text:
File manager

A file manager or file browser is a computer program that provides a user interface to manage files and folders. The most common operations performed on files or groups of files include creating, opening (e.g. viewing, playing, editing or printing), renaming, copying, moving, deleting and searching for files, as well as modifying file attributes, properties and file permissions. Folders and files may be displayed in a hierarchical tree based on their directory structure.

File transfer
Graphical file managers may support copying and moving of files through "copy and paste" and "cut and paste" respectively, as well as through drag and drop, and a separate menu for selecting the target path.

While transferring files, a file manager may show the source and destination directories, transfer progress in percentage and/or size, progress bar, name of the file currently being transferred, remaining and/or total number of files, numerical transfer rate, and graphical transfer rate. The ability to pause the file transfer allows temporarily granting other software full sequential read access while allowing to resume later without having to restart the file transfer.

Some file managers move multiple files by copying and deleting each selected file from the source individually, while others first copy all selected files, then delete them from the source afterwards, as described in.

Conflicting file names in a target directory may be handled through renaming, overwriting, or skipping. Renaming is typically numerical. Overwriting may be conditional, such as when the source file is newer or differs in size. Files could technically be compared with checksums, but that would require reading through the entire source and target files, which would slow down the process significantly on larger files.

User interface
Some file managers contain features analogous to web browsers, including forward and back navigational buttons, an address bar, tabs, and a bookmark side bar.

Networking
Some file managers provide network connectivity via protocols, such as FTP, HTTP, NFS, SMB or WebDAV. This is achieved by allowing the user to browse for a file server (connecting and accessing the server's file system like a local file system) or by providing its own full client implementations for file server protocols.

Directory editors
A term that the usage of file manager is directory editor. An early directory editor, DIRED, was developed circa 1974 at the Stanford Artificial Intelligence Laboratory by Stan Kugell.

A directory editor was written for EXEC 8 at the University of Maryland, and was available to other users at that time. The term was used by other developers, including Jay Lepreau, who wrote the dired program in 1980, which ran on BSD. This was in turn inspired by an older program with the same name running on TOPS-20. Dired inspired other programs, including dired, the editor script (for emacs and similar editors), and ded.

File-list file manager

File-list file managers are lesser known and older than orthodox file managers.

One such file manager was neptune. It ran on the Xerox Alto in the 1973-1974 time frame. It had some of the same features that would end up in orthodox file managers.

Another such file manager is flist, which was introduced sometime before 1980 on the Conversational Monitor System. This is a variant of FULIST, which originated before late 1978, according to comments by its author, Theo Alkema.

The flist program provided a list of files in the user's minidisk, and allowed sorting by any file attribute. The file attributes could be passed to scripts or function-key definitions, making it simple to use flist as part of CMS EXEC, EXEC 2 or XEDIT scripts.

This program ran only on IBM VM/SP CMS, but was the inspiration for other programs, including filelist  (a script run via the Xedit editor), and programs running on other operating systems, including a program also called flist, which ran on OpenVMS, and FULIST (from the name of the corresponding internal IBM program), which runs on Unix.

Orthodox file managers
Orthodox file managers (sometimes abbreviated to "OFM") or command-based file managers are text-menu based file managers that commonly have three windows (two panels and one command line window). Orthodox file managers are one of the longest running families of file managers, preceding graphical user interface-based types. Developers create applications that duplicate and extend the manager that was introduced by PathMinder and John Socha's Norton Commander for DOS. The concept dates to the mid-1980s—PathMinder was released in 1984, and Norton Commander version 1.0 was released in 1986. Despite the age of this concept, file managers based on Norton Commander are actively developed, and dozens of implementations exist for DOS, Unix, and Microsoft Windows. Nikolai Bezroukov publishes his own set of criteria for an OFM standard (version 1.2 dated June 1997).

Features
An orthodox file manager typically has three windows. Two of the windows are called panels and are positioned symmetrically at the top of the screen. The third is the command line, which is essentially a minimized command (shell) window that can be expanded to full screen. Only one of the panels is active at a given time. The active panel contains the "file cursor". Panels are resizable and can be hidden. Files in the active panel serve as the source of file operations performed by the manager. For example, files can be copied or moved from the active panel to the location represented in the passive panel. This scheme is most effective for systems in which the keyboard is the primary or sole input device. The active panel shows information about the current working directory and the files that it contains. The passive (inactive) panel shows the content of the same or another directory (the default target for file operations). Users may customize the display of columns that show relevant file information. The active panel and passive panel can be switched (often by pressing the tab key).

The following features describe the class of orthodox file managers.
 * They present the user with a two-panel directory view with a command line below. Either panel may be selected to be active; the other becomes passive. The active panel becomes the working area for delete and rename operations, while the passive panel serves as a target for copy and move operations. Panels may be shrunk, exposing the terminal window hidden behind them. Normally, only the last line of the terminal window (the command line) is visible.
 * They provide close integration with an underlying OS shell via command line, using the associated terminal window that permits viewing the results of executing shell commands entered on the command line (e.g., via Ctrl-O shortcut in Norton Commander).
 * They provide the user with extensive keyboard shortcuts.
 * The file manager frees the user from having to use the mouse.
 * Users can create their own file associations and scripts that are invoked for certain file types and organize these scripts into a hierarchical tree (e.g., as a user script library or user menu).
 * Users can extend the functionality of the manager via a so-called User menu or Start menu and extensions menu.

Other common features include:
 * Information on the "active" and "passive" panels may be used for constructing commands on the command line. Examples include current file, path to left panel, path to right panel, etc.
 * They provide a built-in viewer for (at least) the most basic file types.
 * They have a built-in editor. In many cases, the editor can extract certain elements of the panels into the text being edited.
 * Many support virtual file systems (VFS) such as viewing compressed archives, or working with files via an FTP connection.
 * They often have the word commander in the name, after Norton Commander.
 * Path: shows the source/destination location of the directory in use
 * Information about directory size, disk usage and disk name (usually at the bottom of the panels)
 * Panel with information about file name, extension, date and time of creation, last modification, and permissions (attributes).
 * Info panel with the number of files in directory, and the sum of the sizes of selected files.
 * Tabbed interface (usually in GUI file managers)
 * Function keys: F1–F10 have all the same functions under all orthodox file managers. Examples: F5 always copies file(s) from the active to the inactive panel, while F6 moves the file.

Tabbed panels
The introduction of tabbed panels in some file managers (for example Total Commander) made it possible to manipulate more than one active and passive directory at a time.

Portability
Orthodox file managers are among the most portable file managers. Examples are available on almost any platform, with both command-line and graphical interfaces. This is unusual among command line managers in that something purporting to be a standard for the interface is published. They are also actively supported by developers. This makes it possible to do the same work on different platforms without much relearning of the interface.

Dual-pane managers
Sometimes they are called dual-pane managers, a term that is typically used for programs such as the Windows File Explorer (see below). But they have three panes including a command line pane below (or hidden behind) two symmetric panes. Furthermore, most of these programs allow using just one of the two larger panes with the second hidden. Some also add an item to the Context Menu in Windows to "Open two Explorers, side by side".

Notable ones include:

 * Altap Salamander
 * Commander One
 * Demos Commander
 * Directory Opus
 * DOS Navigator (DN) and derivatives
 * Double Commander
 * emelFM2
 * Far Manager
 * ForkLift
 * GNOME Commander
 * Krusader
 * Midnight Commander (MC)
 * muCommander
 * Norton Commander (NC)
 * PathMinder
 * Ranger
 * SE-Explorer
 * Total Commander
 * Volkov Commander (VC)
 * WinSCP
 * XTree
 * ZTreeWin

Navigational file manager
A navigational file manager is a newer type of file manager. Since the advent of GUIs, it has become the dominant type of file manager for desktop computers.

Typically, it has two panes, with the filesystem tree in the left pane and the contents of the current directory in the right pane. For macOS, the Miller columns view in Finder (originating in NeXTStep) is a variation on the navigational file manager theme.

Concepts

 * The window displays the location currently being viewed.
 * The location being viewed (the current directory) can be changed by the user by opening directories, pressing a back button, typing a location, or using the additional pane with the navigation tree representing all or part of the filesystem.
 * Icons represent files, programs, and directories.

The interface in a navigational file manager often resembles a web browser, complete with back and forward buttons, and often reload buttons. Most also contain an address bar into which the file or directory path (or URI) can be typed.

Most navigational file managers have two panes, the left pane being a tree view of the filesystem. This means that unlike orthodox file managers, the two panes are asymmetrical in their content and use.

Selecting a directory in the Navigation pane on the left designates it as the current directory, displaying its contents in the Contents pane on the right. However, expanding (+) or collapsing (-) a portion of the tree without selecting a directory will not alter the contents of the right pane. The exception to this behavior applies when collapsing a parent of the current directory, in which case the selection is refocused on the collapsed parent directory, thus altering the list in the Contents pane.

The process of moving from one location to another need not open a new window. Several instances of the file manager can be opened simultaneously and communicate with each other via drag-and-drop and clipboard operations, so it is possible to view several directories simultaneously and perform cut-and paste operations between instances.

File operations are based on drag-and-drop and editor metaphors: users can select and copy files or directories onto the clipboard and then paste them in a different place in the filesystem or even in a different instance of the file manager.

Notable examples of navigational file managers include:
 * Directory Opus
 * Dolphin in KDE
 * DOS Shell in MS-DOS/PC DOS
 * File Manager in Windows
 * macOS Finder
 * Nautilus in GNOME (default since v2.30)
 * File Explorer (Windows Explorer)
 * PC Shell in PC Tools
 * ViewMAX in DR DOS
 * XTree / ZTreeWin

Spatial file manager
Spatial file managers use a spatial metaphor to represent files and directories as if they were actual physical objects. A spatial file manager imitates the way people interact with physical objects.

Some ideas behind the concept of a spatial file manager are:

 * 1) A single window represents each opened directory
 * 2) Each window is unambiguously and irrevocably tied to a particular directory.
 * 3) Stability: files, directories, and windows go where the user moves them, stay where the user puts them ("preserve their spatial state"), and retain all their other "physical" characteristics (such as size, shape, color and location).
 * 4) The same item can only be viewed in one window at a time.

As in navigational file managers, when a directory is opened, the icon representing the directory changes—perhaps from an image showing a closed drawer to an opened one, perhaps the directory's icon turns into a silhouette filled with a pattern—and a new window is opened to represent that directory.

Examples of file managers that use a spatial metaphor to some extent include:
 * Apple's Finder 5 to 9
 * Konqueror has the option to turn into spatial mode
 * RISC OS Filer
 * Amiga's Workbench
 * GNOME's Nautilus from version 2.6 (default until 2.29, completely removed in 3.0)
 * MATE's Caja (though the default mode is navigational)
 * BeOS's Tracker
 * Haiku's Tracker
 * OS/2's Workplace Shell
 * Digital Research's GEM (implemented in Atari TOS and as a somewhat reduced version for PCs)
 * ROX-Filer file manager (ROX Desktop)
 * E17 file manager

Dysfunctional spatial file managers:
 * Windows Explorer in Windows 95 was set as a spatial file manager model by default; because it also worked as a navigational file manager, directories could be opened in multiple windows, which made it fail all the above criteria. Later versions gradually abandoned the spatial model.
 * Apple's Finder in macOS was designed with a similar integration of spatial and navigational modes, meaning that the spatial mode did not actually work.

3D file managers

Some projects have attempted to implement a three-dimensional method of displaying files and directory structures. Three-dimensional file browsing has not become popular; the exact implementation tends to differ between projects, and there are no common standards to follow.

Examples of three-dimensional file managers include:
 * File System Visualizer, or fsv, an open-source clone of fsn for modern Unix-like systems.
 * tdfsb, an open-source 3D file browser, where one enters directories by flying into them (using WASD). Runs on Linux, FreeBSD and BeOS.
 * BumpTop, a file manager using a three-dimensional representation of a desktop with realistic physics, intended for use with a stylus and touchscreen.
 * Real Desktop, a desktop replacement with similarities to BumpTop.
 * Cubix 3D Filer is a Windows file manager which organizes files according to different attributes.
 * GopherVR, a 3D visualisation of networked Gopher resources.

Web-based file managers
Web-based file managers are typically scripts written in either PHP, Ajax, Perl, ASP or another server-side language. When installed on a local server or on a remote server, they allow files and directories located there to be managed and edited, using a web browser, without the need for FTP Access.

More advanced, and usually commercially distributed, web-based file management scripts allow the administrator of the file manager to configure secure, individual user accounts, each with individual account permissions. Authorized users have access to documents stored on the server or in their individual user directories anytime, from anywhere, via a web browser.

A web-based file manager can serve as an organization's digital repository. For example, documents, digital media, publishing layouts, and presentations can be stored, managed, and shared between customers, suppliers, and remote workers, or just internally.

Web-based file managers are becoming increasingly popular due to the rise in popularity of dynamic web content management systems (CMS) and the need for non-technical website moderators to manage media on their websites powered by these platforms.

An example is net2ftp, a PHP- and JavaScript-based FTP client.

File picker
Operating systems typically ship a file picker, which allows specifying in which location to save a file (usually accessed through the "Save as" option in software), and where to open a file from. Sometimes, a folder is selected instead of a file or destination path.

Some file pickers also allow file management to some degree, such as searching, moving, copying, renaming, and copying the path to clipboard.

Some software might have a customized file picker.

title: File manager


text:
Talk:List of Scots

Captain Cook removed
I have read many books and articles on this man and i have NEVER even seen that he visited Scotland and i'am open to proof,Cook WAS english his father was from kelso thats it he left to find work in England,cooks mother WAS english,Cooks biggest influence was his fathers employer who paid for cooks schooling,he was born in Marton,grew up in Great Ayton and began seafaring in Whitby,he then joined the Royal Navy at Deptford London,there is no suggestion he was a scot none and this list works both ways its not who one WISHES to BE it is a matter of fact,same with tony blair he was born in scotland and has a scottish name to exclude him on this list makes a mockery of it...Bullseye30 (talk) 20:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)Bullseye3020:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC) I have removed general montygomery and george patten,montgomery is just wrong and patten is just taking the pissBullseye30 (talk) 11:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

[Untitled]
Famous Scots is a repositioning of the Famous Scotsmen page. One wonders whether a No True Scot fallacy page will be forthcoming? sjc

Tony Blair Isn't Scottish

I removed him from the list. Yes, he was born in Scotland, but he isn't Scottish. An analogy for you:

Keanu Reeves's mother was British and his father was Hawaiian\Chinese. He was born in Lebanon, but was raised in Canada. Hence, the article on Keanu Reeves says he is "British-Canadian." Not Lebanese.

Tony Blair's father was English and his mother was Irish. He was born in Scotland, but was raised in England. Hence, Tony Blair is English, not Scottish. Neither of his parents were Scottish and he was not raised in Scotland, therefore he is not Scottish.

71.246.209.4 10:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

He has been put back for some unexplained reason. For once the stable rejects the horse! Rcpaterson 01:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Scottish - Adj. - Of a person, native to or born in Scotland. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If you are looking for an avenue to express you feelings on the relationship between race and nationality you are in the wrong place. -- I sl a y So lo mo n  |  t a l k  05:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I have restored Tony Blair to the list and provided a reference from a reliable source. Personal feelings are utterly irrelevant here, Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a publisher of original thought. If you want to discuss inclusions or exclusions from this list may I suggest that you provide evidence from reliable sources and keep your opinions to yourselves. -- I sl a y So lo mo n  |  t a l k  05:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've no wish to re-open the debate about the English-style "comes from place" or the German-style "born to parents" methods of identifying nationality, but just to prevent an untruth from lurking unchallenged, it's misleading to say Blair was "not raised in Scotland" when of course he lived in Edinburgh at the start of his life, in Glasgow later on in his childhood, and later attended a school in Scotland, at Fettes College. – Kieran T  ( talk  02:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Tony Blair was born and raised in Scotland, has a Scottish name and sounds Scottish. Many people are born and raised in Scotland from other origins and consider themselves Scottish. Are they to be excluded? My question then is, what is Tony Blair if not Scottish? Of course, the answer is on his passport, which makes this whole category rather spurious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.145.135 (talk) 13:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC) This is what his Wikipedia page says:

Blair was born in Edinburgh, Scotland[9] on 6 May 1953,[1] the second son of Leo and Hazel Blair (née Corscadden). Leo Blair, the illegitimate[10] son of two English actors, had been adopted as a baby by Glasgow shipyard worker James Blair and his wife, Mary. Hazel Corscadden was the daughter of George Corscadden, a butcher and Orangeman who moved to Glasgow in 1916 but returned to (and later died in) Ballyshannon in 1923, where his wife, Sarah Margaret (née Lipsett), gave birth to Blair's mother, Hazel, above her family's grocery shop.[11][12] George Corscadden was from a family of Protestant farmers in County Donegal, Ireland,[13] who descended from Ulster-Scots settlers who took their family name from Garscadden,[citation needed] now part of Glasgow.

In the case of David Cameron, he is a Cameron highlander born in London. If Blair is to be considered English, then Cameron must be considered Scottish! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.145.135 (talk) 13:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I was under the impression Scots were of both sexes (unlike Scotsmen) so that might be why it's been moved.

Why is there also List of Scottish writers? Is this somehow different from the entry on this page? Dduck 18:58, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

How are we deciding whether someone should have an entry on this page? For example, on what grounds is William Thomson here? Marnanel 23:05, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Why is Stan Laurel on this page? He was born in England. He went to school in Scotland for a bit, that's all. Ben davison 15:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Tony Blair is NOT Scottish - and this his by his own admission. He stated (and this is recorded in Hansard - the official record of British parliamentary proceedings) - "As an English person" and "Even though I was born in Scotland". He is therefore ENGLISH. His daughter even uses her Irish passport, thus he is equally an Irish Citizen. He has thus been removed from this list, due to his own comments on the nature of his nationality. Furthermore, kieranT, there is no English-style "comes from place" any more. This is an American style. British Nationality Law is based on British parentage since the British Nationality Act 1981 which abolished Jus Soli in our laws. If you wish to find any source more potent than the mans own words, in the only official recording in the British state, then please feel free to do so. Added to this, is the large number of SNP MSP's who were born in England to Scottish parents and clearly still regard themselves as Scots. Its not a debate, Mister Blair seems to have settled the issue of his nationality when referred to by anything other than "British".

129.215.5.138 (talk) 10:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Bonnie Prince Charlie?
Bonnie Prince Charlie-the "damned cowardly Italian"-is about as Scottish as 'German Geordie' or Swiss cheese. He may have been a scion of the house of Stewart, but his 'Scottish blood' was highly etiolated: far more French, Italian and Polish than anything else. Removed. Rcpaterson 00:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I have just re-instated Charlie boy. He may have been born without these shores for political reason, but I think the idea of using his genetic make-up to exclude him from this list is highly dubious if not downright racist. Brendandh 03:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

What's the point of this list?
It just seems to replicate a load of categories.--Nydas 17:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree, this should really all be categorised and in better order than the subsections here. Brendandh 03:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:V
We could do with some sources on this article. --John (talk) 14:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

A list of Scots would be a tad long don't you think?
Can I add my own name here? Shouldn't this article be renamed List of notable Scots? Jack forbes (talk) 08:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, and no. See Stand-alone_lists: "people should be selected for importance/notability in that category and should have Wikipedia articles". If they have articles, they will be notable, it doesn't need to be stated in the title. Similarly, Lists of people not Lists of notable people. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 15:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Historical Scots to be immortalised at Holyrood
It looks likely that the 6 committee rooms of the Scottish Parliament will be named after famous Scots: The names mooted are: --Mais oui! (talk) 08:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "The Parliament’s corporate body agreed the proposal and set a deadline for December 31"
 * John Logie Baird
 * Alexander Fleming
 * James Clerk Maxwell
 * Adam Smith
 * William Wallace
 * James Watt

Margaret MacDonald?
Would anyone object to my removing Margaret MacDonald from the list of Scottish architects? I know it seems a shame when there are currently so few women in this category, but she is listed, much more appropriately, as an artist. DavidBBG (talk) 14:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

 * That's entirely appropriate, you have my full support. She was a very fine artist, obviously married to Charles Rennie MackIntosh, and it can be argued that she had a significant input to his architectural work, but she was never an architect. Is she in an appropriate list of Scottish artists? -- Cactus.man  ✍  23:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, yes, she's already appropriately listed in the 'artists' category on the same page. I'll leave it a wee bit longer to see if anyone else has any comments; I'm new to Wikipedia editing and don't want to cause any hassle. Well, not just yet, anyway! DavidBBG (talk) 11:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I have now removed Margaret MacDonald from the list of architects. DavidBBG (talk) 15:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Expansion
Architects - Master Masons, etc, should probably include Alexander Laing, Edinburgh, but active also in Inverness and Moray, and the medical list should certinly include the Inverness born Colin Chisholm, an important writer on tropical, especially Caribbean, infectious disease between 1785 and 1820 and not a negligible figure in military medicine in the West Indies94.194.2.51 (talk) 14:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have included Chisholm - but there is no article on Laing; so I haven't included him. Over to you to write the article! Horis (talk) 11:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

John Cowie
Is there evidence this is someone of importance? I can't trace a page for him.Horis (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:List of Scots


text:
File viewer

A file viewer is a utility application software on operating systems, such as Linux, macOS, or Windows. The file viewer is responsible for user access of files located on a data storage device. File viewers allow the user to open and view content on a device, such as a Personal Computer (PC) or a mobile phone.

Overview
File viewer applications can be split into the following categories:

 * File Viewer Only applications do not allow the user to edit files.
 * File Viewer and Converter applications allow viewing data, exporting data in a different file format, and copying information to the clipboard.
 * File Viewer and Editor applications allow the user to view existing files, modify an existing file's content, or create a new file of a specific type.

The difference in file viewers' functionality initially resulted from how proprietary file formats were licensed. While all file formats can be read freely, some software licenses allow only the licensor to create and modify files. For example, the database software DBASE used a proprietary algorithm for creating .DBF files, but Norton Commander had a built-in viewer for .DBF files. A software application such as Adobe Photoshop, LibreOffice, or Microsoft Word is required to create .PDF files, but Acrobat Reader supports viewing of .PDF files.

A file format must have structural information that allows a file viewer to handle different byte orders, code pages or newline styles. In contrast, media file viewers, such as video player applications, may initially support few, if any, file formats. Media file viewers instead rely on video codecs to play various media, allowing users to expand a media file viewer's capability to read and represent media file data.

Some media editors, such as Audacity, allow you to open most files as "raw data." This has been used by artists to make glitch art.

Some file viewers are filters that translate binary files into plain text (e.g., antiword). However some information may be lost depending on the translating routines.

Image viewers display graphic files on screen. Some viewers, such as IrfanView, can read multiple graphic file formats, while others, such as JPEGview only support a single format. Common image viewer features include thumbnail preview and creation, image zooming and rotation, color balance and gamma correction, resizing, etc.

A web browser is a type of file viewer that renders HTML markup into a human-friendly presentation. Although HTML is stored in plain text files, viewing an HTML file in a browser and in a text editor produces significantly different results. Web browsers may also view multimedia files such as images, videos, preformatted documents, interactive environments, 3D models, augmented reality and virtual reality applets.

Plain text files

 * Less (Unix)
 * gedit (Unix)
 * Most (Unix)
 * pg (Unix)
 * More (command)
 * vi
 * notepad

Microsoft Office documents

 * Microsoft Word Viewer
 * Microsoft Excel Viewer
 * PowerPoint Viewer
 * Antiword

PDF files

 * Adobe Acrobat
 * Atril
 * Evince
 * PDF.js
 * see Category:PDF readers

Image files

 * Directory Opus
 * IrfanView
 * ACDSee
 * XnView

Video and audio files

 * Media Player Classic
 * Windows Media Player
 * VLC

Binary files

 * Hiew
 * UltraEdit
 * Midnight Commander
 * ExifTool

Programming languages source code files

 * Notepad++
 * VS Code

VRML and 3D models files

 * VRML Viewer
 * FreeWRL
 * view3dscene
 * Microsoft 3D viewer

Microsoft Project plan files

 * Microsoft Project
 * Seavus Project Viewer (software)

title: File viewer


text:
First Epistle of Peter

The First Epistle of Peter is a book of the New Testament. The author presents himself as Peter the Apostle. The ending of the letter includes a statement that implies that it was written from “Babylon”, which may be a reference to Rome. The letter is addressed to the "chosen pilgrims of the diaspora" in Asia Minor suffering religious persecution.

Authorship
The authorship of 1 Peter has traditionally been attributed to the Apostle Peter because it bears his name and identifies him as its author (1:1). Although the text identifies Peter as its author, the language, dating, style, and structure of this letter have led most scholars to conclude that it is pseudonymous. Many scholars argue that Peter was not the author of the letter because its writer appears to have had a formal education in rhetoric and philosophy, and an advanced knowledge of the Greek language, none of which would be usual for a Galilean fisherman.

New Testament scholar Graham Stanton rejects Petrine authorship because 1 Peter was most likely written during the reign of Domitian in AD 81, which is when he believes widespread Christian persecution began, which is long after the death of Peter. More recent scholars such as Travis Williams say that the persecution described does not appear to be describing official Roman persecutions after Peter's death, thus not directly ruling out an early date for the composition of the epistle.

Another dating issue is the reference to "Babylon" in chapter 5 verse 13, generally agreed to be a claim the letter was written from Rome. It is believed that the identification of Rome with Babylon, the ancient enemy of the Jews, only came after the destruction of the Temple in AD 70. Other scholars doubt Petrine authorship because they are convinced that 1 Peter is dependent on the Pauline epistles and thus was written after Paul the Apostle's ministry because it shares many of the same motifs espoused in Ephesians, Colossians, and the Pastoral Epistles.

Others argue that it makes little sense to ascribe the work to Peter when it could have been ascribed to Paul. Alternatively, one theory supporting legitimate Petrine authorship of 1 Peter is the "secretarial hypothesis", which suggests that 1 Peter was dictated by Peter and was written in Greek by his secretary, Silvanus (5:12). John Elliot disagrees, suggesting that the notion of Silvanus as secretary or author or drafter of 1 Peter introduces more problems than it solves, and claims that the Greek rendition of 5:12 suggests that Silvanus was not the secretary, but the courier/bearer of 1 Peter. Like English translations generally, the more recent NRSV (2021) translation of this verse from the Greek does not exclude understanding Silvanus as secretary: "Through Silvanus, whom I consider a faithful brother, I have written this short letter to encourage you and to testify that this is the true grace of God. Stand fast in it." Some see Mark as a contributive amanuensis in the composition and writing of the work.

On the one hand, some scholars such as Bart D. Ehrman are convinced that the language, dating, literary style, and structure of this text makes it implausible to conclude that 1 Peter was written by Peter. According to these scholars, it is more likely that 1 Peter is a pseudonymous letter, written later by an unknown Christian in his honor.

On the other hand, some scholars argue that there is enough evidence to conclude that Peter did, in fact, write 1 Peter. For instance, there are similarities between 1 Peter and Peter's speeches in the Biblical book of Acts, allusions to several historical sayings of Jesus indicative of eyewitness testimony (e.g., compare Luke 12:35 with 1 Peter 1:13, Matthew 5:16 with 1 Peter 2:12, and Matthew 5:10 with 1 Peter 3:14), and early attestation of Peter's authorship found in 2 Peter (AD 60–160) and the letters of Clement (AD 70–140), all supporting genuine Petrine origin. Ultimately, the authorship of 1 Peter remains contested.

Oldest surviving manuscripts
The original manuscript of this letter is lost, as are several centuries of copies. The text of the surviving manuscripts varies. The oldest surviving manuscripts that contain some or all of this book include:

 * In Greek
 * Papyrus 72 (3rd/4th century)
 * Papyrus 125 (3rd/4th century)
 * Papyrus 81 (4th century)
 * Codex Vaticanus (325–350)
 * Codex Sinaiticus (330–360)
 * Codex Alexandrinus (400–440)
 * Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (ca. 450)
 * Papyrus 74 (7th century)
 * In Latin
 * León palimpsest (7th century)

Audience
1 Peter is addressed to the "elect resident aliens" scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. The five areas listed in 1:1 as the geographical location of the first readers were Roman provinces in Asia Minor. The order in which the provinces are listed may reflect the route to be taken by the messenger who delivered the circular letter. The recipients of this letter are referred to in 1:1 as "exiles of the Dispersion". In 1:17, they are urged to "live in reverent fear during the time of your exile". The social makeup of the addressees of 1 Peter is debatable because some scholars interpret "strangers" (1:1) as Christians longing for their home in heaven, some interpret it as literal "strangers", or as an Old Testament adaptation applied to Christian believers.

While the new Christians have encountered oppression and hostility from locals, Peter advises them to maintain loyalty both to their religion and the Roman Empire (1 Peter 2:17).

The author counsels (1) to steadfastness and perseverance under persecution (1–2:10); (2) to the practical duties of a holy life (2:11–3:13); (3) he adduces the example of Christ and other motives to patience and holiness (3:14–4:19); and (4) concludes with counsels to pastors and people (chap. 5).

Outline
David Bartlett uses the following outline to structure the literary divisions of 1 Peter:
 * Greeting (1:1–2)
 * Praise to God (1:3–12)
 * God's Holy People (1:13–2:10)
 * Life in Exile (2:11–4:11)
 * Steadfast in Faith (4:12–5:11)
 * Final Greeting (5:12–14)

Context
The Petrine author writes of his addressees undergoing "various trials" (1 Peter 1:6), being "tested by fire" (which isn't a physical reference but a metaphor for a spiritual warfare; 1:7), maligned "as evildoers" (2:12) and suffering "for doing good" (3:17). Based on such internal evidence, biblical scholar John Elliott summarizes the addressees' situation as one marked by undeserved suffering. Verse 3:19, "Spirits in prison", is a continuing theme in Christianity, and one considered by most theologians to be enigmatic and difficult to interpret.

A number of verses in the epistle contain possible clues about the reasons Christians experienced opposition. Exhortations to live blameless lives (2:15; 3:9, 13, 16) may suggest that the Christian addressees were accused of immoral behavior, and exhortations to civil obedience (2:13–17) perhaps imply that they were accused of disloyalty to governing powers.

However, scholars differ on the nature of persecution inflicted on the addressees of 1 Peter. Some read the epistle to be describing persecution in the form of social discrimination, while some read them to be official persecution.

Social discrimination of Christians
Some scholars believe that the sufferings the epistle's addressees were experiencing were social in nature, specifically in the form of verbal derision. Internal evidence for this includes the use of words like "malign" (2:12; 3:16), and "reviled" (4:14). Biblical scholar John Elliott notes that the author explicitly urges the addressees to respect authority (2:13) and even honor the emperor (2:17), strongly suggesting that they were unlikely to be suffering from official Roman persecution. It is significant to him that the author notes that "your brothers and sisters in all the world are undergoing the same kinds of suffering" (5:9), indicating suffering that is worldwide in scope. Elliott sees this as grounds to reject the idea that the epistle refers to official persecution, because the first worldwide persecution of Christians officially meted by Rome did not occur until the persecution initiated by Decius in AD 250.

Official persecution of Christians
On the other hand, scholars who support the official persecution theory take the exhortation to defend one's faith (3:15) as a reference to official court proceedings. They believe that these persecutions involved court trials before Roman authorities, and even executions.

One common supposition is that 1 Peter was written during the reign of Domitian (AD 81–96). Domitian's aggressive claim to divinity would have been rejected and resisted by Christians. Biblical scholar Paul Achtemeier believes that persecution of Christians by Domitian would have been in character, but points out that there is no evidence of official policy targeted specifically at Christians. If Christians were persecuted, it is likely to have been part of Domitian's larger policy suppressing all opposition to his self-proclaimed divinity. There are other scholars who explicitly dispute the idea of contextualizing 1 Peter within Domitian's reign. Duane Warden believes that Domitian's unpopularity even among Romans renders it highly unlikely that his actions would have great influence in the provinces, especially those under the direct supervision of the senate such as Asia (one of the provinces 1 Peter is addressed to).

Also often advanced as a possible context for 1 Peter is the trials and executions of Christians in the Roman province of Bithynia-Pontus under Pliny the Younger. Scholars who support this theory believe that a famous letter from Pliny to Emperor Trajan concerning the delation of Christians reflects the situation faced by the addressees of this epistle. In Pliny's letter, written in AD 112, he asks Trajan if the accused Christians brought before him should be punished based on the name 'Christian' alone, or for crimes associated with the name. For biblical scholar John Knox, the use of the word "name" in 4:14–16 is the "crucial point of contact" with that in Pliny's letter. In addition, many scholars in support of this theory believe that there is content within 1 Peter that directly mirrors the situation as portrayed in Pliny's letter. For instance, they interpret the exhortation to defend one's faith "with gentleness and reverence" in 3:15–16 as a response to Pliny executing Christians for the obstinate manner in which they professed to be Christians. Generally, this theory is rejected mainly by scholars who read the suffering in 1 Peter to be caused by social, rather than official, discrimination.

The Harrowing of Hell
The author refers to Jesus, after his death, proclaiming to spirits in prison (3:18–20). This passage, and a few others (such as Matthew 27:52 and Luke 23:43), are the basis of the traditional Christian belief in the descent of Christ into hell, or the harrowing of hell. Though interpretations vary, some theologians see this passage as referring to Jesus, after his death, going to a place (neither heaven nor hell in the ultimate sense) where the souls of pre-Christian people waited for the Gospel. The first creeds to mention the harrowing of hell were Arian formularies of Sirmium (359), Nike (360), and Constantinople (360). It spread through the west and later appeared in the Apostles' Creed.

Submissiveness of women
1 Peter 3:1 instructs women to submit to their husbands, echoing the instructions in the First Epistle to the Corinthians.

Online translations of the First Epistle of Peter

 * NET Bible 1 Peter Bible Text, Study notes, Greek, with audio link
 * Early Christian writings: 1 Peter
 * Online Bible at GospelHall.org
 * Various versions
 * Multiple bible versions at Bible Gateway (NKJV, NIV, NRSV etc.)

Other

 * The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: 1 Peter
 * Easton's Bible Dictionary 1897: First Epistle of Peter
 * Ernst R. Wendland, “Stand Fast in the True Grace of God! A Study of 1 Peter"
 * 1 Peter The authenticity and authorship by Peter of the First Epistle of Peter defended
 * BibleProject Animated Overview (Evangelical Perspective)

title: First Epistle of Peter


text:
First Epistle of John

The First Epistle of John is the first of the Johannine epistles of the New Testament, and the fourth of the catholic epistles. There is no scholarly consensus as to the authorship of the Johannine works. The author of the First Epistle is termed John the Evangelist, who most modern scholars believe is not the same as John the Apostle. Most scholars believe the three Johannine epistles have the same author, but there is no consensus if this was also the author of the Gospel of John.

This epistle was probably written in Ephesus between 95 and 110 AD. The author advises Christians on how to discern true teachers: by their ethics, their proclamation of Jesus in the flesh, and by their love. The original text was written in Koine Greek. The epistle is divided into five chapters.

Content
The main themes of the epistle are love and fellowship with God. The author describes various tests by which readers may ascertain whether or not their communion with God is genuine, and teaches that the proof of spiritual regeneration is a life of active righteousness. It also distinguishes between the world (which is full of evil and under the dominion of Satan) and the children of God (who are set apart from the world).

Style
The epistle is not written in the same form as the other biblical epistles, as it lacks an epistolary opening or conclusion. The epistle is written in a simple style, without syntactical flourishes, and makes frequent use of asyndeton, where related thoughts are placed next to one another without conjunctions. In contrast to the linear style used in the Pauline epistles, biblical scholar Ernest DeWitt Burton suggests that John's thought "moves in circles", forming a slowly advancing sequence of thought. This is similar to the parallel structure of Hebrew poetry, in which the second verse of a couplet often carries the same meaning as the first, although in this epistle the frequent recapitulations of already expressed ideas serve also to add to what has previously been said. In summary, the epistle may be said to exhibit a paraenetic style which is "marked by personal appeal, contrasts of right and wrong, true and false, and an occasional rhetorical question".

The text refers to the writer's audience several times as "little children" (Τεκνία, ). This affectionate diminutive appears seven times in the letter, once as "my little children" (1 John 2:1), and the phrase also appears in John 13:33. Paul also uses the phrase "my little children" when addressing the Galatian churches in Galatians 4:19.

Some scholars have proposed the idea that the epistle is really John's commentary on a selection of traditional parallel couplets. While this theory, first propounded by Ernst von Dobschütz and Rudolf Bultmann, is not universally accepted, Amos Wilder writes that, "It is at least clear that there are considerable and sometimes continuous elements in the epistle whose style distinguishes them from that of the author both with respect to poetic structure and syntactic usage."

Authorship
The epistle is traditionally held to have been composed by John the Evangelist, at Ephesus, when the writer was in advanced age. The epistle's content, language and conceptual style are very similar to the Gospel of John, 2 John, and 3 John. Thus, at the end of the 19th century scholar Ernest DeWitt Burton wrote that there could be "no reasonable doubt" that 1 John and the gospel were written by the same author.

Beginning in the 20th century, however, critical scholars like Heinrich Julius Holtzmann and C. H. Dodd identified the Gospel of John and 1 John as works of different authors. Certain linguistic features of the two texts support this view. For instance, 1 John often uses a demonstrative pronoun at the beginning of a sentence, then a particle or conjunction, followed by an explanation or definition of the demonstrative at the end of the sentence—a stylistic technique which is not used in the gospel. The author of the epistle also "uses the conditional sentence in a variety of rhetorical figures which are unknown to the gospel". This indicates, at the very least, the linguistic characteristics changed over time. Today, following the work of J. Louis Martyn and Raymond Brown, the majority of scholars believe that John and 1 John were written by different members of the same community: the "Johannine Community".

Most critical scholars conclude that John the Apostle wrote none of these works.

Purpose
"The Fourth Gospel addresses itself to the challenges posed by Judaism and others outside Johannine circles who have rejected the community's vision of Jesus as preexistent Son, sent by the Father." The New Jerome Biblical Commentary suggests that the three Johannine epistles "describe the fracturing of the Johannine community itself".

The author wrote the epistle so that the joy of his audience would "be full" (1:4); that they would "not practice sin" (2:1); that they would not be deceived by false teachers (2:26); and that "you who believe in the name of the Son of God... may continue to know that you have eternal life" (5:13). There are two main approaches to understanding the overall purpose of the letter, tests of life (popularized by Robert Law) and tests of fellowship (popularized by John Mitchell and Zane Hodges). Whereas the Gospel of John was written for unbelievers (John 20:31), this epistle was written to those who were already believers (5:13). Ernest DeWitt Burton found it likely that its audience was largely gentile rather than Jewish, since it contains few Old Testament quotations or distinctly Jewish forms of expression.

The epistle also partakes of the debate over Jesus's nature: the debate over "flesh" or the incarnation. In early Christianity, some advocated for docetism, a view that Christ had been a purely divine being. Most notably, the group that would eventually become the Gnostics were docetic. 1 John fiercely denounces this belief in favor of the view that Jesus had a real appearance "in the flesh" on Earth. Chapter 4 writes that "every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God" (NRSV), and other passages say that Jesus shed blood, and if he could not shed blood then his death was meaningless. Chapter 2 also includes a passage that refers to a group of proto-Gnostics: a group that was once with the church but have since left it and deny that the human Jesus was also the spiritual Christ. The author denounces these secessionists as "antichrists". The introduction possibly also addresses the issue, especially if the identification of the author as John, or a pseudepigraphic claim to have been a disciple, is assumed: Chapter 1 writes of having evidence of the truth via eyes and touch. The author may thus be claiming to have known the physical Jesus personally and is emphasizing his physicality as a flesh-and-blood person rather than a spirit or phantasm.

Surviving early manuscripts
The earliest written versions of the epistle have been lost; some of the earliest surviving manuscripts include:
 * In Greek
 * Codex Vaticanus (AD 300–325)
 * Codex Sinaiticus (330–360)
 * Codex Alexandrinus (400–440)
 * Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (c. 450; fragmentary)
 * Papyrus 74 (7th century; fragmentary)
 * In Latin
 * León palimpsest (7th century; extant verses 1 John 1:5–5:21, including the text of the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7).

The Muratorian fragment, dated to AD 170, cites chapter 1, verses 1–3 within a discussion of the Gospel of John. Papyrus 9, dating from the 3rd century, has surviving parts of chapter 4, verses 11–12 and 14–17.

Different versions of the Greek manuscript have different wording for some verses.

Prologue
Verses 1-4 of the first chapter constitute a prologue or introduction concerning the Incarnate Word. Like the Prologue to John's Gospel, this introduction tells us that what the author proposes to write about is the Word which is the Life. Anglican commentator Alfred Plummer notes that "the similarity to the opening of the Gospel is manifest", but with a significant difference, in that the gospel refers to the existence of the λόγος, lógos, word, before the creation, whereas here the point is that the word existed before the incarnation.

Johannine Comma

A Trinitarian gloss (marginal note) known as the Johannine Comma, added to Latin translations of the epistle in the 4th century, was interpolated (added to the main text) within 1 John 5:7-8 over the course of the Middle Ages. Although no Greek manuscripts before the 15th century include the passage, Erasmus added it to later editions of his edition of the New Testament, beginning in 1522. Bibles translated from his edition integrate the passage, including the King James Version (1611), which renders it as follows (in italics):

"For there are three that beare record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that beare witnesse in earth, the Spirit, and the Water, and the Blood, and these three agree in one."

Translations made since the 18th century and based on a critical edition do not include this text, or include it as a footnote. Because the addition supports the doctrine of trinitarianism, it featured in Protestant and Catholic debates on this subject in the early modern period.

Final verse

 * Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.

Plummer suggests that here, "as at the end of [John's] Gospel and the Second Epistle, 'Amen' is the addition of a copyist". The Textus Receptus version includes "Ἀμήν", Amen, at the end but critical editions do not.

"To the Parthians"
Around 415, Augustine of Hippo wrote a commentary in Latin On the Epistle of John to the Parthians (in Latin, ad Parthos), in which he identifies the addressees of John's letter as Parthians. It has occasionally been suggested that this refers to a community of converts in the Jewish community of Babylonia. Around 730, Bede wrote that Athanasius of Alexandria had also believed in a Parthian destination for 1 John. This tradition, however, is known only from Latin sources. (Three late Greek manuscripts of 2 John label it "to the Parthians".) On balance, it is likely that John's first letter was written for the Ephesian church and that the Parthian label results from a misreading or misunderstanding.

Music
"1 John 4:16" is a song title in the album "The Life of the World to Come", inspired by this verse, which was released by the American band The Mountain Goats in 2009.

title: First Epistle of John


text:
First Vatican Council

The First Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, commonly known as the First Vatican Council or Vatican I, was the 20th ecumenical council of the Catholic Church, held three centuries after the preceding Council of Trent which was adjourned in 1563. The council was convoked by Pope Pius IX on 29 June 1868, under the rising threat of the Kingdom of Italy encroaching on the Papal States. It opened on 8 December 1869 and was adjourned on 20 September 1870 after the Italian Capture of Rome. Its best-known decision is its definition of papal infallibility.

The council's main purpose was to clarify Catholic doctrine in response to the rising influence of the modern philosophical trends of the 19th century. In the Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith (Dei Filius), the council condemned what it considered the errors of rationalism, anarchism, communism, socialism, liberalism, materialism, modernism, naturalism, pantheism, and secularism.

Its other concern was the doctrine of the primacy (supremacy) and infallibility of the Bishop of Rome (the Pope), which it defined in the First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ (Pastor aeternus).

Background
As early as late 1864, Pope Pius IX had commissioned the cardinals resident in Rome to tender him their opinions as to the advisability of a council. The majority pronounced in favour of the scheme, dissenting voices being rare. After March 1865, the convocation of the council was no longer in doubt. Special bulls were reportedly issued with invitations to Eastern Orthodox and Protestant clerics as well as to other non-Catholics, but apparently none accepted the invitations.

The council was summoned by the pope by a bull on 29 June 1868. The first session was held in St. Peter's Basilica on 8 December 1869. Preliminary sessions dealt with general administrative matters and committee assignments. Bishop Bernard John McQuaid complained of rainy weather, inadequate heating facilities, and boredom. Bishop James Roosevelt Bayley of Newark, New Jersey, noted the high prices in Rome. When Lord Houghton asked Cardinal Manning what had been going on, he answered: "Well, we meet, and we look at one another, and then we talk a little, but when we want to know what we have been doing, we read The Times."

Unlike the five earlier general councils held in Rome, which met in the Lateran Basilica and are known as Lateran councils, it met in Saint Peter's Basilica in the Vatican, hence its name.

Papal infallibility
The object of the council was a mystery for a while. The first revelation was given in February 1869 by an article in La Civiltà Cattolica, a Jesuit periodical. It claimed, as the view of many Catholics in France, that the council would be of very brief duration, since the majority of its members were in agreement, and mentioned inter alia the proclamation of papal infallibility. Factions around the proposal arose across Europe, and some Italians even proposed setting up a rival council in Naples. However, before the council met all became quiet in view of the studied vagueness of the invitation.

Pope Pius defined as dogma the Immaculate Conception of Mary, the mother of Jesus, in 1854. However, the proposal to define papal infallibility itself as dogma met with resistance, not because of doubts about the substance of the proposed definition, but because some considered it inopportune to take that step at that time. Richard McBrien divides the bishops attending Vatican I into three groups. The first group, which McBrien calls the "active infallibilists", was led by Henry Edward Manning and Ignatius von Senestrey. According to McBrien, the majority of the bishops were not so much interested in a formal definition of papal infallibility as they were in strengthening papal authority and, because of this, were willing to accept the agenda of the fallibilists. A minority, some 10% of the bishops, McBrien says, opposed the proposed definition of papal infallibility on both ecclesiastical and pragmatic grounds, because, in their opinion, it departed from the ecclesiastical structure of the early Christian church. From a pragmatic perspective, they feared that defining papal infallibility would alienate some Catholics, create new difficulties for union with non-Catholics, and provoke interference by governments in ecclesiastical affairs. Those who held this view included most of the German and Austro-Hungarian bishops, nearly half of the Americans, one third of the French, most of the Chaldaeans and Melkites, and a few Armenians. Only a few bishops appear to have had doubts about the dogma itself.

Dei Filius
On 24 April 1870, the dogmatic constitution on the Catholic faith Dei Filius was adopted unanimously. The draft presented to the council on 8 March drew no serious criticism, but a group of 35 English-speaking bishops, who feared that the opening phrase of the first chapter, "Sancta romana catholica Ecclesia" ('Holy Roman Catholic Church'), might be construed as favouring the Anglican branch theory, later succeeded in having an additional adjective inserted, so that the final text read: "Sancta catholica apostolica romana Ecclesia" ('Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church'). The constitution thus set forth the teaching of the "Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church" on God, revelation and faith.

Pastor aeternus

There was stronger opposition to the draft constitution on the nature of the church, which at first did not include the question of papal infallibility, but the majority party in the council, whose position on this matter was much stronger, brought it forward. It was decided to postpone discussion of everything in the draft except infallibility. The decree did not go forward without controversy; Cardinal Filippo Maria Guidi, Archbishop of Bologna, proposed adding that the pope is assisted by "the counsel of the bishops manifesting the tradition of the churches". Pius IX rejected Guidi's view of the bishops as witnesses to the tradition, maintaining: "I am the tradition."

On 13 July 1870, a preliminary vote on the section on infallibility was held in a general congregation: 451 voted simply in favour (placet), 88 against (non placet), and 62 in favour but on condition of some amendment (placet iuxta modum). This made evident what the final outcome would be, and some 60 members of the opposition left Rome so as not to be associated with approval of the document. The final vote, with a choice only between placet and non placet, was taken on 18 July 1870, with 533 votes in favour and only 2 against defining as a dogma the infallibility of the pope when speaking ex cathedra. The two votes in opposition were cast by Bishops Aloisio Riccio and Edward Fitzgerald.

The dogmatic constitution states, in chapter 4:9, that the pope has "full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church" (chapter 3:9); and that, when he:"speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals."

None of the bishops who had argued that proclaiming the definition was inopportune refused to accept it. Some Catholics, mainly of German language and largely inspired by the historian Ignaz von Döllinger, formed the separate Old Catholic Church in protest; von Döllinger did not formally join the new group himself.

Suspension and aftermath

Discussion of the rest of the document on the nature of the church was to continue when the bishops returned after a summer break. In the meanwhile, the Franco-Prussian War broke out. With the swift German advance and the capture of Emperor Napoleon III, French troops protecting papal rule in Rome withdrew from the city.

On 20 October 1870, one month after the newly founded Kingdom of Italy had occupied Rome, Pope Pius IX, who then considered himself a prisoner in the Vatican, issued the bull Postquam Dei munere, adjourning the council indefinitely. While some proposed to continue the council in the Belgian city of Mechlin, it was never reconvened. The council was formally closed in 1960 by Pope John XXIII, prior to the formation of the Second Vatican Council.

In reaction to the political implications of the doctrine of infallibility on the sovereignty of secular states, some of the European kingdoms and republics took rapid action against the Catholic Church. The Austrian Empire annulled the Concordat of 1855. In the Kingdom of Prussia, the anti-Catholic Kulturkampf broke out immediately afterwards, and in the French Third Republic the synod so accentuated the power of ultramontanism (an emphasis on the powers of the pope), that Republican France took steps to curb it by revoking the Concordat of 1801, and therefore completely separating the Church from the state.

Controversies and opposition
The dogma of papal infallibility raised considerable opposition in some liberal theological circles in the Netherlands, Austria, Germany and Switzerland; the most notable theologian opposing the formulation of the dogma was Ignaz von Döllinger, who was excommunicated in 1871 by Archbishop Gregor von Scherr of Munich and Freising, for refusing to accept the council's decision.

Old Catholic schism
Following the council's decision, a minority of clergy and laity opposed to the newly proclaimed dogma united with the Jansenists, which had maintained a somewhat precarious existence in separation from Rome since the 18th century but had preserved an episcopal succession recognized by Rome as valid though illicit. The first consecration of the new order was that of Joseph H. Reinkens, who was made bishop in Germany by a sympathetic Jansenist bishop Johannes Heykamp of Utrecht. Such new group referred to itself as the Old Catholic Church (or the Christian Catholic Church in Switzerland). Old Catholics in Europe united into the Union of Utrecht in 1889, which entered into full communion with the Anglican Communion in 1931 through the Bonn Agreement.

The Union of Utrecht still exists to this day and includes the Old Catholic Church of the Netherlands, the Catholic Diocese of the Old Catholics in Germany, the Old Catholic Church of Austria, the Old Catholic Church of the Czech Republic, the Polish-Catholic Church of the Republic of Poland and the Christian Catholic Church of Switzerland. The Union of Scranton, formed by more theologically conservative Old Catholics, was formed in 2008 and currently includes the Polish National Catholic Church and the Nordic Catholic Church.

title: First Vatican Council


text:
First Council of the Lateran

The First Council of the Lateran was the 9th ecumenical council recognised by the Catholic Church. It was convoked by Pope Callixtus II in December 1122, immediately after the Concordat of Worms. The council sought to bring an end to the practice of the conferring of ecclesiastical benefices by people who were laymen, free the election of bishops and abbots from secular influence, clarify the separation of spiritual and temporal affairs, re-establish the principle that spiritual authority resides solely in the Church and abolish the claim of the Holy Roman Emperor to influence papal elections.

The council was significant in size: 300 bishops and more than 600 abbots assembled at Rome in March 1123, and Callixtus II presided in person. During the council, the decisions of the Concordat of Worms were read and ratified. Various other decisions were promulgated.

Background
The First Lateran Council was called by Pope Callixtus II whose reign began on 1 February 1119. It demarcated the end of the Investiture Controversy, which had begun before the time of Pope Gregory VII. The issues had been contentious and had continued with unabated bitterness for almost a century. Guido, as he had been called before his elevation to the papacy, was the son of William I, Count of Burgundy. He was closely connected with nearly all the royal houses of Europe on both sides of his family. He had been named the papal legate to France by Pope Paschal II. During Guido's tenure in this office, Paschal II yielded to the military threats of Henry V, Holy Roman Emperor, and was induced to issue the Privilegium in 1111. By that document, the Church gave up much of what had been claimed and subsequently attained by Pope Gregory VII and his Gregorian Reforms.

The concessions did not bring the expected peace but were received with violent reactionary opposition everywhere. Europe had come to expect an end to the Investiture Controversy and was not willing to return to the old days, when the Holy Roman Emperor named the pope. The greatest resistance was seen in France and was led by Guido, who still held the office of the papal legate. He had been present in the Lateran Synod of 1112 which had proclaimed the Privilegium of 1111. On his return to France, Guido convoked an assembly of the French and Burgundian bishops at Vienne (1112). There, the lay investiture of the clergy (the practice of the king, especially the Holy Roman Emperor, of naming bishops and the Pope) was denounced as heretical. A sentence of excommunication was pronounced against Henry V, who had extorted through violence from the Pope the concessions documented in the Privilegium. The agreement was deemed to be opposed to the interests of the Church. The decrees from the assembly of Vienne which denounced the Privilegium were sent to Paschal II with a request for confirmation. Pope Paschal II confirmed them, which were received in general terms, on 20 October 1112.

Guido was later created cardinal by Pope Paschal II. The latter did not seem to have been pleased with Guido's bold and forward attacks upon Henry V, Holy Roman Emperor. On the death of Paschal II, 21 January 1118, Gelasius II was elected pope. He was immediately seized by the Italian allies of Henry V and on his liberation by the populace, he fled to Gaeta, where he was crowned. Henry V demanded the confirmation of the Privilegium and received no satisfactory reply. He then set about naming Burdinus, the archbishop of Braga, as his own pope, who assumed the name Gregory VIII but came to be known as Antipope Gregory VIII. Burdinus had already been deposed and excommunicated because he had crowned Henry V as the Holy Roman Emperor in Rome in 1117.

The excommunication of Burdinus was reiterated in Canon 6 of the document produced by Lateran I. Gelasius II promptly excommunicated the antipope Gregory VIII and Henry V. Gelasius was forced to flee under duress from the army of Henry V and took refuge in the monastery of Cluny, where he died in January 1119. On the fourth day after the death of Gelasius II, 1 February 1119, mainly by the exertions of Cardinal Cuno, Guido was elected pope and assumed the title of Callixtus II. He was crowned Pope at Vienne on 9 February 1119.

Because of his close connection with the great royal families of Germany, France, England and Denmark, Callixtus II's papacy was received with much anticipation and celebration throughout Europe. There was a real hope throughout the Continent that the Investiture Controversy might be settled once and for all. In the interest of conciliation, even the papal embassy was received by Henry V, Holy Roman Emperor, at Strasburg. However, it soon became clear that Henry was not willing to concede his presumed and ancient right to name the pope and the bishops within his kingdom. Perhaps to demonstrate conciliation or because of political necessity, Henry withdrew his support for Antipope Gregory VIII.

It was agreed that Henry and Pope Callixtus II would meet at Mousson. On 8 June 1119, Callixtus II held a synod at Toulouse to proclaim the disciplinary reforms he had worked to attain in the French Church. In October, 1119, he opened the council at Reims. Louis VI of France and most of the barons of France attended this council, along with more than 400 bishops and abbots. The Pope was also to meet with Henry V, Holy Roman Emperor at Mousson. However, Henry showed up with an army of 30,000 men. Callixtus II left Reims for Mousson, but upon learning of the warlike stance of Henry quickly retreated to Reims. There, the Church dealt with issues of simony and concubinage of the clergy.

It was clear by now that Henry was in no mood to reconcile, and a compromise with him was not to be had. The conclave at Reims considered the situation and determined, as an entire Church, to formally excommunicate both Henry V and the antipope Gregory VIII. This occurred on October 30, 1119. While at Reims, Callixtus II tried to effect a settlement with Henry I of England and his brother Robert, which also met with failure.

Callixtus II was determined to enter Rome, which was occupied by the German forces and Antipope Gregory VIII. There was an uprising by the population, which forced Gregory to flee the city. After much political and military intrigue in Rome and the southern Italian states, Gregory was formally deposed and Callixtus II was generally recognised as the legitimate Pope in 1121. Having become the established power in Italy, Callixtus II now returned the conflict with Henry V over the issue of lay investiture. Henry had been the recipient of great pressure from many of his barons in Germany over his conflict with the pope. Some had entered into open rebellion. Henry was forced by circumstances to seek a peace with Callixtus. Initial negotiations were conducted in October 1121 at Würzburg. Lambert, the Cardinal of Ostia, was dispatched to convoke a synod at Worms, which began on 8 September 1122. By 23 September, the Concordat of Worms, also called the Pactum Calixtinum, was concluded. On his side, the emperor gave up his claim to investiture with ring and crosier and granted the freedom of election to the episcopal sees.

The elections of bishops could be witnessed by the emperor or his representatives. Callixtus II obtained the right to name bishops throughout Germany, but still did not have that power in much of Burgundy and Italy.

The First Lateran Council was convoked to confirm the Concordat of Worms. The council was most representative with nearly three hundred bishops and six hundred abbots from every part of Catholic Europe being present. It convened on 18 March 1123. Decrees were also passed directed against simony, concubinage among the clergy, church robbers, and forgers of Church documents; the council also reaffirmed indulgences for Crusaders. The Council ruled that the crusades to the Holy Land and the Reconquista of Spain were of equal standing.

In the remaining few years of his life, Callixtus II attempted to secure the status of the Church as it had existed at the end of the reign of Pope Gregory VII. He reorganized and reformed the churches around Rome, canonized Conrad of Constance, condemned the teaching of Peter de Bruis, confirmed the Bishop Thurston of York against the wishes of Henry I of England and affirmed the freedom of York from the see of Canterbury. Callixtus II died on December 13, 1124, and was succeeded by Pope Honorius II.

Callixtus II was a strong figure who brought a relative, if tentative, peace between Germany and the Church. The Concordat of Worms and the First Lateran Council changed forever the belief in the divine right of kings to name the pope and bishops and reshaped the nature of church and state forever.

Text of the council

Texts of the First Lateran Council may vary in both wording and numbering of the canons depending on source. In this translation, the precepts of the Concordat of Worms are codified in Canons 2, 4 and 10.

CANON I Summary. Ordinations and promotions made for pecuniary considerations are devoid of every dignity.

Text. Following the example of the holy fathers and recognizing the obligation of our office, we absolutely forbid in virtue of the authority of the Apostolic See that anyone be ordained or promoted for money in the Church of God. Has anyone thus secured ordination or promotion in the Church, the rank acquired shall be devoid of every dignity.

CANON 2

Summary. Only a priest may be made provost, archpriest, and dean; only a deacon may be archdeacon.

Text. No one except a priest shall be promoted to the dignity of provost, archpriest, or dean; and no one shall be made archdeacon unless he is a deacon.

CANON 3

Summary. Priests, deacons, and subdeacons are forbidden to live with women other than such as were permitted by the Nicene Council.

Text. We absolutely forbid priests, deacons, and subdeacons to associate with concubines and women, or to live with women other than such as the Nicene Council (canon 3) for reasons of necessity permitted, namely, the mother, sister, or aunt, or any such person concerning whom no suspicion could arise.

CANON 4

Summary. Lay persons, no matter how pious they may be, have no authority to dispose of anything that belongs to the Church.

Text. In accordance with the decision of Pope Stephen, we declare that lay persons, no matter how devout they may be, have no authority to dispose of anything belonging to the Church, but according to the Apostolic canon the supervision of all ecclesiastical affairs belongs to the bishop, who shall administer them conformably to the will of God. If therefore any prince or other layman shall arrogate to himself the right of disposition, control, or ownership of ecclesiastical goods or properties, let him be judged guilty of sacrilege.

CANON 5

Summary. Marriages between blood-relatives are forbidden.

Text. We forbid marriages between blood-relatives because they are forbidden by the divine and secular laws. Those who contract such alliances, as also their offspring, the divine laws not only ostracize but declare accursed, while the civil laws brand them as infamous and deprive them of hereditary rights. We, therefore, following the example of our fathers, declare and stigmatize them as infamous.

CANON 6

Summary. Ordinations by Burdinus and the bishops consecrated by him are invalid.

Text. The ordinations made by the heresiarch Burdinus after his condemnation by the Roman Church, as also those made by the bishops consecrated by him after that point of time, we declare to be invalid.

CANON 7

Summary. No one is permitted to arrogate to himself the episcopal authority in matters pertaining to the cura animarum and the bestowal of benefices.

Text. No archdeacon, archpriest, provost, or dean shall bestow on another the care of souls or the prebends of a church without the decision or consent of the bishop; indeed, as the sacred canons point out, the care of souls and the disposition of ecclesiastical property are vested in the authority of the bishop. If anyone shall dare act contrary to this and arrogate to himself the power belonging to the bishop, let him be expelled from the Church.

CANON 8

Summary. Military persons are forbidden under penalty of anathema to invade or forcibly hold the city of Benevento.

Text. Desiring with the grace of God to protect the recognized possessions of the Holy Roman Church, we forbid under pain of anathema any military person to invade or forcibly hold Benevento, the city of St. Peter. If anyone act contrary to this, let him be anathematized.

CANON 9

Summary. Those excommunicated by one bishop, may not be restored by others.

Text. We absolutely forbid that those who have been excommunicated by their own bishops be received into the communion of the Church by other bishops, abbots, and clerics.

CANON 10

Summary. A bishop consecrated after an uncanonical election shall be deposed.

Text. No one shall be consecrated bishop who has not been canonically elected. If anyone dare do this, both the consecrator and the one consecrated shall be deposed without hope of reinstatement.

CANON 11

Summary. To those who give aid to the Christians in the Orient is granted the remission of sins, and their families and possessions are taken under the protection of the Roman Church.

Text. For effectively crushing the tyranny of the infidels, we grant to those who go to Jerusalem and also to those who give aid toward the defense of the Christians, the remission of their sins and we take under the protection of St. Peter and the Roman Church their homes, their families, and all their belongings, as was already ordained by Pope Urban II. Whoever, therefore, shall dare molest or seize these during the absence of their owners, shall incur excommunication. Those, however, who with a view of going to Jerusalem or to Spain (that is, against the Moors) are known to have attached the cross to their garments and afterward removed it, we command in virtue of our Apostolic authority to replace it and begin the journey within a year from the coming Easter. Otherwise we shall excommunicate them and interdict within their territory all divine service except the baptism of infants and the administration of the last rites to the dying.

CANON 12

Summary. The property of the porticani dying without heirs is not to be disposed of in a manner contrary to the wish of the one deceased.

Text. With the advice of our brethren and of the entire Curia, as well as with the will and consent of the prefect, we decree the abolition of that evil custom which has hitherto prevailed among the porticani, namely, of disposing, contrary to the wish of the one deceased, of the property of porticani dying without heirs; with this understanding, however, that in future the porticani remain faithful to the Roman Church, to us and to our successors.

CANON 13

Summary. If anyone violates the truce of God and after the third admonition does not make satisfaction, he shall be anathematized.

Text. If anyone shall violate the truce of God he shall be admonished three times by the bishop to make satisfaction. If he disregards the third admonition the bishop, either with the advice of the metropolitan or with that of two or one of the neighboring bishops, shall pronounce the sentence of anathema against the violator and in writing denounce him to all the bishops. CANON 14

Summary. Laymen are absolutely forbidden to remove offerings from the altars of Roman churches.

Text. Following the canons of the holy fathers, we absolutely and under penalty of anathema forbid laymen to remove the offerings from the altars of the churches of St. Peter, of The Savior (Lateran Basilica), of St. Mary Rotund, in a word, from the altars of any of the churches or from the crosses. By our Apostolic authority we forbid also the fortifying of churches and their conversion to profane uses.

CANON 15

Summary. Counterfeiters of money shall be excommunicated.

Text. Whoever manufactures or knowingly expends counterfeit money, shall be cut off from the communion of the faithful (excommunicated) as one accursed, as an oppressor of the poor and a disturber of the city.

CANON 16

Summary. Robbers of pilgrims and of merchants shall be excommunicated.

Text. If anyone shall dare attack pilgrims going to Rome to visit the shrines of the Apostles and the oratories of other saints and rob them of the things they have with them, or exact from merchants new imposts and tolls, let him be excommunicated till he has made satisfaction.

CANON 17

Summary. Abbots and monks may not have the cura animarum.

Text. We forbid abbots and monks to impose public penances, to visit the sick, to administer extreme unction, and to sing public masses. The chrism, holy oil, consecration of altars, and ordination of clerics they shall obtain from the bishops in whose dioceses they reside.

CANON 18

Summary. The appointment of priests to churches belongs to the bishops, and without their consent they may not receive tithes and churches from laymen.

Text. Priests shall be appointed to parochial churches by the bishops, to whom they shall be responsible for the care of souls and other matters pertaining to them. They are not permitted to receive tithes and churches from laics without the will and consent of the bishops. If they act otherwise, let them be subject to the canonical penalties.

CANON 19

Summary. Taxes paid to bishops by monks since Gregory VII must be continued. Monks may not by prescription acquire the possessions of churches and of bishops.

Text. The tax (servitium) which monasteries and their churches have rendered to the bishops since the time of Gregory VII, shall be continued. We absolutely forbid abbots and monks to acquire by prescription after thirty years the possessions of churches and of shops.

CANON 20

Summary. Churches and their possessions, as well as the person and things connected with them, shall remain safe and unmolested.

Text. Having in mind the example of our fathers and discharging the duty of our pastoral office, we decree that churches and their possessions, as well as the persons connected with them, namely, clerics and monks and their servants (conversi), also the laborers and the things they use, shall remain safe and unmolested. If anyone shall dare act contrary to this and, recognizing his crime, does not within the space of thirty days make proper amends, let him be cut off from the Church and anathematized.

CANON 21

Summary. Clerics in major orders may not marry, and marriages already contracted must be dissolved.

Text. We absolutely forbid priests, deacons, subdeacons, and monks to have concubines or to contract marriage. We decree in accordance with the definitions of the sacred canons, that marriages already contracted by such persons must be dissolved, and that the persons be condemned to do penance.

CANON 22

Summary. The alienation of possessions of the exarchate of Ravenna is condemned, and the Ordinaries made by the intruders are invalid.

Text. The alienation that has been made especially by Otto, Guido, Jerome, and perhaps by Philip of possessions of the exarchate of Ravenna, we condemn. In a general way we declare invalid the alienations in whatever manner made by bishops and abbots whether intruded or canonically elected, and also the ordinations conferred by them whether with the consent of the clergy of the Church or simoniacally. We also absolutely forbid any cleric in any way to alienate his prebend or any ecclesiastical benefice. If he has presumed to do this in the past or shall presume to do so in the future, his action shall be null and he shall be subject to the canonical penalties.

Results of the council
Lateran I was the first of four Lateran Councils between the years 1123–1215. The first was not very original in its concept, nor one called to meet a pressing theological question. For the most part, Pope Callixtus II summoned the council to ratify the various meetings and concords which had been occurring in and around Rome for several years. The most pressing issue was that of the Investiture Controversy which had consumed nearly a century of contention and open warfare. At the heart of the question was the ancient right of the Holy Roman Emperor to name the pope as well as bishops and priests. These would be invested with some secular symbol such as a sword or scepter and the spiritual authority represented by a ring, miter and crosier. To an illiterate population, it appeared the bishop or abbot was now the king’s inferior and owed his position to the king. This issue came to the fore in the first part of the eleventh century when Rome and the pope sought autonomy from the Holy Roman Emperor. It had been a central issue in the reign of Pope Gregory VII and his battles with Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor. The issue was never settled. Years of teaching by Roman trained priests and bishops in Germany had led to an educated generation which rejected the idea of divine right of kings. The Third Lateran Council and the Fourth Lateran Council are generally considered to be of much greater significance than Lateran I. However, Lateran I marked the first time a general and large Council had been held in the West. All previous Councils had been in the East and dominated by Greek theologians and philosophers. In the struggle between Stephen of England and Matilda, the daughter of Henry I of England, the English Church slipped away from the close control the Normans had exercised. Stephen was forced to make many concessions to the Church to gain some element of political control. Historians have largely considered his rule to be a disaster, calling it The Anarchy.

Because of political necessity, the Holy Roman Emperors were restrained from directly naming bishops in the kingdom. In practicality, the process continued to a certain extent. The issue of separation of church and state was simply recast in a different direction. Of all the Gregorian Reforms which were embodied by Lateran I, celibacy of the clergy was the most successful. Simony was curtailed. As time progressed, secular interference into the politics of the Church was seen to continue, albeit in different ways from that of the Investiture Controversy.

It has been argued by some historians that the Concordat of Worms and its reiteration by Lateran I were little more than face saving measures by the Church. Henry V, Holy Roman Emperor continued to name bishops within his kingdom. His control over the papacy was definitely abated. At the time, the Concordat of Worms was proclaimed as a great victory for Henry V inside the Holy Roman Empire. It did serve to constrain much of the most recent warfare in and outside the empire. In the end, Henry V died the monarch of a much diminished kingdom.

title: First Council of the Lateran


text:
Talk:First Council of Nicaea

Macarius of Jerusalem
The article claimed, uncited, that Macarius of Jerusalem was among the foremost attendees and named him "patriarch". This is incorrect. Jerusalem (still known by its Roman name of Aelia) was probably a dependency of either Caesarea or Antioch at the time, so not even self-governing let alone a patriarchate. It was not until this council rendered its canons, in fact, that Jerusalem gained a measure of independence. It would actually be another century before Jerusalem gained full recognition as one of the chief sees. While Macarius was certainly influential at the council, and was a prominent spokesman for the eventual winning side, he was not by any means a "patriarch". See http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.vi.x.html and http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.vi.xi.html 192.91.171.36 (talk) 23:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Domnus of Stridon
Domnus of Stridon as one of only five attendants of the council from Western part of the empire, has most likely never existed. In Gelzer's book Patrum Nicaenorum nomina the index of council fathers lists only Budius of Stobi (probably missread as Strobi and Stribon; see pages XLIV, 56 and 247) and Domnus of Pannonia, listed directly after him. In one of the list Domnus is also mentioned as metropolitamis (of metropolis). It seems that the name of Domnus of Stridon was coined by mistake from names of these two bishops. This error was pointed out by Frane Bulić in his article Stridon (page 13) as early as 1920. --Janezdrilc (talk) 11:06, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

 * Talk translated to Articles for deletion/Domnus of Stridon. --Janezdrilc (talk) 23:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Why are there two "Arian controversy" and "Role of Constantine" sections?
The first one feels entirely redundant and basically just repeats what will later be described in the article. (Discuss 0nshore's contributions!!!) 13:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

 * Bringing up this and several other points has long been on my "To Do" list.

 * "Arian presentation" is "Procedure" is also redundant to the two "Arian controversy" sections. "3.1 The Nicene Creed", "6.3 The Nicene Creed", and "8 Nicene Creed" are redundant, as are "3.2 Easter" and "9 Separation of Easter computation from Jewish calendar". "3.1 The Nicene Creed" and "3.2 Easter" should not be part of "3 Arian Controversy".

 * I'll type more later and propose re-organizing. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk)

Proposed re-organization
Sections "5 Agenda", "6 Procedure", and "x. Results" should all have the same sub-sections. Perhaps these: .1 Arian Controversy .2 The Melitian schism .3 Date of Easter But, let me note, the latter two sort of melt into the promulgation of canon law and, methinks, are difficult to distinguish from other matters; however, at least as a starting point, I'd opt for these three sets of sub-sections.

Next in my priorities would be the order and length and the main sections: Ecumenical Council (a bit shorter with a or  . ) Agenda Procedure Results (or Outcome) Promulgation of canon law Effects (some of the above, e.g., "Exiled", belong here.) Misconceptions (some of the data on the date of Easter, including the recently edited-out "Zonaras proviso", belong here.) Attendees Role of Constantine Disputed matters (much abridged or omitted, as most are included in "Promulgation of canon law" or are out of scope.) Vincent J. Lipsio (talk)

Following on the discussion from above, in addition to organization (which is certainly choppy and repetitive), the article seems to need some source work. The extensive Cambridge Companion (2021) is not used at all, and Ayres' and Anatolios' monographs seem to be underused. There seems to be an overuse of primary sources. I'm working through the Cambridge Companion, and re-reading Hanson, Ayres, and Anatolios to reacquaint myself. In line with the notice at the top of the page and the proposal by Vincent J. Lipsio, I'd suggest a simpler structure with four main headings (basically following the structure of the Cambridge Companion):
 * Background
 * Arian Controversy (or Alexandrian controversey, which may now be preferred in literature) - origin of the controversey in Alexandria and the attempts to resolve it within the Church, including the Council at Antioch
 * Meletian schism (prominent enough to warrant its own section)
 * Constantine and calling of the Council - background on Constantine's and the Empire's relationship to the Church, and his decision to move the Council to from Ancyra to Nicaea and invite all the bishops of the ecumene
 * Proceedings
 * Attendance and logistics
 * Debates - basically the current top sections "Procedure" and "Arian controversey"
 * Role of Constantine - relevant material from sections 4 and 13
 * Outcomes
 * Formulation of the Nicene Creed - current section 8
 * Canon law
 * Computation of Easter
 * Misconceptions
 * Reception and Legacy
 * Ecumenical councils - beginning of the "idea" of ecumenical councils and the use of Nicaea in future councils
 * Catholic Church
 * Orthodox Church
 * Protestants - material from "disputed matters

I'm going to do some sandbox drafting as I read. Any further thoughts on structure? Also, would anyone be opposed to using a short footnote reference style in the article? It's very easy to use and helps better link citations to the bibliography (currently the two don't match up). Seltaeb Eht (talk) 19:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:First Council of Nicaea