"Are you under the pope?" Asking for help formulating response

[Cavaradossi]

Really? How can this be since Photius was deposed for his uncanonical elevation 4 years before Basil murdered Michael III?

What bearing does this have on the issue? I think there were several Patriarchs of Constantinople who were installed by the secular power (and thus had ecclesiastically illegal status) but considered Saints by the EO (e.g. St. Methodius and St. Photius). Wasn’t that the normal course of affairs in the Byzantine Empire? The Emperor installed, and a Synod confirmed?

Blessings,
Marduk

While it was true that a synod convened by Pope Nicholas in 863 passed a sentence of deposition against St. Photius, he was not actually deposed until 867, when Basil the Macedonian usurped the throne from Michael III. The sentence of deposition went unheeded in the East until the regime change. It is worth noting by the way, that Ignatius did not submit an appeal to Rome, which is why the Byzantine clergy regarded Pope Nicholas’ actions as overstepping his authority.

Photius’ appointment was not actually illegal, either the first or second time. Both times he was canonically elected. This was the conclusion which was made by the Council of 879-880. In the West, the council lost its authoritative status during the investiture controversy, because the council of 869-870 had some convenient canons for fighting investiture, but in the East, this was never the case. The council of 879-880 was always regarded as being authoritative because it was attended by 383 bishops, was approved of by the papal legates of Pope John VIII and by the four Eastern Patriarchs. We can see this in play at Florence, when a certain Metropolitan of Ephesus was asked to produce the acts of what the Latins called the Eighth Ecumenical Council. He responded that no such acts existed in Greek because the council of 879-880 had condemned the council of 869-870.

 

[Cavaradossi]

The appointment of patriarchs of Constantinople and other bishops by secular authority is one of the chief problems in Orthodox history that has caused immeasurable grief to the Church. Having an independent, non-political system of episcopal election and ordination is absolutely essential for the freedom of the Church from secular authority. I believe that the Orthodox will continue to suffer from abuses because it lacks that independence. The Catholic Church dealt with the encroachment of secular power through the Papcy - what do we (the Orthodox) offer as a reasonable alternative? I frankly don’t see that we’ve offered one.

I think you’re perhaps a bit unfair with this criticism. Perhaps you could say this of the reign of Tsar Peter the Great, but not of the Eaten Roman Empire. We can see a great example of the will of the church triumphing over imperial influence after Lyon, when the union failed because it was rejected by the clergy, even though the Emperor and his appointed patriarch, Bekkos, strongly supported union. Similarly after Florence, when the Emperor and two dozen or so impious bishops sold out their faith for military aid, the pro union stance of the Emperors and their appointed Patriarchs met incredibly strong opposition from the monks and the clergy, who rallied around the anti-unionist cause.

 

[Mickey]

I think you’re perhaps a bit unfair with this criticism. Perhaps you could say this of the reign of Tsar Peter the Great, but not of the Eaten Roman Empire. We can see a great example of the will of the church triumphing over imperial influence after Lyon, when the union failed because it was rejected by the clergy, even though the Emperor and his appointed patriarch, Bekkos, strongly supported union. Similarly after Florence, when the Emperor and two dozen or so impious bishops sold out their faith for military aid, the pro union stance of the Emperors and their appointed Patriarchs met incredibly strong opposition from the monks and the clergy, who rallied around the anti-unionist cause.

 

[jam070406]

In reply to the topic of this thread, I believe if you are somewhere taller then 5’7" then you are over the Pope.

 

[Cavaradossi]

In reply to the topic of this thread, I believe if you are somewhere taller then 5’7" then you are over the Pope.

 

[Vico]

Really? How can this be since Photius was deposed for his uncanonical elevation 4 years before Basil murdered Michael III?

What bearing does this have on the issue? I think there were several Patriarchs of Constantinople who were installed by the secular power (and thus had ecclesiastically illegal status) but considered Saints by the EO (e.g. St. Methodius and St. Photius). Wasn’t that the normal course of affairs in the Byzantine Empire? The Emperor installed, and a Synod confirmed?

Blessings,
Marduk

I will answer the first question. The deposition is not related to “whom Photius excommunicated for murdering emperor Michael II”.

I will have to reply to the other later.

 

[Vico]

…

What bearing does this have on the issue? I think there were several Patriarchs of Constantinople who were installed by the secular power (and thus had ecclesiastically illegal status) but considered Saints by the EO (e.g. St. Methodius and St. Photius). Wasn’t that the normal course of affairs in the Byzantine Empire? The Emperor installed, and a Synod confirmed?

Blessings,
Marduk

Part II, historical events for reference:

Emperor Theophilos 829-842, wife Theodora 842-855
Emperor Michael III ruled 842-867

• Ignatius Patriarch 847-858 (appointed by Theodora) he abdicated
• Photius Patriarch 858-867 (replaced Ignatius)
  Emperor Basil the macedonian ruled 867–886
• Ignatius Patriarch 867-877 (died)
• Photius Patriarch 877-886 (confirmed by council 879, banished by emperor Leo VI)

 

[Filii_Dei]

I think you’re perhaps a bit unfair with this criticism. Perhaps you could say this of the reign of Tsar Peter the Great, but not of the Eaten Roman Empire. We can see a great example of the will of the church triumphing over imperial influence after Lyon, when the union failed because it was rejected by the clergy, even though the Emperor and his appointed patriarch, Bekkos, strongly supported union. Similarly after Florence, when the Emperor and two dozen or so impious bishops sold out their faith for military aid, the pro union stance of the Emperors and their appointed Patriarchs met incredibly strong opposition from the monks and the clergy, who rallied around the anti-unionist cause.

I apologise if I’m sounding a bit obtuse, but doesn’t that prove dcointin’s point about excessive secular influence over the Patriarch - at least before Lyons - if the Emperor could strongarm (if I’m reading you correctly) Bekkos and other clergy into union?

 

[Cavaradossi]

I apologise if I’m sounding a bit obtuse, but doesn’t that prove dcointin’s point about excessive secular influence over the Patriarch - at least before Lyons - if the Emperor could strongarm (if I’m reading you correctly) Bekkos and other clergy into union?

The point I was making is that he didn’t successfully strong-arm the clergy into union. The clergy in the Eastern Roman empire held a considerable amount of political influence. Some even openly questioned the legitimacy of the pro-union Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos, whom they considered to be a usurper. The criticism that the Eastern clergy were somehow constantly beneath the emperors is a bad one, because it simply does not match up with history. It instead tramples on the memory of great men like St. Maximus the Confessor, Pope St. Martin, St. John of Damascus, St. Basil, St. Gregory the theologian, and others who confessed Orthodoxy during the reign of heretic emperors, sometimes paying for it with their lives. It also comes dangerously close to bringing into question the orthodoxy of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, all of which were convened by an Emperor or Empress.

 

[twf]

The point I was making is that he didn’t successfully strong-arm the clergy into union. The clergy in the Eastern Roman empire held a considerable amount of political influence. Some even openly questioned the legitimacy of the pro-union Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos, whom they considered to be a usurper. The criticism that the Eastern clergy were somehow constantly beneath the emperors is a bad one, because it simply does not match up with history. It instead tramples on the memory of great men like St. Maximus the Confessor, Pope St. Martin, St. John of Damascus, St. Basil, St. Gregory the theologian, and others who confessed Orthodoxy during the reign of heretic emperors, sometimes paying for it with their lives. It also comes dangerously close to bringing into question the orthodoxy of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, all of which were convened by an Emperor or Empress.

The seven councils were convened by emperors but they were ratified by the Popes of Rome and the other patriarchs. If the decisions of the councils has been promulgated solely upon the authority of the Byzantine imperial throne…the orthodoxy of the councils would be questionable indeed. Fortunately that is not the case.

 

[Cavaradossi]

The seven councils were convened by emperors but they were ratified by the Popes of Rome and the other patriarchs. If the decisions of the councils has been promulgated solely upon the authority of the Byzantine imperial throne…the orthodoxy of the councils would be questionable indeed. Fortunately that is not the case.

The fact that the Emperor had Pope Vigilius imprisoned until he would approve of Second Constantinople is proof, in my mind, that the emperor bad, church good mentality is way off. Sometimes the Emperors were instruments of Orthodoxy. Unfortunately, that very mentality has caused Western theologians to undermine the orthodoxy of the Fifth Ecumenical Council by claiming that it was simply politically motivated, trying to heal the schism caused by Chalcedon, when in fact the condemnation of the Three Chapters clarified a certain vagueness in the Chalcedonian definition and the Tome of Leo, which could be interpreted in a Nestorian way.

 

[twf]

The fact that the Emperor had Pope Vigilius imprisoned until he would approve of Second Constantinople is proof, in my mind, that the emperor bad, church good mentality is way off. Sometimes the Emperors were instruments of Orthodoxy. Unfortunately, that very mentality has caused Western theologians to undermine the orthodoxy of the Fifth Ecumenical Council by claiming that it was simply politically motivated, trying to heal the schism caused by Chalcedon, when in fact the condemnation of the Three Chapters clarified a certain vagueness in the Chalcedonian definition and the Tome of Leo, which could be interpreted in a Nestorian way.

Of course God can use an emperor as an instrument of orthodoxy. He can, in fact, use any layman as “instrument of orthodoxy”…the Latin tradition (and I assume the Byzantine) teaches that all Christians, by virtue of their baptism, share in the threefold ministry of Christ as kings, priests, and prophets. An emperor, in particular, has been anointed to rule over the Lord’s flock in secular affairs, as a bishop has been anointed to rule in spiritual affairs - so I don’t disagree with your statement. That being said, whatever the means, the Pope still eventually gave his consent - and that is key…even if the Emperor “influenced” him, he recognized that the Pope’s consent was still necessary.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Of course God can use an emperor as an instrument of orthodoxy. He can, in fact, use any layman as “instrument of orthodoxy”…the Latin tradition (and I assume the Byzantine) teaches that all Christians, by virtue of their baptism, share in the threefold ministry of Christ as kings, priests, and prophets. An emperor, in particular, has been anointed to rule over the Lord’s flock in secular affairs, as a bishop has been anointed to rule in spiritual affairs - so I don’t disagree with your statement. That being said, whatever the means, the Pope still eventually gave his consent - and that is key…even if the Emperor “influenced” him, he recognized that the Pope’s consent was still necessary.

Not really. He defied the council’s anathema, so the Emperor in retaliation had him imprisoned. It’s similar to Pope Martin’s supposed murder at the hands of the Emperor, or the Emperor’s attempt to depose pope Nicholas I, by making a pact with the Germanic king who had power over him. In neither none of these cases was the pope necessary in the eyes of the Emperors. I think infallibility is a concept which needs to be revisited by Catholic theologians. I don’t recall any council proclaiming that it is infallible, just a reflection of the orthodox faith.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother in Christ Cavaradossi,

Not really. He defied the council’s anathema, so the Emperor in retaliation had him imprisoned.

He didn’t defy the Council’s anathema. Every bishop at the 5th Ecum knew he was orthodox, but Pope Vigiulius could not sign on so quickly because it appeared to the Westerns that it would be a repudiation of the orthodoxy Chalcedon.

Can you answer why he was not deposed if (as you claim) he was actually in defiance of the council’s anathema? Councils deposed patriarchs before. Why not the bishop of Rome? Do the EO have a theory for this discrepancy?

It’s similar to Pope Martin’s supposed murder at the hands of the Emperor, or the Emperor’s attempt to depose pope Nicholas I, by making a pact with the Germanic king who had power over him. In neither none of these cases was the pope necessary in the eyes of the Emperors.

What does an Emperor’s pov have to do with the Church’s position?

I think infallibility is a concept which needs to be revisited by Catholic theologians.

Or perhaps, rather, it needs to be properly understood by non-Catholic theologians.

I don’t recall any council proclaiming that it is infallible, just a reflection of the orthodox faith.

“It has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…” is a rather standard claim by Councils (remember, ecumenicity is not the same as infallibility). If that’s not a claim of infallibility, I don’t know what is.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

While it was true that a synod convened by Pope Nicholas in 863 passed a sentence of deposition against St. Photius, he was not actually deposed until 867, when Basil the Macedonian usurped the throne from Michael III.

I was just concerned that people might think that the deposition of St. Photius by the Roman Synod was politically motivated, when it wasn’t.

The sentence of deposition went unheeded in the East until the regime change.

Yes, it seems the emperor’s support was an important factor in the East.

It is worth noting by the way, that Ignatius did not submit an appeal to Rome, which is why the Byzantine clergy regarded Pope Nicholas’ actions as overstepping his authority.

Someone did. And the deposition was merely an application of canon law, so Pope Nicholas was not overstepping his authority.

Photius’ appointment was not actually illegal, either the first or second time. Both times he was canonically elected. This was the conclusion which was made by the Council of 879-880.

I agree with the second time. The first time, I’m not sure. If the lawful patriarch is banished by the emperor, another would need to take his place, no doubt about it. I think St Photius was something akin to a co-adjutor patriarch in the absence of the legitimate patriarch (same situation with Paulinus in the absence of St. Meletius in Antioch).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cavaradossi]

Someone did. And the deposition was merely an application of canon law, so Pope Nicholas was not overstepping his authority.

I would have to disagree with this statement. This was clearly an overstepping of the canonical prerogative to hear appeals. The canon says that he who is ruled against should submit an appeal. Nowhere does it say that anyone may submit one, but that specifically those wronged must do so. Patriarch Ignatius explicitly stated that he would not appeal to Rome, so Rome therefore had overstepped her boundary because the plaintiff had not submitted a plaint.

Secondly, the bishop of Rome’s power was to order a for new trial to take place in a neighboring province, not in Rome. Here too pope Nicholas overstepped what the canons delineated as being his prerogatives, by holding the synod in the West instead of in a neighboring province.

 

[mardukm]

I would have to disagree with this statement. This was clearly an overstepping of the canonical prerogative to hear appeals. The canon says that he who is ruled against should submit an appeal. Nowhere does it say that anyone may submit one, but that specifically those wronged must do so. Patriarch Ignatius explicitly stated that he would not appeal to Rome, so Rome therefore had overstepped her boundary because the plaintiff had not submitted a plaint.

The Canons say that the ones who deposed may themselves submit the case to the bishop of Rome for a confirmatory decision, and that’s what happened. The emperor and Photius both wanted the bishop of Rome to confirm their actions and sent appropriate requests to him for that purpose. THAT is how Pope St. Nicholas got involved in the matter. It was well within the authority of Pope St. Nicholas to refuse to grant confirmation.

Secondly, the bishop of Rome’s power was to order a for new trial to take place in a neighboring province, not in Rome. Here too pope Nicholas overstepped what the canons delineated as being his prerogatives, by holding the synod in the West instead of in a neighboring province.

I think you are confusing the facts here. The trial that was held in Rome was not for Sts. Photius or Ignatius, but for the Roman legates. The Roman Synod did not hold a trial to decide between Photius vs. Ignatius – however, it did merely repeat the Pope’s prior refusal to confirm the actions of the emperor and Photius.

Pope St. Nicholas did nothing wrong. It’s possible he may have been misinformed, but he did nothing wrong. What is ridiculous was the Photian Synod who excommunicated the Latins for such things as different fasting disciplines, sacramental disciplines and the addition of filioque. All this without a single representative from the West present at the “trial.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Filii_Dei]

Pope St. Nicholas did nothing wrong. It’s possible he may have been misinformed, but he did nothing wrong. What is ridiculous was the Photian Synod who excommunicated the Latins for such things as different fasting disciplines, sacramental disciplines and the addition of filioque. All this without a single representative from the West present at the “trial.”

As a light-hearted aside, this reminds me of something I read on Wikipedia:

The Council at Constantinople in 867 excommunicated Pope Nicholas I, declared him anathema, and excommunicated him, who was then replaced by Pope Adrian II (due to the death of Nicholas I)

He was excommunicated TWICE! They must have been worried the first wasn’t efficacious enough.

 

[Cavaradossi]

The Canons say that the ones who deposed may themselves submit the case to the bishop of Rome for a confirmatory decision, and that’s what happened. The emperor and Photius both wanted the bishop of Rome to confirm their actions and sent appropriate requests to him for that purpose. THAT is how Pope St. Nicholas got involved in the matter. It was well within the authority of Pope St. Nicholas to refuse to grant confirmation.

I think you are confusing the facts here. The trial that was held in Rome was not for Sts. Photius or Ignatius, but for the Roman legates. The Roman Synod did not hold a trial to decide between Photius vs. Ignatius – however, it did merely repeat the Pope’s prior refusal to confirm the actions of the emperor and Photius.

Pope St. Nicholas did nothing wrong. It’s possible he may have been misinformed, but he did nothing wrong. What is ridiculous was the Photian Synod who excommunicated the Latins for such things as different fasting disciplines, sacramental disciplines and the addition of filioque. All this without a single representative from the West present at the “trial.”

Blessings,
Marduk

So you tell me then, where does the reputation of Photius as a usurper come from, if not from the Latins who smeared his reputation? They did nothing wrong, except for maligning a great man and patriarch.

Also, if you will remember, St. Cyril held the council of Ephesus before John of Antioch and his party of bishops could arrive. There is a precedent for holding councils without the other side represented. There does not seem to be a precedent for Rome holding its own councils to judge disciplinary matters, especially when no appeal was made.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother in Christ Cavaradossi,

So you tell me then, where does the reputation of Photius as a usurper come from, if not from the Latins who smeared his reputation? They did nothing wrong, except for maligning a great man and patriarch.

The Latins were not the source, but rather the Eastern supporters of Ignatius who gave a different account to the Pope on the matter.

The emperor banishing Patriarch St. Ignatius and replacing him had a lot to do with it. It’s possible that St. Photius was merely riding on the winds of change and did not have anything to do with the deposition, but when he held a Synod and took retaliatory measures against the Latins – I think that made the matter all the worse for him, and that’s his own fault.

Also, if you will remember, St. Cyril held the council of Ephesus before John of Antioch and his party of bishops could arrive. There is a precedent for holding councils without the other side represented.

There’s a difference between not having the other side represented (the case of the Photian Synod) and being kept waiting by an invited party that shows up late (the case with Ephesus).

There does not seem to be a precedent for Rome holding its own councils to judge disciplinary matters, especially when no appeal was made.

An appeal was made - it came from the the emperor and Photius, and it was within the canonical authority of the bishop of Rome to confirm or reject the actions of the emperor and Photius.

Blessings,
Marduk