Talk:Gelasian Decree
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Rome may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
More history needed edit
This article needs a more careful explanation of the complicated history of the so-called Decretum Gelasianum— by an editor who has profited by reading the External link, for a start. --Wetman 30 June 2005 02:25 (UTC)
External links edit
This was sent to the Wikipedia helpdesk email address; could someone more knowledgeable please verify this? Mindspillage (spill yours?) 2 July 2005 02:49 (UTC)
In the hyperlink below Decretum Gelasianum,
http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/decretum.html what follows the words "III. Item dictum est:" is a forgery. And it can be verified beyond absolutely any doubt by noticing that dates do not coincide. It says that it authorizes to read the documents of the synod of Ephesus, but this was in the year 431, so it is impossible that it can be referred to by a synod that took place in 382. The same happens with the synod of Chalcedon which took place en 451! And many inconsistencies like this can be found. This is mortal to any service of information and it kills the credibility of institutions, so it must be corrected as soon as
possible.
No action It appears the original poster was claiming that Decretum Gelasianum is a forgery rather than expressing any concerns with our article. Thus this is WP:OR. Daask (talk) 22:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Not to be received edit
What does “not to be received” mean? 67.86.52.92 (talk) 01:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC)