Talk:Hosius of Corduba

Removal of Category:Egyptian saints

I see nothing in the text indicating that the subject is venerated as a saint by any Christian church. Until that evidence is put forward, I believe it appropriate to remove the category above. John Carter 15:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

He was not considered for Canonization as in the article it says he signed to accept the Arians in union, so he could go back home. Don't be too hard on him, as he was ninty+ years of age!

MacOfJesus (talk) 22:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comment

On the main page Hosius with Saint Athanasius went to this Council, The Council of Sardica, which had been summoned by The Pontiff, Saint Julius 1, and did what was requested of it, 343. This is referred to as a "fruitless council". All the evidence is to the contrary. I request this comment be removed. It is made in the wrong place, as well. Also criticises the Council and Hosius for not having recognision for Arius. This is not History but opinion and has no place on the main page. I request, therefore, that this whole page be rewritten, from top to bottom.

MacOfJesus (talk) 18:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)MacOfJesus (talk) 16:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Revival

This page has been revived, I see, and well done.

MacOfJesus (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Presiding at the council of Nicaea

The clause "that he presided is a very doubtful assertion" in reference to the council of Nicaea is unreferenced. Lewis Ayres, in his book Nicaea and its Legacy says that Ossius probably chaired the meeting, though he himself provides no evidence for this. Given that Ayres is a preeminent scholar in this area, I suggest "very doubtful" be removed from the article, or that Ossius chaired the meeting be considered equally likely as unlikely. Bren0110 (talk) 19:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I concur entirely. The expression "very doubtful assertion" is absolutely unjustified. No one source to justify this daring judgement. Unlike, not only Ayres, a lot of scholars defend exactly the contrary of the author of this wiki article defends without any justification.

Scholars (in addition of Lewis Ayres) who defend Hosius of Corduba as president of the Nicaea Council: 1) Philip Schaff in his work " Athanasius: Select Works and Letters". 2) The scholar Warren H. Carroll, who holds a Ph.D. in history from Columbia, and who founded Christendom College in Front Royal, VA, in 1977. He is currently writing a major multi-volume, copiously-documented and footnoted "History of Christendom." His second volume is entitled The Building of Christendom (Christendom College Press, 1987). It covers the period from 324-1100 in the space of 616 pages, of which approximately 148 (roughly a quarter) consist of extensive footnotes and bibliographies... Carroll says next:

"Resplendent in purple and gold, Constantine made a ceremonial entrance at the opening of the council, probably in early June, but respectfully seated the bishops ahead of himself."[4] He was present as an observer, but he did not vote. Constantine organized the Council along the lines of the Roman Senate. "Ossius [Hosius] presided over its deliberations; he probably, and the two priests of Rome certainly, came as representatives of the Pope." and "The recommendation for a general or ecumenical council . . . had probably already been made to Constantine by Ossius [aka Hosius], and most probably to Pope Silvester as well (9). . . Ossius presided over its deliberations; he probably, and two priests of Rome certainly, came as representatives of the Pope.. (Dr. Warren Carroll, The Building of Christendom, Christendom College Press, 1987, 11)

3) Archpriest John W. Morris in his work "The Historic Church: An Orthodox View of Christian History" says: "At the beginning of 325, Hosius presided over a council in Antioch that condemned Arius and his teachings. This council adopted a statement of faith..."

4) Richard E. Rubenstein in his work: When Jesus Became God says: "Hosius of Cordova, Constantine's advisor and the presiding bishop at the Council of Nicaea"

There are more examples but I think this is enough to show the support that Hosius of Corduba presided the Council. Several and important sources. But we don't have any source, scholar to support the expression: "that he presided is a very doubtful assertion". Therefore, can the author of the article removes the expresion or at least presents sources that justify it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.26.233.61 (talk) 23:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Historical accounting

In the Page we read:

..."Hosius presided in 343 at the fruitless synod of Sardica, which showed itself so hostile to Arianism; there and afterwards he spoke and wrote in favour of Athanasius."

This sort of writing and accounting of History is surely unacceptable and unworthy of a proper History Page of Wikipedia........ I therefore, wish to challenge it...... MacOfJesus (talk) 16:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

In looking trough the Talk Page, I already made the point above.... that no one has taken up......

Perhaps, some are not aware of what the Arian Faction was...... I refer you all to the excellent book on the subject by Rowan Williams, the Emeritus Archbishop of Canterbury....... Even though he is not of my Faith, I can say that his outlined details and research is excellent....... MacOfJesus (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Precisely: Williams, Rowan, Arius: Heresy and Tradition (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1987) MacOfJesus (talk) 16:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)