> These ecumenical conferences. I doubt you'd get many people to attend
> at some many conferences held over so many centuries. Only in the 20th
> century have we seen many ecumenical conferences in Christianity.
OECUMENICAL COUNCILS: Assemblies of bishops and other ecclesiastical representatives of the whole world whose decisions on doctrine, discipline, &c., are considered binding on all Christians. According to Roman Catholic canon law, an Oecumenical Council must be convened by the Pope, and its decrees have binding force only if sanctioned and promulgated by the Holy See; they are then infallible.
Seven councils are held in both East and West to be oecumenical, viz. those of Nicaea I (325); Constantinople I (381); Ephesus (431); Chalcedon (451); Constantinople II (553); Constantinople III (680); Nicaea II (787). The Roman Catholic Church reckons 14 further councils as possessing oecumenical authority.
[source: Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church].
We're not saying there were many Councils, so the argument that there've been more in the 20th century is rather unhelpful. Just seven in sixteen centuries, with the two most recent being two hundred and eight hundred years ago? I see the "Great Age of Councils" as belonging to the distant past: the Seventh Council is more of a Renaissance political exercise, comparable to (say) the Council of Florence. It certainly felt like one, watching all those Bishops wandering around and scheming...
> The 7th Malkioni conference, at least, would be like bringing together
> [list deleted] ... you get the picture.
But how do they know that? The Sixth Council was held during the Closing of the Oceans, and the Fifth Council was a *heck* of time ago: before the foundation of the Rokari and Hrestoli Idealist churches, in our timeline. People in these Churches *don't know* who they're going to like, dislike, convert, crusade against, et cetera. Drop out of the twentieth century "information age" for a second...
Besides, correcting false doctrine and preaching the One Truth is surely an incentive for anyone to turn up: attendance at the Council would mean you're a "proper Malkioni Church".
> I think the ecumenical conferences are clearly game-constructs for the
> purpose of having a fun LARP.
Of course they are: I wish you'd been there to enjoy it! But that doesn't make them utterly implausible. Greg's "official" line on the Councils is that there will be a Seventh Ecclesiastical Council in Sog City in 1625, and it will be an important event for the Western Churches. But, quite obviously, it won't have as many jokes as our version, and will have a more "realistic," "significant" outcome.
Please remember, too, that the Church today is *far* more fragmented than at any time in history: this is the first proper Council since the Fifth Council, held eight hundred years ago! (The Sixth Council was a "quick fix" for the Rokari, at which all important business was held over until the seventh). It's the first chance most of these sects have ever had to meet and debate with each other. Unlike your well-informed modern Xtian and spin-offs example.
BTW, I thought you were a keen promulgator of the "Malkionism as Shari'a" line; which surely requires occasional debate over the interpretation of the Law to achieve consensus among the ulema. But Mike Dawson seems to have missed this point, too.
> The martyrdom at Sogolotha. For all the reasons Mike mentioned in his
> seminar (see the transcript in the upcoming post-Con book), and for
> others, I don't like this.
Can you email me that transcript when it's done? Mike's seminar was sadly scheduled for 9.00 am, at which hour I had turned into a pumpkin. I think from past performances that you're objecting to a crucifixion rather than a martyrdom per se: but consider the role of the King of Loskalm as "the sacrificial hero, ready to die in the ultimate rite of his religion," and what this gives us: a workable Hrestoli/Malkioni martyr complex. There's more Game Fun in that than not.
Thanks a lot for the feedback!
Powered by hypermail