Posted on 05/27/2008 8:03:16 PM PDT by Petrosius
That excellent meeting of the "wiser heads" was 4 and ahalf years ago. One of its recommendations was the following:
Most people are fooled by the papist Ecumenical Patriarch that the convergences is greater than parallel lines. He and the Pope cnstantly express "hope" and "pray" for speedy reunion. However, documents such as the one you linked show otherwise. We have not gotten closer one iota despite the "dialogue"; but we are at least civil towards each other (well, most of the time). I guess that counts for something.
Ping #81
I will on a business trip for a few days, so most of my posts will be from "rote," but I will do my best.
This does not imply that John VIII accepted as binding the theological statements of 879.
First, did Pope John VIII sing the proceedings of the Council or not? Second, Pope John VIII ordered the publication of the Creed of 381 (without the filioque) after the Council, in addition to accepting St. Photius' appointment. It doesn't get much clearer than that, P.
Probably because as was stated above, it was proclaimed at the Council of Toledo, at which the Visigothic Church was received back into Orthodoxy from Arianism.
My understanding is that he did not sign the acts, that he merely sent a letter to the emperor praising the council based on the report of the legates, but when he finally received the acts sent by Photius and saw what the council actually said he then repudiated it. I would be interested to see what Dvornik has to say about this.
Second, Pope John VIII ordered the publication of the Creed of 381 (without the filioque) after the Council, in addition to accepting St. Photius' appointment.
Perhaps, but he did not condemn the filioque as heretical nor did he seek to suppress its teaching in the West, as opposed to merely insisting on keeping the formulation of the symbol of faith from Constantinople. As you say, it does not get clearer that that. I too would not be adverse to returning to the Creed without the filioque, but by this I would not hold that the Western formulation was heretical.
BTW, Dvornik's book is "The Photian Schism: History and Legend" (1948). I was going to by a copy but Amazon lists it as $298! I will see if I can locate a copy in a library.
For what it is worth, I found the following at angelqueen.org:
Well, Dvornik gives the sources. The decisions of the Photian council - in which every addition to the Credo was condemned - were brought to Rome by the legates. John, as a matter of fact, didn't excommunicate Photius. But he also didn't approve of the synod as such. In his letter to Photius, he writes: ""We also approve what has been mercifully done in Constantinople by the synodal decree of your reinstatement..." And in those to the Emporor Basil, he writes again: ""We also approve what has been mercifully done in Constantinople by the synodal decree of the very reverend Patriarch Photius' reinstatement..."I cannot vouch for the accuracy of this report until I have a chance to consult Dvornik myself. Take it, therefore, cum grano salis.John hasn't approved of the whole of the synod, but just the decree that reinstated Photius. He also hasn#t anulled the anti-Photian synod(counted by Roman Catholics as Eight Generel Council), but has abrogated the disciplinary measures that were taken in this council against Photius - or, to say it better, he has, in his own words, "mercifully" dsipensed Photius of this penalties and approved of him as Patriarch. But, in fact, he has only approved of this very decree of the Photian synod, because he goes own in the letters both to Photius and Basil: ""If perchance at the same synod our legates have acted against apostolic instructions, neither do we approve their action nor do we attribute any value to it. " Of course, he hasn't conferred to his legates the mission of conmdamning any addition to the Creed!
Above, I quoted that John has condemnded the Eight General Council. However, Dvornik shows that Photius and the legates changed the original words of the Popes letter to the Phoitan Synod. It's probable, or even sure, that John only abrogated the Eight Council insofar as it was set out to condamn Photius - but the other canons remained intact.
I don’t think you can champion Photius — to me, in my opinion, he seems a very political animal, working with and against Emperors and seeking to fight a political war with the Patriarch of Rome. In my opinion, the Patriarchs of Rome at that time were also political animals, and there was an ego tussle between the PAtriarch of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople over who was the Big Boss.
hi Kosta — I would request you to not use the slur “papist” — you can use Pro-Papal or Pro-Catholic to describe the EP if you wish, but let’s not use that term “papist” as it’s symbolism is quite insulting.
“I’m wondering — do we think that a future ecumenical council ought to just be the Orthodox and the Catholics — shouldn’t this bring in other Apostolic Churchs? Orientals, Assyrians, Armenians? The Orthodox and Western Churchs have individually started talking to those Apostolic Churchs, perhaps it’s time to start talking as a group?”
Personally, I think yes if only to finalize the repair of the Monophysite schism and deal with any remaining Nestorianism.
As for the Protestants, I would think absolutely not, except perhaps for a few Anglican and Lutheran hierarchs, the former because some of them really are trying hard to preserve The Faith as it was known in England and the later because there really are a few of them who in fact are in the Apostolic Succession and whose theology is quite Orthodox.
“In my opinion, the Patriarchs of Rome at that time were also political animals, and there was an ego tussle between the PAtriarch of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople over who was the Big Boss.”
The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops, C. These guys may be great teachers and orthodox in their teachings and belief, but very few are particularly saintly and virtually all of them to this day are political animals dealing with other political animals. The default position with all of them ought to be “Don’t trust him!”
Please don’t ping me on anything to do with the Filioque that is not the subject of this particular thread.
No matter how many people keep bringing it up.
Please don’t post to me on anything to do with the Filioque that is not the subject of this particular thread.
No matter how many people keep bringing it up.
I asked you a long time ago not to post to me, as a result I stopped posting to you.
Please honor my wishes.
Thank you.
Me: Perhaps because there's no such thing as a Deaconess in the Orthodox Christian Church?
Poster who shall not be named:I asked you a long time ago not to post to me, as a result I stopped posting to you.
A gentleman would at least have acknowledged his initial error.
No problem. I merely pinged you because Claud pinged you in #68. It's called common courtesy. Neither Kolo nor I have been the origin of your name being pinged. We simply inlcuded you as part of the original ping list. Address your issues with Claud.
I meant no insult. Deepest apologies. I was not aware of the offensive nature of the term. I meant to say that Patriarch Bartholomew I is very inclined towards his elder brother in Rome. But I take your word for it and, again, beg your forgivness.
no worries, I know you didn’t mean it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.