Talk:Fourth Council of the Lateran

Untitled

Would one assume that in this case incontenence is synomous with masturbation? Or were they really that concerned with priests wetting the bed? I don't know, so I don't want to edit.

Marriam-Websters has "in·con·ti·nence noun \(ˌ)in-ˈkän-tə-nən(t)s\ Definition of INCONTINENCE : the quality or state of being incontinent: as a : failure to restrain sexual appetite : unchastity" Nick Beeson (talk) 04:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Not so much masturbation as priest marriage, keeping of concubines, and sex in general. The Fourth Lateran Council took a big step towards actually enforcing priestly celibacy. I added "not being celibate" to clarify (feel free to change if you can think of a better way of phrasing it)

Seven Sacraments

I removed the line

Significantly, the Council clearly delineated the Seven Sacraments of the Catholic Church for the first time.

because I could not find such a delineation within the actual text of the canons of the Council (at least, not in the copy found at the Medieval Sourcebook website). Please correct if I am in error. Tpellman (talk) 15:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Jewish Moneylending

In "Under Crescent and Cross", Mark Cohen reports that there was a fourth law pertaining to the Jews which forbade "heavy and immoderate usury" (pg 39). I didn't edit the article because I myself have not studied the council enough to know where this would be, however, Cohen credits "The Church and the Jews" by Grayzel page 307. edit: I realize that the list is not meant to be a full list of all canons, however I believe this particular one, if deemed to exist, is worthy of being here because of the contemporary view of Jews as moneylenders. Koolaidman (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Incomprehensible

The sentence "It is enough to remind the reader how long an opposition preceded at Rome this recognition of Constantinople as second in rank among the patriarchal sees," is incomprehensible. Does it mean that they Rome did not want to recognize any other Patriarch at all? Does it mean that Rome wanted to recognize Antioch or some other Patriarch as second? Does it mean Rome felt that there was no ranking of Patriarchs possible, all were equal in their inferiority to Rome? This sentence is non-encyclopedic. The phrase "It is enough to remind the reader" is a clear violation of the Wikipedia style guidelines. Further it begs the question, "What are we being reminded of?" Are we readers supposed to already know that this issue was hotly debated for decades? So I removed it. Can someone can reword it so it does not speak to the "reader" and so it is comprehensible? Nick Beeson (talk) 04:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

What Does it Mean?

I came here to find out what the word Lateran means, and it doesn't tell us.

The origin is the Lateranii, a Roman family, and they had a Saint, St. John Lateran in English, in the family. There's a church named after him in Rome, and that's where they hold the meetings.

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 09:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The Laterani were a Roman gens who had a palace in Rome. Imperial horseguards were quartered next door. As they had supported Maxentius, Constantine demolished the barracks and built the Basilica of St. John on the site. (see Lateran Palace).Mannanan51 (talk) 17:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Jewish Distinctions

James Carroll has described the clothing regulations as "the precursor of the infamous yellow badge". He emphasises the key role of the Council in effecting major changes in Jewish-Catholic relations, and quotes the Swiss priest Hans Küng who wrote: It was not the riots in connection with the First Crusade in 1096, but this council which fundamentally changed the situation of the Jews, both legally and theologically. Because the Jews were ‘servants of sin,’ it was concluded that they should now be the servants of Christian princes. So now, in Constitution 68 of the council, for the first time a special form of dress was directly prescribed for Jews, which would isolate them: they were banned from taking public office, forbidden to go out during Holy Week, and had a compulsory tax imposed on them, to be paid to the local Christian clergy.

.

Wasn't this merely a copying of long-standing Islamic control of Jews as dhimmis, and so only new to Christendom ?

They were not allowed to have sexual relations with or marry a Muslim woman under

penalty of death, although a Muslim man could marry a Jewish woman and their children had to be brought up as Muslims. Jews could not dress as Muslim chiefs, scholars, or nobility. They could not dress in such an ostentatious manner as to offend

poorer Muslims. They could not hold Muslims as slaves or servants, but Muslims could hold Jews as slaves or servants.

They had to wear a distinctive sign on their clothes, usually a yellow band, badge, or cap, so that they could not “pass” as Muslims (standard practice towards Jews in the Middle East, eventually imitated by Christians—an origin often overlooked by scholarship on Jewish-Christian relations:

Dario Fernandez-Morera  :  Some Overlooked Realities of Jewish Life under Islamic Rule in

Medieval Spain