Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: councils of nations

Expand Messages
  • mary
    Could the author mean the regular Church councils? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_councils#List_of_ecumenical_councils Maria
    Message 1 of 7 , May 12, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Could the author mean the regular Church councils? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_councils#List_of_ecumenical_councils
      Maria


      --- In Czechlist@yahoogroups.com, "Pilucha, Jiri" <jiri.pilucha@...> wrote:
      >
      > Hello, May I have your thoughts, please, on what the author means by "councils of nations" in the text below
      >
      > Indeed, Christians had wrangled over the nature of Christ for quite as long as Muslim scholars would go on to debate the nature of Our'an. Admittedly, in the early years of the Christian faith, these arguments had hardly been such as to disturb the councils of nations; but during late antiquity, when emperors and kings started to wrestle with them too, whole empires were transformed by the arcana of such debates.
      >
      > Thanks
      > Jiri
      >
    • Jakub Skrebsky
      yes. Mary s link points to the right direction. These councils have never been ofically called councils of nations, but they were the only assemblies where
      Message 2 of 7 , May 12, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        yes. Mary's link points to the right direction. These councils have never been ofically called councils of nations, but they were the only assemblies where such essential issues were disscussed, with the result usually proclaimed as the official church line of teaching.

        to avoid falling in to the trap of catholic/ecumenical, etc., I suggest using a general "cirkevni koncily".

        Jakub


        On 12 May 2013, at 18:17, Pilucha, Jiri wrote:

        Hello, May I have your thoughts, please, on what the author means by "councils of nations" in the text below

        Indeed, Christians had wrangled over the nature of Christ for quite as long as Muslim scholars would go on to debate the nature of Our'an. Admittedly, in the early years of the Christian faith, these arguments had hardly been such as to disturb the councils of nations; but during late antiquity, when emperors and kings started to wrestle with them too, whole empires were transformed by the arcana of such debates.

        Thanks
        Jiri





        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Pilucha, Jiri
        You re probably right. Such was the only interpretation that made any sense to me too, but I was -and still am- confused why they should be called councils
        Message 3 of 7 , May 12, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          You're probably right.
          Such was the only interpretation that made any sense to me too, but I was -and still am- confused why they should be called "councils of nations".
          Plus the main reason why I am still not convinced is that debates over the nature of Christ were, rather than were not, exactly the single biggest issue, and subject of fierce disputes, at the first ecumenical councils.
          I still have the impression that the author is trying to say something like: [despite being a subject of internal debate within the church] the issues had little effect upon secular politics
          But despite my doubts, your and mary's version still looks more likely to be true than mine
          Jiri



          -----Original Message-----
          From: Czechlist@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Czechlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jakub Skrebsky
          Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2013 8:08 PM
          To: Czechlist@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: [Czechlist] councils of nations

          yes. Mary's link points to the right direction. These councils have never been ofically called councils of nations, but they were the only assemblies where such essential issues were disscussed, with the result usually proclaimed as the official church line of teaching.

          to avoid falling in to the trap of catholic/ecumenical, etc., I suggest using a general "cirkevni koncily".

          Jakub


          On 12 May 2013, at 18:17, Pilucha, Jiri wrote:

          Hello, May I have your thoughts, please, on what the author means by "councils of nations" in the text below

          Indeed, Christians had wrangled over the nature of Christ for quite as long as Muslim scholars would go on to debate the nature of Our'an. Admittedly, in the early years of the Christian faith, these arguments had hardly been such as to distrb the councils of nations; but during late antiquity, when emperors and kings started to wrestle with them too, whole empires were transformed by the arcana of such debates.

          Thanks
          Jiri





          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



          ------------------------------------




          Yahoo! Groups Links
        • Pilucha, Jiri
          Still can t help being doubtful. Checking the Wiki link suggested by Mary: First council repudiated Arianism Second council repudiated Arianism and Macedoniasm
          Message 4 of 7 , May 12, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            Still can't help being doubtful.

            Checking the Wiki link suggested by Mary:

            First council repudiated Arianism
            Second council repudiated Arianism and Macedoniasm
            Second council of Ephesus... attacked its opponents

            Does it sound like "these arguments had hardly been such as to disturb the councils of nations" of councils of nations were to mean the church councils?

            Jiri




            From: Czechlist@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Czechlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Pilucha, Jiri
            Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2013 8:34 PM
            To: Czechlist@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: RE: [Czechlist] councils of nations



            You're probably right.
            Such was the only interpretation that made any sense to me too, but I was -and still am- confused why they should be called "councils of nations".
            Plus the main reason why I am still not convinced is that debates over the nature of Christ were, rather than were not, exactly the single biggest issue, and subject of fierce disputes, at the first ecumenical councils.
            I still have the impression that the author is trying to say something like: [despite being a subject of internal debate within the church] the issues had little effect upon secular politics
            But despite my doubts, your and mary's version still looks more likely to be true than mine
            Jiri

            -----Original Message-----
            From: Czechlist@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Czechlist%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:Czechlist@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Czechlist%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of Jakub Skrebsky
            Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2013 8:08 PM
            To: Czechlist@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Czechlist%40yahoogroups.com>
            Subject: Re: [Czechlist] councils of nations

            yes. Mary's link points to the right direction. These councils have never been ofically called councils of nations, but they were the only assemblies where such essential issues were disscussed, with the result usually proclaimed as the official church line of teaching.

            to avoid falling in to the trap of catholic/ecumenical, etc., I suggest using a general "cirkevni koncily".

            Jakub

            On 12 May 2013, at 18:17, Pilucha, Jiri wrote:

            Hello, May I have your thoughts, please, on what the author means by "councils of nations" in the text below

            Indeed, Christians had wrangled over the nature of Christ for quite as long as Muslim scholars would go on to debate the nature of Our'an. Admittedly, in the early years of the Christian faith, these arguments had hardly been such as to distrb the councils of nations; but during late antiquity, when emperors and kings started to wrestle with them too, whole empires were transformed by the arcana of such debates.

            Thanks
            Jiri

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

            ------------------------------------

            Yahoo! Groups Links



            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Melvyn
            I am going to beg to differ here, though I have little more to go on than my spider sense. IMHO councils of nations is just an old-fashioned way of referring
            Message 5 of 7 , May 12, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              I am going to beg to differ here, though I have little more to go on than my spider sense. IMHO "councils of nations" is just an old-fashioned way of referring in general terms to the advisory bodies that counselled monarchs (and so by extension nations), i.e. what are nowadays governments.

              Lots of examples of this usage in old works to be found in Google books, e.g. http://archive.org/stream/lawnationsorpri01chitgoog/lawnationsorpri01chitgoog_djvu.txt

              BR

              Melvyn

              --- In Czechlist@yahoogroups.com, "Pilucha, Jiri" <jiri.pilucha@...> wrote:
              >
              > Hello, May I have your thoughts, please, on what the author means by "councils of nations" in the text below
              >
              > Indeed, Christians had wrangled over the nature of Christ for quite as long as Muslim scholars would go on to debate the nature of Our'an. Admittedly, in the early years of the Christian faith, these arguments had hardly been such as to disturb the councils of nations; but during late antiquity, when emperors and kings started to wrestle with them too, whole empires were transformed by the arcana of such debates.
              >
              > Thanks
              > Jiri
              >
            • Pilucha, Jiri
              get this: -Council of Chalcedon (451) repudiated the Eutychian
              Message 6 of 7 , May 12, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                get this:

                -Council of Chalcedon<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Chalcedon> (451) repudiated the Eutychian<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutyches> doctrine of monophysitism<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monophysitism> ... Reinstated those deposed in 449 and deposed Dioscorus of Alexandria<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dioscorus_of_Alexandria> (THIS IS MY FAVORITE!!!)
                -This and all the following councils in this list are rejected by Oriental Orthodox churches<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriental_Orthodoxy>.
                -Second Council of Constantinople<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Council_of_Constantinople> (553) repudiated the Three Chapters<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Chapter_Controversy> as Nestorian, condemned Origen of Alexandria<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen_of_Alexandria>,
                -The Ecumenical status of this council was repudiated by the western churches.
                -Second Council of Nicaea<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Council_of_Nicaea> (787) restored the veneration of icons<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icon> (condemned at the Council of Hieria<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Hieria>, 754) and repudiated iconoclasm<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iconoclasm_(Byzantine)>.





                From: Czechlist@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Czechlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Pilucha, Jiri
                Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2013 8:43 PM
                To: Czechlist@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: RE: [Czechlist] councils of nations



                Still can't help being doubtful.

                Checking the Wiki link suggested by Mary:

                First council repudiated Arianism
                Second council repudiated Arianism and Macedoniasm
                Second council of Ephesus... attacked its opponents

                Does it sound like "these arguments had hardly been such as to disturb the councils of nations" of councils of nations were to mean the church councils?

                Jiri

                From: Czechlist@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Czechlist%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:Czechlist@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Czechlist%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of Pilucha, Jiri
                Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2013 8:34 PM
                To: Czechlist@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Czechlist%40yahoogroups.com>
                Subject: RE: [Czechlist] councils of nations

                You're probably right.
                Such was the only interpretation that made any sense to me too, but I was -and still am- confused why they should be called "councils of nations".
                Plus the main reason why I am still not convinced is that debates over the nature of Christ were, rather than were not, exactly the single biggest issue, and subject of fierce disputes, at the first ecumenical councils.
                I still have the impression that the author is trying to say something like: [despite being a subject of internal debate within the church] the issues had little effect upon secular politics
                But despite my doubts, your and mary's version still looks more likely to be true than mine
                Jiri

                -----Original Message-----
                From: Czechlist@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Czechlist%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:Czechlist%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:Czechlist@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Czechlist%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:Czechlist%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of Jakub Skrebsky
                Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2013 8:08 PM
                To: Czechlist@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Czechlist%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:Czechlist%40yahoogroups.com>
                Subject: Re: [Czechlist] councils of nations

                yes. Mary's link points to the right direction. These councils have never been ofically called councils of nations, but they were the only assemblies where such essential issues were disscussed, with the result usually proclaimed as the official church line of teaching.

                to avoid falling in to the trap of catholic/ecumenical, etc., I suggest using a general "cirkevni koncily".

                Jakub

                On 12 May 2013, at 18:17, Pilucha, Jiri wrote:

                Hello, May I have your thoughts, please, on what the author means by "councils of nations" in the text below

                Indeed, Christians had wrangled over the nature of Christ for quite as long as Muslim scholars would go on to debate the nature of Our'an. Admittedly, in the early years of the Christian faith, these arguments had hardly been such as to distrb the councils of nations; but during late antiquity, when emperors and kings started to wrestle with them too, whole empires were transformed by the arcana of such debates.

                Thanks
                Jiri

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                ------------------------------------

                Yahoo! Groups Links

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.