Talk:Council of Rimini

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Christianity Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

[edit] NPOV dispute

In general this article is slightly skewed toward the view that the Arian bishops hoodwinked the rest of the bishops. That viewpoint is certainly not the scholarly consensus, although, of course, it is the consensus of the Roman Catholic Church which is the source listed. Specific concerns:

• In this context it is inappropriate to use the term "orthodox bishop". It cannot really be said in a NPOV fashion that an orthodoxy had been firmly established since the Arian/Trinitarian debate raged throughout the 4th century and that there was a range of emperors and bishops supporting both sides. The fact that the Council of Nicea supported Trinitarianism does not in and of itself settle the matter since the debate still continued so widely after that synod (and indeed several bishops recanted their support for the doctrine; even Constantine himself backed down on his condemnation of the Arians).
• The statement regarding the Pope and the fact that several bishops "repudiated their signatures" needs to be rephrased a little. As written it subtely imples that

1. That the Pope was accorded with more authority at that time that he really was (i.e. although the Bishop of Rome had a lot of political clout he had limited authority outside of Rome, even in the West).
2. That perhaps most of the bishops suddenly realized they were wrong and the results of the council were forgotten immediately. This was not the case.

• "outmaneuvered": To some degree this is true but phrasing it this way makes it sound like the Arians were just a bunch of con artists. Unless the article is going to go into a lot more depth and be much clearer on the facts then terms like this should be avoided since they make the whole article POV.
• The use of "Pope". This is a bit of a loaded term in that, in English, it is normally used to imply recognized leadership of the whole Church. There is little evidence that at that time the Bishop of Rome was thought of by anyone (other than perhaps himself) as the leader of the whole Church. It would be less POV to refer to the Pope of that era as the "Bishop of Rome".
• The list of bishops is a little odd. There were hundreds of bishops who were reported to attend. Since the list is not qualified it tends to imply that hardly anybody showed up.

I am not suggesting that the article should instead be pro-Arian but rather that it should just try to present the two factions in an even light and stick to the facts in a neutral way.

--Mcorazao 21:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree completely. Jacob Haller 05:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move?

I suggest moving this to Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia (or Councils of Rimini and Seleucia if we're into anachronistic forms of the names). Jacob Haller 05:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Basically, these were closely linked to each other, and Council of Seleucia is a stub. Jacob Haller 05:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

And it has the double virtue of being unfindable for the Wikipedia reader and demonstrating how clever we are. --Wetman 10:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, this wasn't easy to find either. Jacob Haller 10:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)