Why I Left Protestantism for Catholicism

Good luck on this council. It cannot in any real sense be called an Ecumenical Council absent the participation of all the Churches.

The most divisive issues on the Orthodox agenda relate to the relations between the local Churches. The models of these relations are constantly evolving, reflecting global political frameworks. Understandings of the fellowship of the Orthodox Churches changes constantly, and there is no agreement on it. From what I gather the Russian Orthodox would participate but agree only if there is complete unanimity on issues. This means except for some mundane procedural matters, issues of uniform scriptural interpretation and liturgy will be left out. It will be council all right but more like the UN Security Council. The chaos of orthodoxy continue unless and until it begins the process of re-engrfating itself to the barque of Peter

A “Roman invention”
I hadn’t heard that before. And yet the Orthodox Churches until 1054 accepted this “Roman invention” and agreed to the decrees issued under Petrine authority in the first seven councils including the Catholic Nicene Creed. Those decrees were mandates, not suggestions, and were infallible on issues of dogma BECAUSE of Petrine authority.

A “Roman invention” I hadn’t heard that before. And yet the Orthodox Churches until 1054 accepted this “Roman invention” and agreed to the decrees issued under Petrine authority in the first seven councils including the Catholic Nicene Creed. Those decrees were mandates, not suggestions, and were infallible on issues of dogma BECAUSE of Petrine authority.

Rubbish! You are making claims that even your church doesn't support. And it is incompatible with Rome's flip flop on the Eighth Council, that you STILL HAVE NOT EXPLAINED despite innumerable requests.

So which is the Eighth Council? The one infallibly confirmed by Rome in AD 880? Or is it the Council of 869-70 that Rome condemned for two hundred years, before reversing course?

Clearly this is a subject you would rather not talk about since it doesn't exactly support Roman claims to infallibility. While we are at it we can add the Quinisext Council (Trullo) that Rome never recognized but the rest of the Church did and still does. All without Rome's precious approval. And this a good four hundred years before Rome formally went into schism. Oh the scandal!

There is nothing to talk about this subject. You make it sound as if there is only one side to it. The reason why I omitted this was its a historical irrelevancy given that Petrine authority is at the heart of any controversy.

The RCC and EOC recognize two different “8th ecumenical councils” is historically interesting.

There was a council in AD 869-70, in which Photios was condemned and Ignatius I was confirmed as the legitimate Patriarch of Constantinople. Today Catholics accept this as an ecumenical council. This is what the Catholic Church called “the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople” or “Constantinople IV,” which is the eight ecumenical council, was held on AD 869-70.

In AD 879-80, there was another council, which reversed the first and declared Photios the lawful Patriarch.

The Orthodox hold this council of 879-80 as ecumenical, and declare the previous one to be a “robber council.” The Orthodox would like to think that this is the eight ecumenical council and that this council annulled the one held at AD 869.

Not so!

When Photius went bad, Pope John VIII, sent legates to Constantinople. A council was held there and Photius was condemned along with his errors [which he promulgated on a council in 867]. THIS IS “THE FOURTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE” OR “CONSTANTINOPLE IV.”

Now after the council, Ignatius was reinstated as Patriach. A few years later Ignatius died.

To cut long story short [and an interesting story it is] Photius was then installed as the Patriach. The legates reported this to the Pope. The legates were also sent to ask the emperor’s favor for Rome was in danger. Beside reporting about the new patriach, the legates also report that the emperor was sympathetic to Rome (eventually he sent his army).

The Pope hoped that by acknowledging Photius all will ends well. All censure against Photius was removed. Then on 879 Photius asked the Pope to send legates for another council, which he said will clear up matter.

THIS IS THE INFAMOUS COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE 879.

FROM THIS POINT THERE ARE TWO SIDE OF THE STORY BELIEVED BY CATHOLIC (Story A) AND ORTHODOX (Story B).

Story A:

In that council Photius repeated his all accusation against the Latin. Including the filioque. He also wanted Bulgaria back to Byzantine (there’s a long story about this, it’s enough simply to say that both Rome and Constantinople wanted Bulgaria).

The legates were pressured and bribed. They yield. Photius sent the act of this council to Rome. Pope John VIII re-excommunicated Photius.

Story B:

During the Constantinople Council of 879, “Photius was now all that any Pope could desire” He promised to repent and back off from Bulgaria. About the filioque, he diplomatically sidestepped it. The legates crowned him with a handsome vestment complimentary from the Pope.

Catholics accept Story A and that’s the end of it.

Orthodox Outlet for Dogmatic Enquiries	Christian Dogmatics - Orthodoxy - Papism

The Ecumenical Synods

The 8th Ecumenical Council: Constantinople IV (879/880) and the Condemnation of the Filioque Addition and Doctrine

by: Fr. George Dion. Dragas

Source: http://reocities.com/heartland/5654/orthodox/dragas_eighth.html

PREAMBLE
Did the Eighth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (879/880) condemn the Filioque addition to the Ecumenical Creed as canonically unacceptable and theologically unsound? This is the question that this paper attempts to answer in light of recent discussions between Orthodox and Lutherans in America.
It consists of three parts, a) clarifications concerning the "Eighth Ecumenical Council," b) the significance of the Horos of this Council for the Filioque controversy, and c) a fresh look at the Horos itself of this Council.

a) Clarifications concerning the Eighth Ecumenical Council

As far as Ecumenical Councils go the Greek Orthodox East and the Latin West appear to be divided at the point where the Eighth Ecumenical Council is introduced. Both Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholics accept the first Seven Ecumenical Councils.¹ Beyond these Seven Councils, however, the Roman Catholics enumerate several others, which bring the total number to 21 — Vatican II being the latest.² The Orthodox Church does not enumerate any more beyond the Seven, although she accepts several Councils which occurred afterwards and call themselves "Ecumenical" (as their minutes show). One of them is the so-called Eighth Ecumenical or Constantinople IV (879-880).³
Roman Catholic scholars have repeatedly remarked that the Orthodox have not had — and for that matter, could not have had — any further Ecumenical Councils beyond the first Seven after their separation from the Roman See in 1054. This is totally unjustified and misleading. Lack of enumeration does not imply lack of application. Orthodox conciliar history and relevant conciliar documents, clearly indicate the existence of several Ecumenical Councils after the first Seven, which carry on the conciliar life of the Church in history in a way which is much more rigorous than that of the Latin Church. These Councils [including that of Constantinople 879/880, the "Eighth Ecumenical" as it is called in the Tomos Charas (Τόμος Χαρᾶς) of Patriarch Dositheos who first published its proceedings in 1705⁴ and also by Metropolitan Nilus Rhodi whose text is cited in Mansi's edition⁵] have not been enumerated in the East because of Orthodox anticipation of possible healing of the Schism of 1054, which was pursued by the Orthodox up to the capture of Constantinople by the Turks in 1453. There are other obvious reasons that prevented enumeration, most of which relate to the difficult years that the Orthodox Church had to face after the capture of Constantinople and the dissolution of the Roman Empire that supported it. This, however, is not a matter that needs to be discussed here.
The case of the Eighth Ecumenical Council provides the occasion not only for clarifying this divergence, but also for indicating the arbitrary conciliar development of the Church of Rome after its separation from the Eastern Orthodox Churches. For Roman Catholics the Eighth Ecumenical Council is a Council that was held in Constantinople in 869/870 — also known as the Ignatian Council, because it restored Ignatios to the Patriarchal throne — which among other matters procured the condemnation of Ecumenical Patriarch Photios.⁶ It is clearly confirmed by modern scholarship, however, that this Ignatian Council was rejected by another Constantinopolitan Council which was held exactly ten years later in 879/880. This Council is also known as the Photian Council, because it exonerated and restored to the Throne of Constantinople St. Photios and his fellow Hierarchs and was signed by both Easterners and Westerners.⁷ How did it happen that Roman Catholics came to ignore this conciliar fact? Following Papadopoulos Kerameus, Johan Meijer — author of a most thorough study of the Constantinopolitan Council of 879/880 — has pointed out that Roman Catholic canonists first referred to their Eighth Ecumenical Council (the Ignatian one) in the beginning of the twelfth century. In line with Dvornic and others, Meijer also explained that this was done deliberately because these canonists needed at that time canon 22 of that Council. In point of fact, however, they overlooked the fact that "this Council had been cancelled by another, the Photian Synod of 879-880 — the acts of which were also kept in the pontifical archives."⁸ It is interesting to note that later on the Roman Catholics called this Photian Council "Conciliabulum Oecumenicum Pseudooctavum", thereby acknowledging it implicitly as another Eighth Council rival to that of their own choice!⁹
The history of this Constantinopolitan Council, which has left its mark on the career of Ecumenical Patriarch Photios, one of the greatest Patriarchs of the Great Church of Christ, has been thoroughly researched by modern historians. Dvornic's pioneering work has restored the basic facts.¹⁰ Meijer in 1975,¹¹ Phidas in 1994¹² and Siamakis in 1995¹³ have refined these facts. There is no doubt to anyone who surveys this literature that the Roman Catholic position is untenable. The Photian Council of 879/880 is that which: i) annulled the Ignatian one (869/70), ii) enumerated the Seventh (787) adding it to the previous Six, iii) restored unity to the Church of Constantinople itself and to the Churches of Old and New Rome, which had been shattered by the arbitrary interference of the popes of Rome in the life of the Eastern Church especially through the Ignatian Council, and iv) laid down the canonical and theological basis of the union of the Church in East and West through its Horos.

b) The significance of the Horos of this Council for the Filioque controversy

It is with the theological basis of this Council that we are particularly concerned here. Did the Horos of faith of this Council, which was articulated at the sixth session in the presence of the King, have any bearings on the Filioque controversy? The Lutheran theologian Dr. Bruce Marshall has suggested that it did not. Indeed for him "the Filioque as a theological issue played virtually no role either in the breakdown of communion between Constantinople and Rome or in the restoration of communion; it was only much later that the theological issues surrounding the Filioque were even discussed between East and West."¹⁴ Furthermore, Dr. Marshall has claimed that it was only as a canonical issue that the Filioque played a role at that time, inasmuch as only its insertion into the Creed was considered to be unacceptable and constituted grounds for breaking communion. The implication of this argument, which is pursued by some Western scholars, is that contemporary discussions between Orthodox and Western Christians should not make the theological issue over the Filioque a criterion for restoring communion between them.
As a response to this thesis I want to recall the views of Orthodox scholars who have dealt with this Photian Council and more generally with the Councils of the 9th century which led to the overcoming of a big crisis in communion between East and West. By doing this I intend to convey that from an Orthodox point of view the distinction between what is "canonical" and what is "theological" is a juridical one and does not carry any real weight. Far from being helpful, it becomes an instrument for perpetuating an arbitrary situation that can only lead to unfruitful and precarious agreements.
In 1974 the American Orthodox scholar Richard Haugh, in a study of the history of the Trinitarian controversy between East and West with special reference to the Filioque, stated that "the sixth session of the Council of 879/880 had enormous bearings on the Triadological controversy."¹⁵ He defended this by citing and discussing the Horos of faith, which was formulated at that time.
Haugh examined the particular nuances of the Horos of this Council in the light of the subsequent writings of Photios relating to the Filioque doctrine¹⁶ — especially his Letter to the Patriarch of Aquileia¹⁷ and his Mystagogy on the Holy Spirit,¹⁸ both of which took the Horos as a powerful rebuff against the Frankish doctrine of the Filioque which formed the theological background to the theological controversy between Orthodox and Westerners at that time. Had the Horos of 879/880 not had any theological import on the Filioque then why does St. Photios refer to such an issue in these two documents? In no case, either before or after the Council of 879/880 did Photios reject the Filioque on just canonical grounds. Actually he explicitly stated that his grounds were both biblical and theological. They were biblical for they were based on the teaching of St. John's Gospel and on the explicit saying that the "Spirit proceeds from the Father" (full stop!). They were also theological in that the Filioque introduced two causes and two origins in the Trinity and thus utterly destroyed the monarchy of the Holy Trinity. Why would St. Photios write such a full theological critique as that of his Mystagogia only a few years later if his only concern were simply the preservation of the original wording of the Creed? Would it not have sufficed if he had simply referred to the canonical prohibition of the Horos of 879/880?
In 1975 Meijer published his thorough study of the Photian Council of 879/880 putting forward the thesis, as the title of his book stated, that this was "a successful Council of union." In part iii of this study, entitled "Reflection" he concluded: "the restoration of unity was the reason for the convocation of the Synod of 879-880. More precisely, perhaps, it celebrated peace once more in the Church of God."¹⁹ But he went on to explain that the basis of this unity was theological. In his own words, "this unity means first of all unity in the same faith. Photios was a strong defender of the purity of doctrine" [the italics are Meijer's]. Indeed, "where orthodoxy was concerned, Photios was the true spokesman of the Byzantine Bishops."²⁰ And Meijer goes on, "the West also attached great value to the purity of faith, but in fact concentrated more on the question of devotion to the Church of Rome. At the Synod of 879-880 the Fathers' care for purity of doctrine emerged in the Horos (the formula of faith of the Synod) which they proclaimed. This Horos cannot be understood as a dogmatic definition ... but rather as the true expression of the ecclesiastical feeling of the Synod ... expressed by the conciliar Creed of Nicaea-Constantinople ... There is no doubt that Photios opposed the addition of the Filioque to the Creed on dogmatic grounds. In his famous encyclical to the oriental Patriarchs he complained about this addition by the Frankish missionaries working in Bulgaria, because he considered it theologically unacceptable. His whole argument is based on the conviction that this addition undermined the unity of God. We find the same reasoning in his Mystagogia and in his letter to the Archbishop of Aquileia."²¹ Photios knew, of course, that the Roman Church had not approved of the Frankish Filioque, and hence she agreed on the conciliar refusal of inserting it into the Creed. He also knew, however, that the Franks were striving to introduce the Filioque into the Creed on theological grounds — as they eventually did. Thus Meijer concludes: "there is no doubt that the Horos of the Photian Synod officially disapproved of the [theological and for that matter canonical] use of the Filioque by the Frankish missionaries in Bulgaria [cf. the phrase he cites here from the Horos τῇ διανοίᾳ καὶ γλώσσῃ στέγομεν, which is reminiscent of St. Photios' Encyclical of 867] and was not directed against the church of Rome which at that time did not use the addition either."²²
In 1985 Dr. Constantine Siamakis stated in his extensive introduction to the new edition of Patriarch Dositheos' Τόμος Χαρᾶς the same point of view. "At this Ecumenical Synod the Filioque was condemned as teaching and as addition into the Symbol of the Faith."²³ In his description of the 6th session of the Council he stated: "The Filioque is condemned ...etc." and further on, "without mentioning the Filioque, the emperor asks for an Horos of the Synod and the synodical members present at this meeting propose the Horos of the first two Ecumenical Councils, i.e. the Symbol of the Faith, but without any addition and with the stipulation that any addition or subtraction or alteration in it should incur the anathema of the Church. This is accepted by the emperor who signs it and the synodical members who express their satisfaction."²⁴ It is important to note that Siamakis attempted a critical investigation of the text of the Minutes and exposed the intention of various Western manuscripts (e.g. Cod. Vaticanus Graecus 1892 of the 16th century) and of the various Western editors of the Acts of this Council (e.g. Rader's edition of 1604) to hide the fact that the Horos is in fact an implicit but clear condemnation of the Frankish Filioque.
More recently in 1994 Professor Phidas of Athens University stated the same point of view in his new and impressive manual of Church History. In his discussion of the Photian Council of 879/880 he wrote, that "the antithesis between the Old and the New Rome was also connected with the theological dispute over the "Filioque," which did not inhibit at that time the restoration of communion between Rome and Constantinople, since it had not been inserted into the Symbol of the Faith by the papal throne, but had acquired at that time a dogmatic character in the obvious tendency of diversification between East and West." Phidas also suggested, that "apparently the papal representatives may not have realized the scope of the suggestion of restating the traditional Creed in the Horos of the Council which was implicitly connected with the condemnation of the Filioque addition to this Creed, which had been already adopted in the West by the Franks ... Yet all the participating Bishops understood that this was meant to be a condemnation of the Filioque addition to the Creed."²⁵ Furthermore Phidas determined that the acceptance of the Horos by Pope John VIII was due to the influence of Zachariah of Anagne, librarian of the Vatican, papal legate at the Council and a friend and sympathizer of St. Photios to whom the latter addressed an epistle as a vote of thanks.
The above references clearly indicate that contemporary Orthodox scholarly opinion is unanimous in understanding the Horos of the Photian Council of 879/880 as having a direct bearing on the Filioque controversy. It condemns the Filioque not only as an addition to the Creed but also as a doctrine. It is acknowledged, of course, that this condemnation is implicit and not explicit in the strong and vehement condemnation in the Horos of any kind of addition to the Creed. That this implication is unavoidable is based both on the historical context of this Council — the conflict between Photios and the Frankish theologians, which lies in the foreground and background to this Council. To restrict this implication to a mere "canonical issue" which has no theological bearing, is unwarranted by the text and the dogmengeschichtlich context which entails Photios' opposition to the Frankish doctrine on the Filioque. This may become more apparent by looking afresh at the Horos itself.

c) a fresh look at the Horos itself of the Eighth Ecumenical Council

The following text is, to my knowledge, the first complete translation of the Horos of the Eighth Ecumenical Council which appears in both the minutes of the sixth and the seventh acts:²⁶

"Jointly sanctifying and preserving intact the venerable and divine teaching of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, which has been established in the bosom of our mind, with unhesitating resolve and purity of faith, as well as the sacred ordinances and canonical stipulations of his holy disciples and Apostles with an unwavering judgment, and indeed, those Seven holy and ecumenical Synods which were directed by the inspiration of the one and the same Holy Spirit and effected the [Christian] preaching, and jointly guarding with a most honest and unshakeable resolve the canonical institutions invulnerable and unfalsified, we expel those who removed themselves from the Church, and embrace and regard worthy of receiving those of the same faith or teachers of orthodoxy to whom honor and sacred respect is due as they themselves ordered. Thus, having in mind and declaring all these things, we embrace with mind and tongue (τῇ διανοίᾳ καὶ γλώσσῃ) and declare to all people with a loud voice the Horos (Rule) of the most pure faith of the Christians which has come down to us from above through the Fathers, subtracting nothing, adding nothing, falsifying nothing; for subtraction and addition, when no heresy is stirred up by the ingenious fabrications of the evil one, introduces disapprobation of those who are exempt from blame and inexcusable assault on the Fathers. As for the act of changing with falsified words the Horoi (Rules, Boundaries) of the Fathers is much worse that the previous one. Therefore, this holy and ecumenical Synod embracing whole-heartedly and declaring with divine desire and straightness of mind, and establishing and erecting on it the firm edifice of salvation, thus we think and loudly proclaim this message to all:
"I believe in One God, Father Almighty, ... and in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God... and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord ... who proceeds from the Father... [the whole Creed is cited here]
Thus we think, in this confession of faith we were we baptized, through this one the word of truth proved that every heresy is broken to pieces and canceled out. We enroll as brothers and fathers and coheirs of the heavenly city those who think thus. If anyone, however, dares to rewrite and call Rule of Faith some other exposition besides that of the sacred Symbol which has been spread abroad from above by our blessed and holy Fathers even as far as ourselves, and to snatch the authority of the confession of those divine men and impose on it his own invented phrases (ἰδίαις εὑρεσιολογίαις) and put this forth as a common lesson to the faithful or to those who return from some kind of heresy, and display the audacity to falsify completely (κατακιβδηλεῦσαι ἀποθρασυνθείη) the antiquity of this sacred and venerable Horos (Rule) with illegitimate words, or additions, or subtractions, such a person should, according to the vote of the holy and Ecumenical Synods, which has been already acclaimed before us, be subjected to complete defrocking if he happens to be one of the clergymen, or be sent away with an anathema if he happens to be one of the lay people."

The solemnity and severity of this statement is quite striking. The reference to the Lord, the Apostles and the Fathers as guardians of the true faith clearly imply that what is at stake here is a theological issue. The issue is not just words or language but thought and mind as well. The whole construction clearly implies that there is some serious problem in the air which, however, is not explicitly named. The focus is the Creed, which is said to be irreplaceable. It is totally unacceptable to replace it with anything else. It is worse, however, to tamper with it, to add or to subtract from it. The addition or subtraction is not merely a formal matter, but has to do with the substance of the faith into which one is baptized and on which salvation in the Church is established. To commit such a mistake can only mean rejection of the faith once delivered to the saints and therefore can only incur expulsion from the Church. What else could St. Photios have in mind but the Filioque? Was there any other threat to the Creed at that time?
The Filioque was the only problem, which he himself above every one else had detected and denounced earlier on when he became fully aware of its severity. This is also the creedal problem, which he will pinpoint again shortly after this Synod, and will produce his extensive treatise on it. The purpose of this Horos could not be anything else but a buffer against the coming storm, which he foresaw. The Frankish theologians had already committed this error and were pressing for it with the Popes. Rome had resisted it, but for how long? He must have thought that an Ecumenical Council's Horos, which included severe penalties on those who tampered with the ancient faith, would be respected and the danger would be averted. That this was not only the mind of Photios but of the whole Council becomes obvious in the reactions of the Bishops to the reading of the Horos.
We read in the minutes of the Sixth act that after reading the Horos the Bishops shouted:

"Thus we think, thus we believe, into this confession were we baptized and became worthy to enter the priestly orders. We regard, therefore, as enemies of God and of the truth those who think differently as compared to this. If one dares to rewrite another Symbol besides this one, or add to it, or subtract from it, or to remove anything from it, and to display the audacity to call it a Rule, he will be condemned and thrown out of the Christian Confession. For to subtract from, or to add to, the holy and consubstantial and undivided Trinity shows that the confession we have always had to this day is imperfect. [In other words the problem which is implied but not named has to do with the Trinitarian doctrine]. It condemns the Apostolic Tradition and the doctrine of the Fathers. If one, then having come to such a point of mindlessness as to dare do what we have said above, and set forth another Symbol and call it a Rule, or to add to or subtract from the one which has been handed down to us by the first great, holy and Ecumenical Synod of Nicaea, let him be Anathema."²⁷

The minutes go on to record the approbation of this solemn statement by the representatives of the other Patriarchates and finally by the Emperor himself. The Emperor's statement and signature leave no doubt of the seriousness of this theological Horos which was issued by an ecumenical Council of the Church:

"In the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, Basil Emperor in Christ, faithful king of the Romans, agreeing in every way with this holy and ecumenical Synod in confirmation and sealing of the holy and ecumenical Seventh Synod, in confirmation and sealing of Photios the most holy Patriarch of Constantinople and spiritual father of mine, and in rejection of all that was written or spoken against him, 1 have duly signed with my own hand."²⁸

By way of epilogue it may be pointed out that the image of St. Photios that emerges from the acts of the Eighth Ecumenical Council is one of moderation, sensitivity and maturity. Confrontation is avoided but without compromising firmness in matters that relate to the faith. Generosity towards others is displayed and maturity permeates everything. This is indeed the image, which Prof. Henry Chadwick has recently resolved to promote.²⁹ This is the authentic image of the East.
The Photian Council of 879/880 is indeed the Eighth Ecumenical of the Catholic Church, Eastern and Western and Orthodox. It is a Council of Unity — the last one before the storm of the great Schism — based on the common Holy Tradition and especially on the unadulterated faith of the Ecumenical Creed.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Notes

These Seven Ecumenical Councils are as follows: Nicaea (325), Constantinople I (382), Ephesus (431/3), Chalcedon (451), Constantinople II (553), Constantinople III (680/1), Nicaea II (787).

See the latest collection of Canons of Roman Catholic Ecumenical Councils: Norman R Tanner, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Sheed & Ward, London, 1990.

The best known later Orthodox Ecumenical Councils are those connected with St Gregory Palamas in the 14th century, whose Horoi are basic texts of Orthodox Dogmatics. The Council of Constantinople of 1484, after the capture of the City by the Turks, which condemned the decisions of the unionist Synod of Ferrara-Florence (1437 9) also recognizes itself as "A Great Holy and Ecumenical Council." The whole issue of Ecumenical Councils, beyond the first eight of the first millennium, remains, to my mind, an open question, which could and should be addressed today.

See the 1985 reprint of the Thessalonian Publisher V. Regopoulos: Δοσιθέου Πατριάρχου Ἱεροσολύμων, Τόμος Χαρᾶς, Εἰσαγωγή, Σχόλια, Ἐπιμέλεια Κειμένων Κωνσταντίνου Σιαμάκη, Ἐκδόσεις Βασ. Ρηγόπουλου, Θεσσαλονίκη 1985. According to Siamakis this edition was based on a Manuscript from the Athonite Monastery of Iveron which, unfortunately, is now lost (see op. cit. pp. 90ff).

J. D. Mansi, Sacrorum Concilorum nova et amplissima Collectio, tom. 17, cl. 371f. This edition is a reprint from J. Harduin's earlier editions in 1703 and in 1767. This edition was based on a manuscript that was kept in the Vatican Library. Dr. Siamakis believes that it is probably Ms Vaticanus Graecus 1115 (15th century). On this and the later attempts in the West to falsify or edit these Minutes see further in Dr. Siamakis' Introduction. op. cit. pp. 104ff.

On the Eighth Ecumenical Council the Roman Catholic Hubert Jedin writes: "The Catholic Church recognizes the assembly of 869-70 as an ecumenical council. Not so the Greek Church. St Photios was rehabilitated and at the death of Ignatius he was once again raised to the patriarchal see. A synod assembled by him in 879-80 rejected the decisions of the previous council. The Greeks count this synod as the eighth ecumenical council, but a second schism was apparently avoided" (from his Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church: A Historical Outline, Herder: Freiburg, Nelson: Edinburgh, London 1960, p. 58). Jedin is inaccurate on several counts, but this is typical of most Western writers. The Council was summoned by Emperor Basil and was attended by the legates of Pope John VIII and of all the Eastern Patriarchs. Jedin says that the schism was apparently avoided, but does not explain that this was the case because the Pope through his legates had accepted not only St. Photios' restoration, but also the condemnation of the previous anti-Photian councils in Rome and in Constantinople. We should add here that the Minutes of the Ignatian Council (869/70), which have not survived in the original, are found in two edited versions: Mansi, vol. xvi: 16-208 (Latin) and xvi: 308-420 (Greek) and differ considerably from each other. On this and for a full description of the 10 Acts of these Minutes see Siamakis, op. cit. pp. 54-75. It is important to recall here that this Council was most irregular in its composition, since it included false legates from Alexandria and Jerusalem, more royal lay people than bishops (only 12) at the start and during the first two sessions. Eventually 130 bishops are mentioned in the Minutes but only 84 actually appear signing (op. cit. p. 56f). Most important irregularity, however, was the fact that the Minutes were mutilated at the most crucial points, especially the section of the condemnation of the Filioque (op. cit. p. 74)!

The condemnation of the Roman Catholic Eighth Council (the anti-Photian Council of Constantinople of 869/70) by Pope John VIII is first given in this Pope's Letter to the Emperors Basil, Leo and Alexander. In this Letter which was read at the second session of the Photian Council of Constantinople of 879/80 and is included in the second Act of the Minutes, Pope John VIII writes: "And first of all receive Photios the most amazing and most reverend High-Priest of God our Brother Patriarch and co-celebrant who is co-sharer, co-participant and inheritor of the communion which is in the Holy Church of the Romans... receive the man unpretentiously. No one should behave pretentiously [following] the unjust councils which were made against him. No one. as it seems right to many who behave like a herd of cows, should use the negative votes of the blessed Hierarchs who preceded us. Nicholas, I mean, and Hadrian as an excuse [to oppose him]; since they did not prove what had been cunningly concocted against him... Everything that was done against him has now ceased and been banished..." (The Latin text is this Ac primum quidem a nobis suscipi Photium praetantissimum ac reverentissimum Dei Pontificem et Patriarcham, in fratrem nostrum et comministrum, eundemque communionis cum sancta Romana ecclesia participem, consortem, et haeredem... Suscipite virum sine aliqua exrusatione. Nemo praetexat eas quae contra ipsum factae sunt innjustas synodos. Nemo, ut plerisque videtur imperitis ac rudibis, decessorum nostrorum beatorum Pontificum, Nicolai inquam, et Hadriani, decreta culpet... Finita sunt enim omnia, repudiata omnia, quae adversus cum gesta sunt, infirma irritaquae reddita... Mansi vol xvii, cls. 400D & 401BC. For the Greek see Dositheos op. cit. p. 281f).
A similar condemnation is found in Pope John VIII's Letter to Photios where he writes: "As for the Synod that was summoned against your Reverence we have annulled here and have completely banished, and have ejected [it from our archives], because of the other causes and because our blessed predecessor Pope Hadrian did not subscribe to it..." (Latin text: Synodum vero, quae contra tuam reverentiam ibidem est habita, rescidimus, damnavimus omnino, et abjecimus: tum ob alias causas, tum quo decessor noster beatus Papa Hadrianus in ea non subscripsit..." Mansi vol. xvii cl. 416E. For the Greek see Dositheos op. cit. p. 292).
Finally in Pope John VIII's Commonitorium or Mandatum ch. 10, which was read by the papal legates at the third Session of the same Council, we find the following: "We [Pope John VIII] wish that it is declared before the Synod, that the Synod which took place against the aforementioned Patriarch Photios at the time of Hadrian, the Most holy Pope in Rome, and [the Synod] in Constantinople [869/70] should be ostracized from this present moment and be regarded as annulled and groundless, and should not be co-enumerated with any other holy Synods." The minutes at this point add: "The Holy Synod responded: We have denounced this by our actions and we eject it from the archives and anathematize the so-called [Eighth] Synod, being united to Photios our Most Holy Patriarch. We also anathematize those who fail to eject what was written or said against him by the aforementioned by yourselves, the so-called [Eighth] Synod." (Latin text: Caput 10. Volumus coram praesente synodo pomulgari ut synodus quae facta est contra praedictum patriarcham Photium sub Hadriano sanctissimo Papa in urbe Roma et Constantinopoli ex nunc sit rejecta, irrita, et sine robore; neque connumeretur cum altera sancta synodo. Sancta Synodus respondit: Nos rebus ispsis condemnavimus et abjecimus et anathematizavimus dictam a vobis synodum, uniti Photio sanctissimo nostro Patriarchae: et eos qui non rejiciunt scripta dictave nostra cum in hac dicta a vobis synodo, anathematizamus. Mansi vol. xvii, cl. 472AB. See also cls. 489/490E which repeats these points as accepted by the Synod. See also Dositheos op. cit. p. 345 and p. 361). I have included these texts here because I repeatedly encounter comments in the works of Western scholars, especially Roman Catholics, who offer confusing and even disputed information about the unanimous Eastern and Western condemnation of the anti-Photian Council of 869/870.

A Successful Council of Union: a theological analysis of the Photian Synod of 879-880, Thessalonica 1975, p.71.

Mansi, op. cit., cl. 365.

The Photian Schism, History and Legend, Cambridge 1948, repr. 1970.

op. cit.

cf. his Ἐκκλησιαστικὴ Ἱστορία, τομ. Β´ Ἀπὸ τὴν Εἰκονομαχία μέχρι τὴ Μεταρρύθμιση, Ἀθῆναι 1994, σσ. 92-141.

Τόμος Χαρᾶς, op. cit. pp. 9-148.

From Dr. Marshall's paper "Brief Observations on the Council of 879-880 and the Filioque" which was presented to the Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue at St. Olaf's College in February 21-24 1996.

Cf. his book Photius and the Carolingians: The Trinitarian Controversy, Nordland Publishing Co, Belmont MA 1974.

See here the brief but informative essay of Despina Stratoudaki-White, "Saint Photios and the Filioque Controversy," in the Patristic and Byzantine Review, vol. 2:2-3 (1983), pp. 246-250. St. Photios first wrote on the problem of the Filioque in 864 in his Letter to Boris-Michael of the Bulgarians [PG 102:628-692. Critical edition by B. Laourdas & L. C. Westerink Photius Epistulae et Amphilochia, BSB B. G. Teubner Verlagsgesellschaft 1983, pp. 2-39. For an English translation see Despina Stratoudaki-White and Joseph R. Berrigan Jr., The Patriarch and the Prince, Holy Cross Orthodox Press, Brookline Mass 1982]. He also dealt with it in his famous Encyclical Letter to the Eastern Patriarchs in 867 [PG 102:721-741 and Laourdas-Westerink, op. cit., pp. 40-53.]. Then again, he wrote on it to the Metropolitan of Aquileia in 883 [PG 102:793-821] and finally in his great treatise, the Mystagogy which he wrote in 885 [PG 102:263-392]. For a full bibliography on Photian studies including those relating to the Filioque controversy see my exhaustive bibliography in the Athens reprint of Migne's PG 101, pp. ρκα´ - σλζ´.

For the Text of this Letter, which was written in response to a Letter that was written to him by his addressee in 882, see footnote 16 above and also, I. Valettas, Φωτίου Ἐπιστολαί, London 1864, pp. 165-81. For an English translation of it see Despina Stratoudaki-White, "The Letter of St. Photios to the Metropolitan of Aquileia," Journal of Modern Hellenism, 6 (1989) 191-206.

This most famous of St. Photios' texts dealing with the problem of the Filioque was written only 4 years after the eighth Ecumenical Council, a fact indicating that the issue was still looming great in the relations of East and West at that time. For the Greek text, apart from that published in PG 102 (see footnote 16 above), see also On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit by Saint Photius Patriarch of Constantinople, translated by the Holy Transfiguration Monastery, Studion Publishers Inc. 1983, which gives the Greek text with an English translation on opposite pages (Translator: Ronald Wertz). Another English translation with a useful introduction is that of Joseph P. Farrell, The Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit, Holy Cross Press, Brookline MA 1987.

op. cit. p. 181.

op. cit. p. 183.

op. cit. p. 184.

op. cit. p. 185.

op. cit. p. 48.

op. cit. p. 83.

cf. op. cit. p. 133f.

The text used for this translation is that of Dositheos, as reedited with corrections by Siamakis. Mansi's edition was also consulted.

Siamakis, op. cit. pp. 379f. and Mansi, op. cit. pp. 516f.

Siamakis, op. cit. pp. 381 and Mansi, op. cit. pp. 517.

This remark is based on a recent exchange of letters between Professor Chadwick and myself.

Source: http://reocities.com/heartland/5654/orthodox/dragas_eighth.html

Article published in English on: 28-12-2009.

Last update: 20-8-2010.

UP

306 The Council of Elvira decrees that Christians and Jews cannot intermarry, have sexual intercourse, or eat together.

325 Conversation and fellowship with Jews is forbidden to the clergy by the Council of Nicea.

c. 380 St. Gregory of Nyssa refers to the Jews as “murderers of the Lord, assassins of the prophets, rebels and detesters of God,. . . companions of the devil, race of vipers, informers, calumniators, darkeners of the mind, pharisaic leaven, Sanhedrin of demons, accursed, detested,. . . enemies of all that is beautiful”.

388 A mob of Christians, at the instigation of their bishop, looted and burned the synagogue in Callinicum, a town on the Euphrates. The Emperor Theodosius wants those responsible punished and the synagogue rebuilt at the expense of the bishop, but St. Ambrose, the bishop of Milan, pressures him to relent and condone the action.

400 St. Augustine writes: “the Church admits and avows the Jewish people to be cursed, because after killing Christ they continue to till the ground of an earthly circumcision, an earthly Sabbath, an earthly passover, while the hidden strength or virtue of making known Christ, which this tilling contains, is not yielded to the Jews while they continue in impiety and unbelief, for it is revealed in the New Testament. While they will not turn to God, the veil which is on their minds in reading the Old Testament is not taken away. . . the Jewish people, like Cain, continue tilling the ground, in the carnal observance of the law, which does not yield to them its strength, because they do not perceive in it the grace of Christ”.

c. 400 Calling the synagogue “brothel and theater” and “a cave of pirates and the lair of wild beasts,” St. John Chrysostom writes that “the Jews behave no better than hogs and goats in their lewd grossness and the excesses of their gluttony”.

413 A group of monks sweep through Palestine, destroying synagogues and massacring Jews at the Western Wall.

414 St. Cyril of Alexandria expels Jews from his city.

538 The Third Synod of Orléans decrees that Jews cannot show themselves in the streets during Passover Week.

681 The Synod of Toledo orders the burning of the Talmud and other books.

768 Pope Stephen IV decries ownership of hereditary estates by “the Jewish people, ever rebellious against God and derogatory of our rites”.

c. 830 Agobard, Archbishop of Lyons, writes anti-Jewish pamphlets in which he refers to Jews as “sons of darkness”.

c. 937 Pope Leo VII encourages his newly appointed archbishop of Mainz to expel all Jews who refuse to be baptized.

1010-1020 In Rouen, Orléans, Limoges, Mainz, and probably also in Rome, Jews are converted by force, massacred, or expelled.

1050 The Synod of Narbonne decrees that Christians are not permitted to live in Jewish homes.

c. 1070 Pope Alexander II warns the bishops of Spain to prevent violence against the Jews because, unlike the Saracens, they “are prepared to live in servitude”.

1078 The Synod of Gerona decrees that Jews must pay the same taxes as Christians to support the church.

1081 Pope Gregory VII writes to King Alphonso of Spain telling him that if he allows Jews to be lords over Christians, he is oppressing the Church and exalting “the Synagogue of Satan”.

1096 Massacres of Jews takes place in the First Crusade, destroying entire Jewish communities in Mainz, Speyer, Worms, Cologne and other cities. The Jewish chronicler reports: “The enemies stripped them naked and dragged them off, granting quarter to none, save those few who accepted baptism. The number of the slain was eight hundred in these two days.” The chronicler Guibert de Nogent reports that the Rouen Crusaders said: “We desire to go and fight God’s enemies in the East; but we have before our eyes certain Jews, a race more inimical to God than any other”.

1182 Jews are expelled from France, all their property is confiscated, and Christians’ debts to them are cancelled with the payment of one-fifth of their value to the treasury.

1190 The Third Crusade, led by Richard the Lion-Heart, stirs anti-Jewish fervor and results in the mass suicide of the York Jews in Clifford’s Tower on March 16.

1215 The Fourth Lateran Council decrees that Jews are to wear distinctive clothing, and on the three days before Easter they are not to go out in public.

1222 The Council of Oxford prohibits the construction of new synagogues.

1227 The Council of Narbonne orders Jews to wear a round patch.

1234 The Council of Arles orders Jews to wear a round patch.

1246 The Council of Béziers orders Jews to wear a round patch.

1254 The Council of Albi orders Jews to wear a round patch.

1260 The Council of Arles orders Jews to wear a round patch, but not when traveling.

1267 The Synod of Vienna decrees that Christians cannot attend Jewish ceremonies, and Jews cannot dispute with simple Christian people about the Catholic religion.

1267 The Synod of Breslau decrees compulsory ghettos for Jews.

1279 The Synod of Ofen decrees that Christians cannot sell or rent real estate to Jews.

1284 The Council of Nîmes orders Jews to wear a round patch.

1289 The Council of Vienna orders Jews to wear a round patch.

1290 Jews are expelled from England and southern Italy.

1294 Jews in France are restricted to special quarters of the cities.

1294 Jews are expelled from Bern.

1298 The Jews of Röttingen, charged with profaning the Host, are massacred and burned down to the last one.

1320 The “Shepherds’ Crusade.” A Christian chronicler records: “The shepherds laid siege to all the Jews who had come from all sides to take refuge. . . the Jews defended themselves heroically. . . but their resistance served no purpose, for the shepherds slaughtered a great number of the besieged Jews by smoke and by fire. . . The Jews, realizing that they would not escape alive, preferred to kill themselves. . . They chose one of their number (and) this man put some five hundred of them to death, with their consent. He then descended from the castle tower with the few Jewish children who still remained alive. . . They killed him by quartering. They spared the children, whom they made Catholics by baptism”.

1326 The Council of Avignon orders Jews to wear a round patch, but not when traveling.

1347-1350 During the Black Death, Jews are accused of poisoning wells in order to overthrow Christendom, and many thousands of Jews are killed.

1394 The expulsion of Jews from France, begun in 1306, is completed with an edict promulgated on the Jewish Day of Atonement.

1420 Jews are expelled from Mainz by the archbishop.

1434 The Council of Basel decrees that Jews cannot obtain academic degrees.

1456 Pope Callistus III bans all social communication between Christians and Jews.

1462 Jews are expelled from Mainz following a conflict between two candidates for the archepiscopal seat.
1475 The entire Jewish community in Trent, northern Italy, is put to death on the allegation that it had murdered a boy for religious purposes.

1492 After forcing many Jews to be baptized and then referring to them as Marranos (swine), and after an Inquisition in which some 700 Marranos were burnt at the stake for showing signs of “Jewish” taint, Spain expels all Jews from the country.

1553 Cardinal Carafa instigates a public burning of copies of the Talmud and other Jewish religious works in a square in Rome.

This didn’t stop after Luther either....

1555-1559 Pope Paul IV restricts Jews to ghettos and decrees that they are to wear distinctive headgear.

1566-1572 Pope St. Pius V expels Jews from the Papal States, allowing some to remain in Rome’s ghettos and in Ancona for commercial reasons.

1592-1605 Pope Clement VIII includes a ban on all Jewish books in the expanded Index of Forbidden Books.

1826 Pope Leo XII decrees that Jews are to be confined to ghettos and their property is to be confiscated.

1858 Edgardo Mortara, 6-year old son of a Jewish family in Bologna, is abducted by the papal police and brought to Rome. He had been secretly baptized five years earlier by a domestic servant who thought he was about to die. The parents try to get the boy back, and there is a universal outcry, but Pope Pius IX rejects all petitions submitted to him.

1904 In an interview with Zionist leader Theodor Hertzl, Pope St. Pius X says: “I know, it is disagreeable to see the Turks in possession of our Holy Places. We simply have to put up with it. But to sanction the Jewish wish to occupy these sites, that we cannot do. . . The Jews have not recognized our Lord, therefore we cannot recognize the Jewish people. . . If you go to Palestine and your people settle there, you will find us clergy and churches ready to baptize you all”.

1919 Newly independent Poland passes a law making Sunday a compulsory day of rest in Poland. The law is intended to force Jews to observe the Christian sabbath in addition to their own.

1921 Speaking for Pope Benedict XV, a Vatican spokesman informed representatives of the Zionist Movement that they did not wish to assist “the Jewish race, which is permeated with a revolutionary and rebellious spirit” to gain control over the Holy Land.

1925 At a conference of Catholic academicians in Innsbruck, Austria, Bishop Sigismund Waitz calls the Jews an “alien people” who had corrupted England, France, Italy, and especially America.

1933 In a series of Advent sermons, Cardinal Faulhaber of Munich defends the Old Testament against Nazi attacks but emphasizes that it is not his intention to defend contemporary Jewry, saying that a distinction has to be drawn between Jews living before and after the crucifixion of Jesus.

1933 In a pastoral letter on January 23, Bishop Johannes Maria Gföllner of Linz, Austria, declares that while the radical anti-Semitism preached by Nazism is completely incompatible with Christianity, it is the right and duty of Christians to fight and break the harmful influences of Jewry in all areas of modern cultural life. The Austrian episcopate condemns the letter in December for causing racial hatred and conflict.

1933-1939 The general consensus among the Catholic papers in Poland is that Jewish influence should be reduced in all areas of life, that the Polish and Jewish communities should be separated as much as possible, and that the most desirable option is mass emigration of the Jews from Poland. St. Maximilian Kolbe is an active promoter of antisemitic literature.

1935-1936 The Polish Catholic Church gives full support to a government policy encouraging Jewish emigration from Poland.

1937 Austrian bishop Alois Hudal publishes a book defending Nazi racial ideology, supporting laws preventing a flood of Jewish immigrants, and criticizing the “Jewish” press for playing off Austrians against Germans. His book receives the support of Archbishop (later Cardinal) Theodor Innitzer of Vienna.

1939 Josef Tiso, a Catholic priest with a doctorate in theology, became president of independent Slovakia. An extremist hater of Jews, he allied Slovakia with Nazi Germany and, with strong objections from the Vatican, deported most Slovakian Jews to their deaths in the camps. He declared: “It is a Christian action to expel the Jews, because it is for the good of the people, which is thus getting rid of its pests.” Monsignor Tiso was executed after the war as a war criminal.

“Catholics accept Story A and that’s the end of it.”

Those are simplistic and somewhat one sided versions of events. One of the great underlying issues was the West’s growing acceptance of a unilateral change in the Nicene Creed, the Filioque. But setting that aside, the problem remains that Rome accepted the council of 879-880 for two hundred years or so. It was confirmed by the Pope. It was only two centuries later that Rome rather quietly shifted official recognition to the earlier Council which had been annulled and condemned by the council of 880. I am certain that it was purely coincidence that this was also the point in time where Rome wanted to officially alter the Creed by adding the Filioque which was impossible if the council of 880 was legitimate.

Rome has infallibly recognized two conflicting councils at various times.

However I do give you points for stepping up and trying to address the question. Don’t feel badly if you are feeling a bit boxed. It is an issue that even very serious Catholic theologians are uncomfortable with and the explanations offered are usually pretty tortured.

The history of Christianity and its relationship with the Jews is a sad and at times scandalous one. I do find it curious that you seem focused on the Roman Church in your catalog of atrocities. I can assure you that Protestants were no more tolerant. Dreadful pogroms occurred in Protestant (and Orthodox) countries. It’s a stain on all of our history.

Lord have mercy.

Not so fast. There is serious doubt on whether Rome accepted the council of AD 879-880. The following review is instructive. Check out this scholarly review of the work of Fr. Francis Dvornik’s work. t’s a meticulous historical review.

Venance Grumel’s Review of
Francis Dvornik’s The Photian Schism
A rough translation of the French from Revue des Études Byzantines, X, 282-283.

The author of this book has already distinguished himself with his remarkable thesis: The Slavs, Byzantium and Rome in the ninth century, Paris (1926). A later work: The legends of Constantine and Methodius in Byzantine views (Prague, 1933), focused particularly on ninth century Byzantine-Slavic history, and the history of the two great missionaries.

It was because of their relationships with Photius that Fr. Dvornik addressed the Photian issue. He has continued go deeper into the problem and we have not forgotten the article published in Byzantion:

The Second Schism of Photius: An Historical Mystification, followed by several others in connection with the same subject. This is the result of painstaking research directed by Mr. Henri Grégoire.

The book is the fruit of extensive research and of a reflective return to the whole Photian problem and new thinking. The author’s erudition is considerable. This is evidenced in the first place in the remarkable list of sources scanned, books reviewed, and even manuscripts consulted.
We know the results at which the author arrived. He hypothesized that the trial of Photius was based on a fabricated dossier, that Photius was misunderstood by historians, was calumnied, and that he should be rehabilitated. It is this hypothesis that he tried to transform from a thesis to a historical certainty.

In recognizing that Photius is not as black as he was made to be in the past, one wonders if the author did not exaggerate in the opposite direction. The dissertation still maintains a tone of argument that ultimately harms the demonstration. One sees that with every opportunity, in each case doubtful, and even in cases where there is all but contrary evidence, it is the sense favorable to the hero, and without counterweight, that is selective, it gives the impression of a one-sided vision of the events, and that he has not found the right balance.
This is a simple summary in which it is not possible to expand elegantly on points that would require discussion. Let me just point out the most important on which the author is far from having made a sufficient demonstration.

The first concerns the origin of the conflict for which he insists that Photius is not responsible. I cannot understand his refusal to recognize the cause of the conflict in the ordination of Photius by Gregory Asbestas, the bishop deposed by Ignatius, still less his idea to present this outrage as an act of moderation, this is a real paradox.

The second concerns the decree on the symbol of faith, which I’ve already engaged more than once. He tells me that my demonstration of its inauthenticity is not conclusive, but he does not show, and the rest he does not know of the study published in this journal in 1947, when I started on this subject; I refer to that in the meantime. However, I must respond to the new argument of which I was ignorant then, namely the testimony of Patriarch Euthymius. It would certainly be crucial if it was enacted by Euthymius I, but the manuscript is from the fifteenth century, and there is no reason to deny the possibility of an attribution to Euthymius II, quite the contrary, as I will show later. It must be said that Fr. Francis Dvornik does not seem to have thought of such a possibility.

The third question, the most important, is that which concerns the Eighth Ecumenical Council. Fr. Francis Dvornik thinks he can prove that it was abrogated by Pope John VIII. He uses, to that end, the documents transmitted by Ivo of Chartes, without taking into account that these fragments come from the Photian Council where the papal documents were altered.

He also uses the Western legal tradition of the ecumenicity of that council appearing at the end of the eleventh century. He forgets that the Council of 869, which put forth no definition of faith, had met for only personal matters and that, the Photian question having been liquidated at the Council of 899, there was no reason to call attention to it again, and the peace of the Church demanded not doing so. Hence there was far from an abrogation.

Moreover, the integral letter of Stephen V to the Emperor Basil I that I presented to International Congress of Byzantine Studies in Paris and Brussels, shows that no pope had suppressed the acts of the Eighth Council.

I leave aside for now the other minor points.

Despite the differences that separate me from Fr. Francis Dvornik, I highly appreciate the value of his work, which I consider the most important work published on the Photian Schism since Hergenröther and essential for anyone who wants to study this major historical problem.

Ah now we are getting into the tortured explanations previously mentioned. The argument advanced by Catholics (which is very controversial) is that at least some of the documents from the Council were forged. I believe the allegation centers on the Papal legates who have been accused of being in sympathy with St. Photias. I am dubious, as are most Orthodox scholars, but this probably cannot be resolved definitively. What we do know is that there was very friendly correspondence between the Photias and the Pope which casts serious doubt on the idea that the Pope was somehow duped. But even setting that aside, there remains the fact that the Roman See did clearly grant its assent to the council. It was recorded and held in the Apsotolic Archives in Rome. Indeed your own church has referenced the Council as “Conciliabulum Oecumenicum Pseudooctavum.”

I agree.

You make a good point. But as you rightly acknowledge examining events of a thousand years ago through a present historical lens does not lead to uniform results. Even among those who admit to the Conciliabulum Oecumenicum Pseudooctavum there is more than anecdotal evidence to show that Photias’ motives were not so pure as the Orthodox would like to claim.

Here’s point of view (footnotes to this research have been omitted) from a Catholic Professor of Philosophy who has carefully examined the Orthodox claims. This may come as an eye-opener to many. My apologies for this lengthy elucidation but since you have been vigorously pressing this issue, I think you are owed a reasonably comprehensive explanation.

Photius sent the Acts of his council to Rome for the Pope’s ratification, Pope John VIII (872-82)instead responded by excommunicating him, solemnly condemning him in 881, and permanently reinstating the ban on him in 882. The decrees by which John VIII struck down the earlier censures of Photius by the synod of 869 fails to omit the false pretenses under which Photius convened his council of 879-880.

Photius petitioned Pope John VIII to send legates; and he is altogether mute about John VIII’s refusal to confirm the Acts of the Photian council and excommunication of Photius after his discovery of Photius’s true intentions in the council of 879-880.

The fact that Rome later called the Photian council “Conciliabrulum Oecumenicum Pseudooctavum” is hardly an acknowledgement of its canonical legitimacy. What part of “Pseudo” is not clear in “Pseudooctavum”?

Photius was truly one of the most remarkable characters in all Church history; but he was also the chief architect of the great Eastern Schism.

There is far more to Photius than meets the eye in Anti-Western Orthodox accounts of him, however, and those who have not appraised themselves of “the rest of the story” would do well to investigate it for themselves.

Certainly no well-informed Christian can help remembering Photius with mixed feelings. While it is true that there is no shadow of suspicion against his private life, he is also well-known for his insatiable and unscrupulous ambition—hardly qualities one typically finds in a saint—which more than anything else was responsible for the greatest schism in Church history.

And schism, it will be recalled, was regarded by the Church Fathers as a sin worse than homicide. The conclusion of a detailed entry on “Photius of Constantinople” in the Catholic Encyclopedia reads as follows:

... His insatiable ambition, his determination to obtain and keep the patriarchal see, led him to the extreme of dishonesty. His claim was worthless. That Ignatius was the rightful patriarch as long as he lived, and Photius an intruder, cannot be denied by any one who does not conceive the Church as merely the slave of a civil government. And to keep this place Photius descended to the lowest depth of deceit. At the very time he was protesting his obedience to the Pope he was dictating to the emperor insolent letters that denied all papal jurisdiction. He misrepresented the story of Ignatius’s deposition with unblushing lies, and he at least connived at Ignatius’s ill-treatment in banishment. He proclaimed openly his entire subservience to the State in the whole question of his intrusion. He stops at nothing in his war against the Latins. He heaps up accusations against them that he must have known were lies.

His effrontery on occasions is almost incredible. For instance, as one more grievance against Rome, he never tires of inveighing against the fact that Pope Marinus I (882-84) [pictured left], John VIII’s successor, was translated from another see, instead of being ordained from the Roman clergy. He describes this as an atrocious breach of canon law, quoting against it the first and second canons of Sardica; and at the same time he himself continually transferred bishops in his patriarchate.

The whole Photian Council was an exercise in colossal bamboozlement, an art honed to masterful perfection in the Byzantine Photius.

Photius rose to prominence when the Partriarch of Constantinople, Ignatius (846-57), was deposed and banished by Emperor Michael III (842-67) in 857 for refusing communion to Bardas, a chief State official, for having incestuous relations with his daughter-in-law, and the more pliant Photius was intruded into his place.

Photius was hurried through Holy Orders in six days. On Christmas Day, 857, Gregory Asbestas of Syracuse, a bishop who had been excommunicated for insubordination, illicitly ordained Photius patriarch. The emperor tried in vain to make Ignatius resign his See. Photius also did all he could to get the Pope to ratify their expulsion of Ignatius, the legitimate occupant of the Partriarchal See.

The emperor sought to obtain from Pope Nicholas I (858-67) recognition of Photius by a letter grossly misrepresenting the facts and requesting legates to be sent to settle the issue in a synod.

The Pope sent two legates, Rodoald of Porto and Zachary of Anagni, with cautious instructions to hear both sides and report back to him. The synod occurred in St. Sophia’s in May, 861. The legates were bribed, agreed to Ignatius’s deposition and Photius’s succession, and returned to Rome with letters for the Pope. The emperor’s Secretary of State, Leo, followed the legates to Rome with further assurances and letters, in which both the emperor and Photius emphatically acknowledged Papal Primacy and categorically (and conveniently!) invoke the Pope’s jurisdiction to confirm what has happened.

Meanwhile Ignatius, in exile, sent his friend the Archimandrite Theognostus to Rome in 862 with an urgent letter setting forth his own case. Nicholas, having heard both sides, decided for Ignatius and answered the letters from Emperor Michael III and Photius by insisting that Ignatius must be restored and the usurpation of his See must cease.

Rome never wavered from this position, and this is what set the stage for the Photian schism. In 863 the Pope held a synod at the Lateran in which the two legates were tried and excommunicated. Nicholas’s decision reinstating Ignatius as lawful Patriarch of Constantinople was reiterated. Photius was to be excommunicated unless he relinquished his usurpation at once.

However, instead of obeying the Pope, to whom he had just appealed, Photius resolved, with the emperor’s backing, to deny Rome’s authority altogether. Ignatius was not restored to his See, but kept in prison, and the Pope’s letters were kept from publication.

Photius collaborated with the emperor in notifying Rome that the Eastern Patriarchs were in support of Photius, in questioning the propriety of the Pope’s excommunication of the legates, and threatening Rome with imperial military action unless the Pope altered his decision and gave his support to Photius. In 867, Photius went on the offensive by declaring his excommunication of the Pope and the Western churches.

The pretexts given were that the Latin churches (1) fast on Saturday, (2) do not begin Lent until Ash Wednesday, (3) do not allow priest to marry, (4) do not allow priests to administer confirmation, and (5) have added the filioque clause to the creed (indeed, Photius’s discovery of utility of the filioque grievance as a political weapon vastly disproportionate to its theological value seems to have been original with him).

For these reasons, Photius’s encyclical declared, the Latins are “forerunners of apostasy, servants of Antichrist who deserve a thousand deaths, liars, fighters against God.”

Later in the same year (867), Emperor Michael III was murdered, and Basil I (867-86) succeeded him. Phot

ius was ejected from the patriarchate, and Ignatius restored. Pope Adrian (867-72), who succeeded Nicholas, answered Ignatius’s appeal for legates to attend a synod designed to examine the whole matter. The legates arrived in Constantinople in September of 869, and in October the synod was convened, which Catholics recognize as the Eighth Ecumenical Council (the Fourth Council of Constantinople). This council tried Photius, confirmed his deposition, and, since he refused to renounce his claim, excommunicated him. He was banished to a monastery at Stenos on the Bosphorus, where he spent seven years, writing letters to supporters, organizing his party, and biding his time for another chance.

Photius ingratiated himself with the emperor, who recalled him in 876 to the court. He feigned reconciliation with Ignatius and ingratiated himself within the Patriarch’s circle to such an extent that when Ignatius died, a strong party demanded that Photius should succeed him. An imperial embassy was sent to Rome to explain that everyone at Constantinople wanted Photius to be patriarch. Pope John VIII, wishing to avoid provoking yet another conflict with Constantinople, agreed, absolved Photius from all censure, and acknowledged him as partriarch. A more fateful judgment cannot be imagined.

By 878 Photius had achieved lawfully the patriarchate that he had formerly usurped. Rome acknowledged him as Patriarch of Constantinople and restored him to her communion. There was no possible legitimate reason now for a fresh quarrel.

But Photius used his new position to re-open his personal long-festering political vendetta against Rome. Accordingly, he applied to Rome for legates to come to another synod. There was no legitimate reason for a synod, but he persuaded Pope John VIII that it would clear up the last remains of the earlier schism, and bring healing and restore solidarity between East and West. His real motive, in cannot be doubted, was to undo the effect of the Eighth Ecumenical Council of 869 that had deposed him.

The Pope sent three legates, Cardinal Peter of St. Chysogonus, Paul, Bishop of Ancona, and Eugene, Bishop of Ostia. The synod was opened in St. Sophia’s in November of 879. This is the the council that has come to be known to Catholics as the Pseudosynodus Photiana (Photian Pseudo-Synod) or Conciliabulum Oecumenicum Pseudooctavum (Pseudo-Eighth Ecumenical Council) which the Anti-Western Orthodox count as the Eighth Ecumnical Council.

Photius had his own way throughout the council. He altered the letters sent to him, to the Emperor Basil, and to the Byzantine Church by Pope John VIII, which were read at the Council of 879-80 convoked to clear his name (Francis Dvornik attests to this in Byzantium and the Roman Primacy.

Photius revoked the acts of the former synod (of 869), repeated all his accusations against the Western churches, focusing especially on the filioque grievance, anathematized all who added anything to the creed, and claimed Bulgaria as part of the Byzantine Pariarchate.

Photius had rigged his council. He had garnered John VIII’s support under the false pretense that he meant to heal the remains of the earlier schism by restoring Eastern dissenters to the one true fold of Rome. But the fact that there was a great majority for all of Photius’s defiant measures in the synod shows the extent to which he had prepared for the synod by building up his Anti-Western party in the East.

The legates, like their predecessors in 861, agreed to everything the majority desired, pending the ratification of the Pope. As soon as they had returned to Rome, Photius sent the Acts to the Pope for his confirmation. Instead, however, Pope John VIII naturally again excommunicated him, solemnly condemning him in 881 and reinstating the ban against him in 882. The successor of John VIII, Pope Marinus I (882-884), who had presided over the Fourth Council of Constantinople in 869 as one of the legates of Adrian II, vigorously renewed John VIII’s condemnation of Photius, rescinding the Acts of the Photian Council of 879 and formally reinstating the Fourth Council of Constantinople of 869 as the official Eighth Ecumenical Council of the Church.

So the Photian Schism broke out in full force for several years until the death of Emperor Basil I in 886.

Emperor Basil was succeeded by his son, Leo VI (886-912), who intensely disliked Photius, accused him of treason and embezzlement of public money, and immediately deposed him and banished him. Photius’s place as patriarch was then taken by Leo’s younger brother, Stephen (886-93). Stephen’s intrusion was no less a violation of canon law than that of Photius in 857, so Rome refused to recognize him. It was only under his successor Antony II (893-95) that a synod restored reunion for a century and a half, until the time of Michael Cerularius (1045-58).

At this point, Photius disappears from history. Not even the Armenian monastery in which he spent his last years is certainly known, although historical research shows that Photius (despite his liturgical and doctrinal quarrels with the Latin Franks in Bulgaria) died in communion with the Holy See (see James Likoudis, “History of the Byzantine Greco-Slav Schism: Basic Facts and Events Giving Rise to the Eastern Orthodox Churches”). The date of his death is generally given as February 6, 897.

But Photius had left a large and influential anti-Roman party, eager to repudiate the Pope’s primacy and embrace schism. It was this party, to which Cerularius belonged, which triumphed in Constantinople, so that Photius is rightly considered the architect of the the Great Schism—or as I prefer to call it, the Anti-Western Orthodox Schism—which still endures. A proud and obstinate Cerelarius was excommunicated by Rome in 1054, along with all the Eastern churches that followed him into Anti-Western schism. But the greatest credit for this fatal breach in Christendom must go to the brilliant and scheming Photius, who broke faith with Sacred Tradition by denying Peter in the office of his successors by means of his proud and obstinate “non serviam!”

Note:

The ecumenical status of the Fourth Council of Constantinople of 869-870 has long been contested by the Anti-Western Orthodox. During the ecumenically-charged milieu leading up to and following the Second Vatican Council, many Roman Catholic scholars and ecumenists, eager to mend relations with their Eastern Orthodox brethren, have been back-pedaling and down-playing their former criticisms of Photius, amending and revising their accounts of the Photian Schism.

In this process, some further details have been brought to light, but in some instances earlier details have been obfuscated and covered over. One of the most prominent Catholic scholars during this period has been Francis Dvornik (or Dvornic), whose books, The Photian Schism: History and Legend (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1948; rpt. 1970) and Byzantium and the Roman Primacy (New York: Fordham University Press, 1966; rpt. 1979) have been viewed by Anti-Western Orthodox scholars as having come a significant way towards accommodating some of their interpretations. To their delight, Dvornik accepts, for example, their claim that the belief that the successors of John VIII—Marinus I, Stephen V, and Formosus—had broken with Photius is a legendary invention. It must be conceded, in fact, that Photius did die in communion with Rome. Dvornik’s claim that Photius never actually questioned Roman primacy seems well-attested.

However, the notion that the ecumenical status of the Fourth Council of Constantinople in 869-870 is fundamentally compromised by the acts of the Photian Council of 879-880 cannot be seriously maintained.

First, the matter is ultimately a question of authority, and whether the matter was immediately settled in the ninth century or not is in the final analysis irrelevant.

Second, the Council claimed for itself an ecumenical status by calling itself the universalis octava synodus; and it had at least the necessary geographical characteristics because of the authority of all the heads of the Church who were either present or represented.

Was it recognized as ecumenical by the Holy See?

Three facts are certain and incontestable.

First, Adrian II had already approved it in his letter of Nov. 10, 871, as well as in his letter to the faithful of Salerno and Amalfi in 875; and John VIII called it sancta octava synodus, thereby formally recognizing its ecumenical status.

Second, the Council has been listed among the ecumenical councils recognized by the Roman Catholic Church since the beginning of the 12th century. Third, the Byzantine Church itself accepted the Council as ecumenical until the Photian Synod of 879-880, which is thought to have abrogated its Acts; and those portions of the Byzantine Church that reunited with Rome since that time have considered it as ecumenical.

The crux of debate is reducible to the question whether Pope John VIII, by means of his supreme power of binding and loosing, actually annulled the acts of the Council of 869-870, thus depriving it of ecumenical status.

This is of course what is claimed by Anti-Western Orthodox scholars, who have a curious (if convenient) interest at this point in the Roman primacy of John VIII.

The answer is affirmative if the Greek text of the last two sessions of the Photian Synod are considered authentic, which may be doubted, not least because of Photius’s history of altering the letters sent to him, to the Emperor Basil, and to the Byzantine Church by Pope John VIII, before having them read at the Photian Synod of 879-880.

The answer is negative if takes into consideration other documents, such as the letter of Pope Stephen V to Emperor Basil I in 885-886. This letter states, in fact, that 20 years after the Fourth Council of Constantinople (869-870), Photius was still trying to have it annulled, a step that would be inexplicable if prior to this time John VIII had already taken the initiative in this matter.

While ecumenically-minded scholars such as Dvornik have written irenically in support of the thesis of abrogation by John VIII, others such as Venance Grumel and Martin Jugie have defended the thesis of non-abrogation and ecumenicity of the Fourth Council of Constantinople (869-870) as the Eighth Ecumenical Council of the Church. Ultimately, however, the issue is one of ecclesiastical authority, in testimony of which stands the record of decrees of the Holy See.

I have posted a link to Dvornik’s book on the Photian Schism. Incredibly it exists in free E Book form.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3271621/posts

Dvornik’s book as ha been peer-reviewed and set forth in my prior posts is full of holes.

His thesis has certainly been the subject of rigorous examination, no academic work on that subject will escape criticism, but I don’t see it being full of holes at all. On the contrary, most of the criticism has been quite measured. But the fact remains that almost 70 years after publication, it remains the go to source for those researching the issue, from both the East and West. I can’t ever recall reading anything on the subject from any reputable source who did not cite Dvornik’s work. That is itself a powerful testament.

Agree Dvornik’s contribution to that historical narrative is a major contribution but as reviewers have pointed out some of the major predicates for his conclusions are either flat wrong or debatable. More likely, there are crucial missing pieces in his narrative.

Hmmm..

So I’m NOT the only one who sees that...

No, it’s is good to know that there is someone else on FR that sees this as well. Thank you for letting me know that I am not alone.