Eight Council accepted?

[Richard_I]

I have a question, regarding the Orthodox Church’s eighth general council? BTW there eighth general council is not the same as ours is, of the Catholic Church.
But Ortthodoxwike claims in the following article that Catholics at first accepted this council, which anathematized anyone that added to the Nicene-Constantinople Creed. Did Catholics ever accept it, as the Orthodox say? And if they later rejected it, why did they do so.Grace and peace.
orthodoxwiki.org/Eighth_Ecumenical_Council

 

[SyroMalankara]

It is difficult to state without choosing a side. I’d say that it was generally accepted by Papal legates, until a later Pope rejected it.

Most Eastern Orthodox accept this as an Ecumenical Council, some do not

 

[Cherripeeps]

I’m no expert on Church History yet, but here’s the Catholic stance on the whole Filioque controversy:

Basically, the council of Ephesus prohibited the making of new creeds. However, there’s an important qualifier for that prohibition: The edicts of ecumenical councils are not binding on future ecumenical councils, unless they are pronouncing on faith and morals. Since the prohibition of making new creeds was a disciplinary measure, it actually did not apply to the creation of the Creed that has the Filioque in it.

Here you have the a more abundant version of this explanation:

catholic.com/quickquestions/how-do-we-counter-the-charge-that-the-addition-of-filioque-was-an-illicit-alteration-

If you’d like to understand the Filioque further:

catholic.com/quickquestions/how-can-the-nicene-creed-expressions-and-the-son-and-through-the-son-mean-the-same-th

I also found some pretty thorough information on the “Eight Council” accepted by the Orthodox; I’ll process all that and I’ll get back to you tomorrow.

 

[MorEphrem]

It would seem if the Roman Church was considered to be a legitimate Church at the time by the Orthodox then withdrew support (even if it was centuries past) would that not undermine the Orthodox ecumenical criterion of the involvement of the whole Church?

 

[Cherripeeps]

Hey!

I apologize for the delay. Here’s the definitive answer to your question:

The Orthodox Wiki article you linked to contains one big historical inaccuracy. The Orthodox’s so-called Eighth General Council never enjoyed “full papal endorsement.” Here’s how it happened:

Photius of Constantinople did indeed request for papal legates to be sent to the council. The council was completely dominated by a strong anti-Roman party that Photius had gradually stirred up in the East. In this context, the anti-Romans condemned the filioque, among other things. The legates ended up agreeing to everything the majority wanted. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, “As soon as [the legates] had returned to Rome, Photius sent the Acts to the pope for his confirmation. Instead [Pope John VIII], naturally, again excommunicated him. So the schism broke out again. This time it lasted seven years, till [Emperor] Basil I’s death in 886.”

So, basically, the papal legates accepted the robber council and its edicts, but they don’t get to have the final word on the matter; it was up to the Pope to ratify the council’s Acts. Ultimately Pope John VIII, under whose jurisdiction the council took place, rejected it and excommunicated Photius.

As noted above, source is The Catholic Encyclopedia. More reliable than the Orthodox wiki. Here you can read the full story and its antecedents: newadvent.org/cathen/12043b.htm

It’s a long read, but it’s worth it.

I wrote up a pretty thorough summary of the whole controversy, if you would like more context to better understand everything that happened. Would you like me to post it here?

 

[prodromos]

Hey!

I apologize for the delay. Here’s the definitive answer to your question:

The Orthodox Wiki article you linked to contains one big historical inaccuracy. The Orthodox’s so-called Eighth General Council never enjoyed “full papal endorsement.” Here’s how it happened:

Photius of Constantinople did indeed request for papal legates to be sent to the council. The council was completely dominated by a strong anti-Roman party that Photius had gradually stirred up in the East. In this context, the anti-Romans condemned the filioque, among other things. The legates ended up agreeing to everything the majority wanted. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, “As soon as [the legates] had returned to Rome, Photius sent the Acts to the pope for his confirmation. Instead [Pope John VIII], naturally, again excommunicated him. So the schism broke out again. This time it lasted seven years, till [Emperor] Basil I’s death in 886.”

So, basically, the papal legates accepted the robber council and its edicts, but they don’t get to have the final word on the matter; it was up to the Pope to ratify the council’s Acts. Ultimately Pope John VIII, under whose jurisdiction the council took place, rejected it and excommunicated Photius.

As noted above, source is The Catholic Encyclopedia. More reliable than the Orthodox wiki. Here you can read the full story and its antecedents: newadvent.org/cathen/12043b.htm

It’s a long read, but it’s worth it.

Oh I agree wholeheartedly, in fact I have printed the whole article onto soft paper and hung it on the wall of the smallest room in my house so it can realise its full worth.
What an unbelievable hatchet job, quoting the false claims of Photius’ enemies and only afterwards adding a disclaimer that they should not be taken seriously. How anyone can claim it is an accurate account after so heavily biased an introduction is beyond me.

I would recommend people instead read the history of the period as researched by Catholic historian Francis Dvornik. It is the result of many years of meticulous research. While still carrying a Catholic bias it has nothing in common with the above mentioned polemic article which serves only to attack and attempt to discredit a Saint of the Church (also venerated by Eastern Catholics).

 

[Vico]

Oh I agree wholeheartedly, in fact I have printed the whole article onto soft paper and hung it on the wall of the smallest room in my house so it can realise its full worth.
What an unbelievable hatchet job, quoting the false claims of Photius’ enemies and only afterwards adding a disclaimer that they should not be taken seriously. How anyone can claim it is an accurate account after so heavily biased an introduction is beyond me.

I would recommend people instead read the history of the period as researched by Catholic historian Francis Dvornik. It is the result of many years of meticulous research. While still carrying a Catholic bias it has nothing in common with the above mentioned polemic article which serves only to attack and attempt to discredit a Saint of the Church (also venerated by Eastern Catholics).

Combining three resources

• F. Dvornik, The Photian Schism, from 1948
• J. H. Freese, The Library of Photius, from 1920
• A. Gerostergios, St. Photios the Great, from 1980.

One surmises that on the death of Patriarch of Constantinople Ignatius in 877 A.D., Photius was recognized patriarch. Pope John VIII recognized him as patriarch and sent legates to a synod, held in 879–80 A.D. and Photius continued as patriarch until Byzantine Emperor Leo VI in 886 A.D. forced him to resign and then Photius died in exile.