicaea, which was in reality a canon of the Council of Sardica. In the Roman manuscripts the canons of Sardica followed those of Nicaea immediately, without an independent title, while the African manuscripts contained only the genuine canons of Nicaea, so that the canon appealed to by Zosimus was not contained in the African copies of the Nicene canons. --Kirsch, J.P., Catholic Encyclopedia: Pope Zosimus, quoted by Catholicity.com

I really want to clarify all this stuff and I think User:DeusImperator has got the wrong editor, period. - MainBody (talk) 02:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've also reverted the vandalism-like edit on 24 June 2018. Read Layout#"See_also"_section carefully, editors should be professional and avoid flooding wikipedia with POV information- MainBody (talk) 08:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Council of 419

This was a minor synod and I am unsure if this should belong in the Wiki. The list of all the canon from that synod are available for verification online. My argument here is that there bishops synods every year and these generally are not Wikipedia significant. I have looked at the canons published from that council and do not see any significant reason for this. Perhaps someone can provide some insight? I had to revert an edit by WCYborg as none of the edits are reflected in the actual canons from that bishops synod. I found the canons here http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3816.htm DeusImperator (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Christian_Observer-1] "Shepherd's Letters on Cyprian". The Christian Observer. 54. Hatchard and Company: 313-314. 1854. Retrieved 14 August 2017.

[2] Shepherd, Edward John (1853). Four letters to the Rev. S. R. Maitland, D.D., on the genuineness of the writings ascribed to Cyprian, bishop of Carthage. London: Longmans.

[1]

[2]