J
JSmitty2005
Guest
I found the following on an ex-traditionalist-Catholic-now-Orthodox guy’s website. Please comment. 
Glory to Jesus Christ, now and to the ages!
I recently finished a book entitled “The Truth: What Every Roman Catholic Should Know About the Orthodox Church” by Clark Carlton, which can be purchased through Amazon and Regina Orthodox Press, as well as many online and storefront booksellers. I recommend it to anyone who will dare to read it, either to disprove it or to examine its bold claims.
But what I’d like to bring up at the moment concerns an ancient controversy delving deep into the heart of those things leading up to that Great and lamentable Schism of 1054.
You’re perhaps all familiar with the Anti-Photian Council of 869, which “condemned and deposed” St. Photios of Constantinople and restored Ignatius as Patriarch, regarded as the Eighth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople IV/869/Anti-Photian) by the modern-day Roman Catholic Church.
Did you know there was a later council held in Constantinople (in 879 – exactly 10 years thence) that reversed the decisions of the Anti-Photian Council, with representatives from all five patriarchates, including Rome, duly accepted by John VIII and accepted by the Roman Church as ecumenical until the eleventh century? In fact, the minutes of this Council are still in the Vatican archive, now under the title “Pseudo-octavum?” (This is one of the reasons why the Catholic Encyclopedia teaches that St. Photius likely died in full communion with Rome, and also goes to prove that the Roman Church once regarded it as ecumenical).
This Council formally condemns the Filioque and the Filioquist theological speculations of Charlemagne’s court, and anathematizes anyone who would add to the text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (an even-more-detailed reinforcement of Canon VII of Ephesus). Furthermore, it includes a definition of ecclesiology, signed by the legates of Pope John VIII (and ratified by the selfsame Pope), promising the Eastern Patriarchates their traditional ecclesial autonomy in the aftermath of the pretensions of Pope Nicholas to universal jurisdiction. In this Council is proof of the early “koinonia” ecclesiology and an implicit refutation of papal primacy of immediate jurisdiction.
Before I quote from the horos (decree, definition) of the Council, allow me to quote for you the most illuminating 28th canon of the Council of Chalcedon, once again dogmatically delineating Rome’s primacy of honor and the reasons behind it:
“Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the Canon, which has just been read, of the one hundred fifty bishops beloved-of-God, (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the imperial city. And the one hundred fifty most religious bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honored with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be **magnified as she is, and rank next after **her…”
Consider the implications of the above! Note here that the very reason for the (honorific) primacy is considerably different from those made by the Roman apologists.
Unfortunately, this infallible decree is not accepted by Rome because of these very implications.
- IC XC NIKA +
Glory to Jesus Christ, now and to the ages!
I recently finished a book entitled “The Truth: What Every Roman Catholic Should Know About the Orthodox Church” by Clark Carlton, which can be purchased through Amazon and Regina Orthodox Press, as well as many online and storefront booksellers. I recommend it to anyone who will dare to read it, either to disprove it or to examine its bold claims.
But what I’d like to bring up at the moment concerns an ancient controversy delving deep into the heart of those things leading up to that Great and lamentable Schism of 1054.
You’re perhaps all familiar with the Anti-Photian Council of 869, which “condemned and deposed” St. Photios of Constantinople and restored Ignatius as Patriarch, regarded as the Eighth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople IV/869/Anti-Photian) by the modern-day Roman Catholic Church.
Did you know there was a later council held in Constantinople (in 879 – exactly 10 years thence) that reversed the decisions of the Anti-Photian Council, with representatives from all five patriarchates, including Rome, duly accepted by John VIII and accepted by the Roman Church as ecumenical until the eleventh century? In fact, the minutes of this Council are still in the Vatican archive, now under the title “Pseudo-octavum?” (This is one of the reasons why the Catholic Encyclopedia teaches that St. Photius likely died in full communion with Rome, and also goes to prove that the Roman Church once regarded it as ecumenical).
This Council formally condemns the Filioque and the Filioquist theological speculations of Charlemagne’s court, and anathematizes anyone who would add to the text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (an even-more-detailed reinforcement of Canon VII of Ephesus). Furthermore, it includes a definition of ecclesiology, signed by the legates of Pope John VIII (and ratified by the selfsame Pope), promising the Eastern Patriarchates their traditional ecclesial autonomy in the aftermath of the pretensions of Pope Nicholas to universal jurisdiction. In this Council is proof of the early “koinonia” ecclesiology and an implicit refutation of papal primacy of immediate jurisdiction.
Before I quote from the horos (decree, definition) of the Council, allow me to quote for you the most illuminating 28th canon of the Council of Chalcedon, once again dogmatically delineating Rome’s primacy of honor and the reasons behind it:
“Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the Canon, which has just been read, of the one hundred fifty bishops beloved-of-God, (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the imperial city. And the one hundred fifty most religious bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honored with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be **magnified as she is, and rank next after **her…”
Consider the implications of the above! Note here that the very reason for the (honorific) primacy is considerably different from those made by the Roman apologists.
Unfortunately, this infallible decree is not accepted by Rome because of these very implications.
