Talk:Donatism

Catholic

I remove the word 'Catholic' from the article because this took place long before the Great Schism. Catholic isn't necessarily the wrong word to use, but Orthodox could be used just as accurately. Rather than intermix the two, it seems easiest to distinguish between Donatism and the rest of Christianity for purposes of this discussion. Wesley 21:55 Nov 6, 2002 (UTC)

I see Wesley's explanation for removing the word 'Catholic'. I think that is a mistake. Yes, 'Orthodox' is equally accurate here, and neither Catholic nor Orthodox will object to the use of either word. But removing both _fails_ to accurately distinguish between Donatism and the rest of Christianity, because there were already other significant groups that were not Catholic (in any sense of the word), yet claimed to be the Christian Church.

But I am more concerned about the misuse of the word 'heresy' in this article. Neither the Roman Catholic Church, nor the Orthodox Church, ever classified the Donatists as _heretics_. They were always classified as schismatics, except for the decree of the Emperor Honorius, which really has no weight in the matter.

Actually, the Donatists were considered heretics, since their *doctrines* went contrary to orthodox Catholic Christianity. Naturally, they were also schismatics. Also, there were no "Donatist Popes of Rome"; if there were, we should see documentation of it. The Popes of Rome have always been orthodox Catholic.

I changed the term "heresy" to "sect," which is more accurate and less POV. It is also the word the Roman Catholic Church itself uses to describe Donatism.

modern meaning of the word

Today, "Donatism" is the belief (labeled a heresy by the Catholic Church) that a corrupt priest cannot administer a sacrament. This modern day meaning should be put in a prominent place in the article, which is good as far as it goes but tells us only history.24.44.252.192 (talk) 19:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)captcrisis

Catholic is not unreasonable here, but linking it to "Roman_Catholic_Church" is misleading and anachronistic. --Haruo 20:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps using "catholic" (small C) here would work best, as that might get across how they were outside of the Christian mainstream, without referring to the Roman Catholic Church as it became a later institution. It would be using "catholic" more in its sense of "universal," a way that is commonly used in classrooms. Naturally, it would seem prudent to include a word or two to explain this distinction in the article, so as to inform the casual reader. VincentValentine29 22:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Donatist Popes of Rome?

By what stretch of the imagination are we labeling certain Popes Donatisits? Just because they hailed from North Africa?

succession question

• Quote: Outside Africa the Donatists had a bishop residing on the property of an adherent in Spain, and at an early period of the schism they made a bishop for their small congregation in Rome, which met, it seems, on a hill outside the city, and had the name of "Montenses". This antipapal "succession with a beginning" was frequently ridiculed by Catholic writers. The series included Felix, Boniface, Encolpius, Macrobius (c. 370), Lucian, Claudian (c. 378), and again Felix in 411. from New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia webpage. Is this list of names according to Donatist sources? Is this succession plausible? Can anyone verify this info about this...Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.239.133.151 (talk • contribs) .

Article should be Donatism, no?

For the sake of uniformity I think it would make sense to rewrite the first sentence (e.g.

Donatism was a movement, and system of belief, considered heretical by the Orthodox, or Catholic, Christian churches of the time, which took a less forgiving approach than the other churches to those who had, under persecution, renounced Christ and later sought reacceptance in the church. Donatism was founded by the Berber Christian leader Donatus Magnus—hence the name—and was predominantly centered in North Africa, then a Roman Province. The movement flourished in the fourth and fifth centuries.

or something like that) and to move the article to Donatism, since the various other church movements, orthodox and heterodox alike, are generally covered under the name of the "ism" not the name of the "ist". --Haruo 20:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Donatist punishment?

Is there some reason to call the image of generally used Roman punishment of "damning to the beasts" as "Donatist punishment"? Has it got any link especially to donatism? --Mmh (talk) 10:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

No answer, obviously no relevance. I have removed the image, therefore. --Mmh (talk) 12:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Introduction to Donatism Article

Donatism was characterized primarily by its highly contentious schismatic formation, its revival of extreme rigorism, and its ultimate centralization of church authority in the person of the Emperor. The current introduction with its a discussion of ethnic and geographical contexts misleads the reader into thinking that Donatism was an ethncally Berber branch of orthodox Christianity. The statement that Donatism was "an offshoot church which maintained the need of strong moral principles and did not follow some of the doctrines of other churches of the rest of Early Christianity in Late Antiquity" could not be more vague or misleading. "Other churches"? What?

The historical importance of Donatism is not in its rigorist principles or the ethnicity of its adherents, but in its role as the first non-doctrinal Christian schism under the Christian Roman Empire. It was sufficiently deviant from orthodox catholic praxis to impel imperial intervention at the behest of orthodox bishops. That intervention demonstrated the remarkable degree to which Constantine - not yet even a baptized Christian - established the role of emperor as orthodox partisan and head of the Christian church. (The first eight Ecumenical Councils were called by Emperors, not Popes.)

I think it erroneous to assert that the Donatist schism was the "indirect" result of the Diocletianian persecution. All my sources make it clear that the cleavage was the very direct result of disputes arising from differing Christian responses to the persecution. Were it not for the persecution, the Donatism schism would not have arisen.

Also in the introductory paragraphs, the emphasis on Berber ethnicity seems misplaced at best. Neither Caecilian, the rigorist cleric elected bishop of Carthage after the Persecution, or Majorinus, the orthodox bishop who deposed and ex-communicated him, were Berbers. While it is possible that Donatus of Casae Nigrae, Majorinus' successor, may been a Berber, this is nowhere confirmed in any literature that I could find.

Clearly there's much more to be done with this page - including a great deal of pruning - and I will pursue the topic as time allows. I'll make no further edits before previewing them on this Talk page. Your feedback will be welcome and appreciated. KellyArt (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)(talk) 23:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Leadership disqualification in Donatism

Remove "According to the Donatists, serious sin would permanently disqualify a man from leadership" as it is uncited and contradicts with what I found. Instead, add "A bishop had to avoid the sin of apostasy, both personally and in the college of bishops in which he participated. However other serious sins do not disqualify Donatist bishops as ministers. Even schism against the unity of the Donatist communion does not disqualify the bishop" Feel free to change the exact wording as I simply pasted it here from this link from Vanderbilt University April 12, 2021

Source pg 11

LostCitrationHunter (talk) 03:54, 30 August 2021 (UTC)