Contradictory Church Councils?

[Liberian]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

On another forum (non-Catholic but certainly not anti-Catholic), a poster wrote the following:

Pope Leo III (a saint in RCC) rejected Frankish King Charlemagne’s insistence to include “filioque” in the Creed. Pope Hadrian II (not a saint in RCC) supported filioque heresy to condemn Patriarch Photius (a saint in EOC who fought against filioque heresy) in a council held in Constantinople in 869. Ten years later, Pope John VIII confirmed another council held in Constantinople in 879 to condemn the innovation (insertion of filioque), to restore Patriarch Photius and to cancel the council held in 869. This council of 879 was recognized by RCC as the Eighth Ecumenical Council until 11th century. Pope Hadrian III (a saint in RCC) also sided with Patriarch Photius. However, later popes ruled against the council of 879 and put the council of 869 back to the list, that is still official until now. Even if we are to ignore who is right and who is wrong, the history shows clearly how popes contradict each other.

I am not a historian and have no clue as to how to answer this. Can anybody enlighten me?

• Liberian

 

[DeFide]

Liberian:

Ladies and Gentlemen,

On another forum (non-Catholic but certainly not anti-Catholic), a poster wrote the following:

I am not a historian and have no clue as to how to answer this. Can anybody enlighten me?

• Liberian

Here are some leads:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?postid=1385471#poststop

You might ask them to produce particulars of dogmatic definitions that are supposed to contradict one another. Protestants have been trying unsuccessfully for quite some time now, so I’m sure they’d like to know, too.

 

[Liberian]

DeFide:

Here are some leads:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?postid=1385471#poststop

You might ask them to produce particulars of dogmatic definitions that are supposed to contradict one another. Protestants have been trying unsuccessfully for quite some time now, so I’m sure they’d like to know, too.

DeFide,

Thank you for the link. It sheds some light on the subject. The particular dogmatic definitions have to do with the “filioque,” although I guess you are asking for the exact statements of dogma.

• Liberian

 

[Lazerlike42]

It has been seen that the Creed of Constantinople at first declared only the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father; it was directed against the followers of Macedonius who denied the Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father. In the East, the omission of Filioque did not lead to any misunderstanding. But conditions were different in Spain after the Goths had renounced Arianism and professed the Catholic faith in the Third Synod of Toledo, 589. It cannot be acertained who first added the Filioque to the Creed; but it appears to be certain that the Creed, with the addition of the Filioque, was first sung in the Spanish Church after the conversion of the Goths. In 796 the Patriarch of Aquileia justified and adopted the same addition at the Synod of Friaul, and in 809 the Council of Aachen appears to have approved of it. The decrees of this last council were examined by Pope Leo III, who approved of the doctrine conveyed by the Filioque, but gave the advice to omit the expression in the Creed. The practice of adding the Filioque was retained in spite of the papel advice, and in the middle of the eleventh century it had gained a firm foothold in Rome itself. scholars do not agree as to the exact time of its introduction into Rome, but most assign it to the reign of Benedict VIII (1014-15). The Catholic doctrine was accepted by the Greek deputies who were present at the Second Council of florence, in 1439, when the Creed was sung both in greek and Latin, with the addition of the word Filioque. On each occasion it was hoped that the Patriarch of Constantinople and his subjects had abandoned the state of heresy and schism in which they had been living since time of Photius, who about 870 found in the Filioque an excuse for throwing off all dependence on Rome. But however sincere the individual Greek bishops may have been, they failed to carry their people with them, and the breach between East and West continues to this day. It is a matter for surprise that so abstract a subject as the doctrine of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost should have appealed to the imagination of the multitude. But their national feelings had been aroused by the desire of liberation from the rule of the ancient rival of Constantinople; the occasion of lawfully obtaining their desire appeared to present itself in the addition of Filioque to the Creed of Constantinople. Had not Rome overstepped her rights by disobeying the injunction of the Third Council, of Ephesus (431), and of the Fourth, of Chalcedon (451)? It is true that these councils had forbidden to introduce another faith or another Creed, and had imposed the penalty of deposition on bishops and clerics, and of excommunication on monks and laymen for transgressing this law; but the councils had not forbidden to explain the same faith or to propose the same Creed in a clearer way. Besides, the conciliar decrees affected individual transgressors, as is plain from the sanction added; they did not bind the Church as a body. Finally, the Councils of Lyons and Florence did not require the Greeks to insert the Filioque into the Creed, but only to accept the Catholic doctrine of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost.

• newadvent.org/cathen/06073a.htm

 

[Lazerlike42]

In 878, then, Photius at last obtained lawfully the place he had formerly usurped. Rome acknowledged him and restored him to her communion. There was no possible reason now for a fresh quarrel. But he had identified himself so completely with that strong anti-Roman party in the East which he mainly had formed, and, doubtless, he had formed so great a hatred of Rome, that now he carried on the old quarrel with as much bitterness as ever and more influence. Nevertheless he applied to Rome for legates to come to another synod. There was no reason for the synod, but he persuaded John VIII that it would clear up the last remains of the schism and rivet more firmly the union between East and West. His real motive was, no doubt, to undo the effect of the synod that had deposed him. The pope sent three legates, Cardinal Peter of St. Chrysogonus, Paul, Bishop of Ancona, and Eugene, Bishop of Ostia. The synod was opened in St. Sophia’s in November, 879. This is the “Psuedosynodus Photiana” which the Orthodox count as the Eighth General Council. Photius had it all his own way throughout. He revoked the acts of the former synod (869), repeated all his accusations against the Latins, dwelling especially on the filioque grievance, anathematized all who added anything to the Creed, and declared that Bulgaria should belong to the Byzantine Patriarchate. The fact that there was a great majority for all these measures shows how strong Photius’s party had become in the East. The legates, like their predecessors in 861, agreed to everything the majority desired (Mansi, XVII, 374 sq.). As soon as they had returned to Rome, Photius sent the Acts to the pope for his confirmation. Instead John, naturally, again excommunicated him. So the schism broke out again. This time it lasted seven years, till Basil I’s death in 886.

• newadvent.org/cathen/12043b.htm

So then, John VIII’s legates agreed to Photius’ council, but John VIII did not, and no council can be ecumenical without the approval of the Roman Pontif. You’re going to have to get this person to show you proof that the Catholic Church recognized the Photian Synod as the eigth ecumenical council until the 11th century. I’m pretty sure there is no such proof. That being said, even if there were, the council was never confirmed by John VIII, so it was never ecumenical, and the Church would have been mistaken, though it would not have been the sort of belief that would have been protected from infallibility anyways.

This person is Eastern Orthodox?