B
bobzills
Guest
St. Photius is a saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church. If there is a reunion between the Eastern Orthodox and the RCC, will the RCC accept the sainthood of St. Photius?
- Status
G
Ghosty
Guest
I see no problem with his Sainthood now, but so far as I know he’s not officially considered one by my Church. From what I’ve seen he’s certainly not what I would elevate as a Saint, though he’s no worse than some folks who already are on Catholic calendars.
At any rate, he did die in Communion as a Catholic, so I’ve no reason to presume he died without the Sacraments as an unrepentant sinner, heretic or schismatic.
Peace and God bless!
B
bobzills
Guest
Was his position on the filioque heretical or not?I see no problem with his Sainthood now, but so far as I know he’s not officially considered one by my Church. From what I’ve seen he’s certainly not what I would elevate as a Saint, though he’s no worse than some folks who already are on Catholic calendars.
At any rate, he did die in Communion as a Catholic, so I’ve no reason to presume he died without the Sacraments as an unrepentant sinner, heretic or schismatic.
Peace and God bless!
A
anthony022071
Guest
[bobzills]
Opposition to a doctrine of Rome is a heresy itself,since Rome is the fount of orthodoxy.
Yes. It was a doctrine of Rome,and he opposed it.
Opposition to a doctrine of Rome is a heresy itself,since Rome is the fount of orthodoxy.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Just ask Pope Honorius.
B
Badaliyyah
Guest
Actually I believe he is…check out Feb 6…I believe that is the date on the calendar for St.Photios.I see no problem with his [St.Photios, Patriarch of Constantinople] Sainthood now, but so far as I know he’s not officially considered one by my Church. From what I’ve seen he’s certainly not what I would elevate as a Saint, though he’s no worse than some folks who already are on Catholic calendars.
At any rate, he did die in Communion as a Catholic, so I’ve no reason to presume he died without the Sacraments as an unrepentant sinner, heretic or schismatic.
Peace and God bless!
This is another of those where the man is just too important to those Churches of Byzantine heritage to leave him off. He was an intellectual giant, and has massively shaped our tradition. On top of that he is crucial to the story of the conversion of the Slavs.
G
Ghosty
Guest
No, not that I’m aware of. He opposed the filioque, but he didn’t seem to grasp what the Latins were teaching on the matter. He died in Communion with Rome, which indicates that Rome didn’t view him as a heretic either.
Badaliyyah: You may indeed be right; I don’t have a Melkite calendar handy. I just know that I haven’t done the reading on his Feast day, which may fall on a weekday normally, and that’s how I usually find out which Saints are on the calendar.
Peace and God bless!
A
anthony022071
Guest
catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=6392
< It was the 9th century Patriarch Photius who held in a rigid manner that the Holy Spirit eternally proceeded from the Father alone (excluding completely any participation by the Son in the eternal procession). Moreover, it was Photius’s doctrine that most medieval Byzantines adhered to in opposition to Catholic affirmation of the doctrine embodied in the Filioque formulation which was, accordingly, repeatedly denounced as “heretical”. There is a clear effort in the “Agreed Statement” by the signatories (both Catholic and Orthodox) to declare Photius’s doctrine as “representative of the Orthodox tradition” and identical with that of the entire Greek patristic tradition (which is not the case). Glossed over, moreover, are some real differences between Photius’ doctrine concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit and that of such later Byzantine theologians as the 13th c. patriarch Gregory II of Constantinople and the 14th c. Archbishop of Thessalonika, Gregory Palamas. These attempted to defend Photius’ teaching with inadequate formulations of an “eternal manifestation” of the Spirit through the Son but such still cannot be reconciled with the teaching of the famous Council of Florence (1439) which defined Catholic doctrine on the procession. Catholic doctrine affirms the Spirit’s possessing His very hypostatic existence from the Father and (or through) the Son but this is an essential truth which is not conceded in the above Byzantines’ “eternal manifestation” theory). >
< It was the 9th century Patriarch Photius who held in a rigid manner that the Holy Spirit eternally proceeded from the Father alone (excluding completely any participation by the Son in the eternal procession). Moreover, it was Photius’s doctrine that most medieval Byzantines adhered to in opposition to Catholic affirmation of the doctrine embodied in the Filioque formulation which was, accordingly, repeatedly denounced as “heretical”. There is a clear effort in the “Agreed Statement” by the signatories (both Catholic and Orthodox) to declare Photius’s doctrine as “representative of the Orthodox tradition” and identical with that of the entire Greek patristic tradition (which is not the case). Glossed over, moreover, are some real differences between Photius’ doctrine concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit and that of such later Byzantine theologians as the 13th c. patriarch Gregory II of Constantinople and the 14th c. Archbishop of Thessalonika, Gregory Palamas. These attempted to defend Photius’ teaching with inadequate formulations of an “eternal manifestation” of the Spirit through the Son but such still cannot be reconciled with the teaching of the famous Council of Florence (1439) which defined Catholic doctrine on the procession. Catholic doctrine affirms the Spirit’s possessing His very hypostatic existence from the Father and (or through) the Son but this is an essential truth which is not conceded in the above Byzantines’ “eternal manifestation” theory). >
A
anthony022071
Guest
catholicity.com/encyclopedia/p/photius_of_constantinople.html
Photius of Constantinople, chief author of the great schism between East and West,…
< …In 867 he carried the war into the enemy’s camp by excommunicating the pope and his Latins. The reasons he gives for this, in an encyclical sent to the Eastern patriarchs, are: that Latins
fast on Saturday
do not begin Lent till Ash Wednesday (instead of three days earlier, as in the East)
do not allow priests to be married
do not allow priests to administer confirmation
have added the filioque to the creed.
Because of these errors the pope and all Latins are: “forerunners of apostasy, servants of Antichrist who deserve a thousand deaths, liars, fighters against God” (Hergenröther, I, 642-46)…
…And yet the other side of his character is no less evident. His insatiable ambition, his determination to obtain and keep the patriarchal see, led him to the extreme of dishonesty. His claim was worthless. That Ignatius was the rightful patriarch as long as he lived, and Photius an intruder, cannot be denied by any one who does not conceive the Church as merely the slave of a civil government. And to keep this place Photius descended to the lowest depth of deceit. At the very time he was protesting his obedience to the pope he was dictating to the emperor insolent letters that denied all papal jurisdiction. He misrepresented the story of Ignatius’s deposition with unblushing lies, and he at least connived at Ignatius’s ill-treatment in banishment. He proclaimed openly his entire subservience to the State in the whole question of his intrusion. He stops at nothing in his war against the Latins. He heaps up accusations against them that he must have known were lies. His effrontery on occasions is almost incredible. For instance, as one more grievance against Rome, he never tires of inveighing against the fact that Pope Marinus I (882-84), John VIII’s successor, was translated from another see, instead of being ordained from the Roman clergy. He describes this as an atrocious breach of canon law, quoting against it the first and second canons of Sardica; and at the same time he himself continually transferred bishops in his patriarchate. The Orthodox, who look upon him, rightly, as the great champion of their cause against Rome, have forgiven all his offences for the sake of this championship. >
Photius of Constantinople, chief author of the great schism between East and West,…
< …In 867 he carried the war into the enemy’s camp by excommunicating the pope and his Latins. The reasons he gives for this, in an encyclical sent to the Eastern patriarchs, are: that Latins
fast on Saturday
do not begin Lent till Ash Wednesday (instead of three days earlier, as in the East)
do not allow priests to be married
do not allow priests to administer confirmation
have added the filioque to the creed.
Because of these errors the pope and all Latins are: “forerunners of apostasy, servants of Antichrist who deserve a thousand deaths, liars, fighters against God” (Hergenröther, I, 642-46)…
…And yet the other side of his character is no less evident. His insatiable ambition, his determination to obtain and keep the patriarchal see, led him to the extreme of dishonesty. His claim was worthless. That Ignatius was the rightful patriarch as long as he lived, and Photius an intruder, cannot be denied by any one who does not conceive the Church as merely the slave of a civil government. And to keep this place Photius descended to the lowest depth of deceit. At the very time he was protesting his obedience to the pope he was dictating to the emperor insolent letters that denied all papal jurisdiction. He misrepresented the story of Ignatius’s deposition with unblushing lies, and he at least connived at Ignatius’s ill-treatment in banishment. He proclaimed openly his entire subservience to the State in the whole question of his intrusion. He stops at nothing in his war against the Latins. He heaps up accusations against them that he must have known were lies. His effrontery on occasions is almost incredible. For instance, as one more grievance against Rome, he never tires of inveighing against the fact that Pope Marinus I (882-84), John VIII’s successor, was translated from another see, instead of being ordained from the Roman clergy. He describes this as an atrocious breach of canon law, quoting against it the first and second canons of Sardica; and at the same time he himself continually transferred bishops in his patriarchate. The Orthodox, who look upon him, rightly, as the great champion of their cause against Rome, have forgiven all his offences for the sake of this championship. >
B
Badaliyyah
Guest
Just as a side note, of the three “Pillars of Orthodoxy” (Palamas, Photios and Mark of Ephesus) only Mark of Ephesus is NOT on the calendar of the various Greek Catholic Churches. This is because he was not on the calendar at the time we entered into communion with Rome.
salaam.
salaam.
L
LakaYaRabb
Guest
Anthony,
It was recommended to me to read “The Photian Schism” by Fr. Francis Dvornik. It might help you understand why even some Roman Catholic think St. Photios got a bad rap.
Also, FYI, the old Catholic encyclopedia is riddled with unscrupulous and egregious errors both Historical and Theological. You would do yourself a huge Spiritual benefit by NOT citing or even reading it (accept maybe those places it proves durable, but anything dealing with Eastern Christianity is not among those places).
It was recommended to me to read “The Photian Schism” by Fr. Francis Dvornik. It might help you understand why even some Roman Catholic think St. Photios got a bad rap.
Also, FYI, the old Catholic encyclopedia is riddled with unscrupulous and egregious errors both Historical and Theological. You would do yourself a huge Spiritual benefit by NOT citing or even reading it (accept maybe those places it proves durable, but anything dealing with Eastern Christianity is not among those places).
L
LakaYaRabb
Guest
Now is as good a time as any to add another Saint to the Calendar.
A
anthony022071
Guest
[LakaYaRabb]
Fourth Council of Constantinople, canon 21 (869-870 A.D.):
“Furthermore, nobody else should compose or edit writings or tracts against the most holy pope of old Rome, on the pretext of making incriminating charges, as Photius did recently and Dioscorus a long time ago. Whoever shows such great arrogance and audacity, after the manner of Photius and Dioscorus, and makes false accusations in writing or speech against the see of Peter, the chief of the apostles, let him receive a punishment equal to theirs.
“…Furthermore, if a universal synod is held and any question or controversy arises about the holy church of Rome, it should make inquiries with proper reverence and respect about the question raised and should find a profitable solution; it must on no account pronounce sentence rashly against the supreme pontiffs of old Rome.”
He got a bad rap for denouncing the pope and Catholic doctrine and causing a schism?
I doubt that there are unscrupulous and egregious errors in that article.
Fourth Council of Constantinople, canon 21 (869-870 A.D.):
“Furthermore, nobody else should compose or edit writings or tracts against the most holy pope of old Rome, on the pretext of making incriminating charges, as Photius did recently and Dioscorus a long time ago. Whoever shows such great arrogance and audacity, after the manner of Photius and Dioscorus, and makes false accusations in writing or speech against the see of Peter, the chief of the apostles, let him receive a punishment equal to theirs.
“…Furthermore, if a universal synod is held and any question or controversy arises about the holy church of Rome, it should make inquiries with proper reverence and respect about the question raised and should find a profitable solution; it must on no account pronounce sentence rashly against the supreme pontiffs of old Rome.”
L
LakaYaRabb
Guest
The Wikipedia article has this to say:
Now, wikipedia is full of egregious errors, however, this idea that St. Photius was never reconciled with the Church is clearly wrong. To my knowledge, the Roman Church never resolved the discrepancy of the existence of the two Councils of Constantinople. Remember, this was nearly 200 years before the Schism.
Wiki article
Now, wikipedia is full of egregious errors, however, this idea that St. Photius was never reconciled with the Church is clearly wrong. To my knowledge, the Roman Church never resolved the discrepancy of the existence of the two Councils of Constantinople. Remember, this was nearly 200 years before the Schism.
A
anthony022071
Guest
I never said that he wasn’t reconciled to the Church.
Even if he was,I doubt that he was sincere about it.
In any case,his schismatic behavior and all the damage that he caused in the Church precludes him from being a Catholic saint.
Even if he was,I doubt that he was sincere about it.
In any case,his schismatic behavior and all the damage that he caused in the Church precludes him from being a Catholic saint.
G
Ghosty
Guest
I don’t think the discrepency needed to be resolved, honestly. The first council deposed the Patriarch, the second allowed him to stay when he came back to holding the See later. Since he wasn’t permanently banned from being Patriarch (and such a thing can’t really happen anyway), there’s really no discrepency to resolve.
If you’re kicked out of the house today, and let back in a week from now, that’s not a discrepency or a contradiction, it’s a new circumstance with a new decision.
What I don’t understand is why some claim that the Council that deposed Photius was Ecumenical, since so far as I know it didn’t deal with a matter of the Faith, or anything that could possibly affect the whole Church. IIRC it was simply a disciplinary Council to resolve the matter of the Constinopolitan Patriarchate.
Peace and God bless!
A
anthony022071
Guest
catholictradition.blogspot.com/2005_01_01_catholictradition_archive.html
< The ecumenical status of the Fourth Council of Constantinople of 869-870 has long been contested by the Anti-Western Orthodox. During the ecumenically-charged milieu leading up to and following the Second Vatican Council, many Roman Catholic scholars and ecumenists, eager to mend relations with their Eastern Orthodox brethren, have been back-pedaling and down-playing their former criticisms of Photius, amending and revising their accounts of the Photian Schism. In this process, some further details have been brought to light, but in some instances earlier details have been obfiscated and covered over. One of the most prominent Catholic scholars during this period has been Francis Dvornik (or Dvornic), whose books, The Photian Schism: History and Legend (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1948; rpt. 1970) and Byzantium and the Roman Primacy (New York: Fordham University Press, 1966; rpt. 1979) have been viewed by Anti-Western Orthodox scholars as having come a significant way towards accommodating some of their interpretations. To their delight, Dvornik accepts, for example, their claim that the belief that the successors of John VIII–Marinus I, Stephen V, and Formosus–had broken with Photius is a legendary invention. It must be conceded, in fact, that Photius did die in communion with Rome. Dvornik’s claim that Photius never actually questioned Roman primacy seems well-attested. However, the notion that the ecumenical status of the Fourth Council of Constantinople in 869-870 is fundamentally compromised by the acts of the Photian Council of 879-880 cannot be seriously maintained. First, the matter is ultimately a question of authority, and whether the matter was immediately settled in the ninth century or not is in the final analysis irrelevant. Second, the Council claimed for itself an ecumenical status by calling itself the universalis octava synodus; and it had at least the necessary geographical characteristics because of the authority of all the heads of the Church who were either present or represented.
Was it recognized as ecumenical by the Holy See? Three facts are certain and incontestable. First, Adrian II had already approved it in his letter of Nov. 10, 871, as well as in his letter to the faithful of Salerno and Amalfi in 875; and John VIII called it sancta octava synodus, thereby formally recognizing its ecumenical status. Second, the Council has been listed among the ecumenical councils recognized by the Roman Catholic Church since the beginning of the 12th century. Third, the Byzantine Church itself accepted the Council as ecumenical until the Photian Synod of 879-880, which is thought to have abrogated its Acts; and those portions of the Byzantine Church that reunited with Rome since that time have considered it as ecumenical.
The crux of debate is reducible to the question whether Pope John VIII, by means of his supreme power of binding and loosing, actually annulled the acts of the Council of 869-870, thus depriving it of ecumenical status. This is of course what is claimed by Anti-Western Orthodox scholars, who have a curious (if convenient) interest at this point in the Roman primacy of John VIII. The answer is affirmative if the Greek text of the last two sessions of the Photian Synod are considered authentic, which may be doubted, not least because of Photius’s history of altering the letters sent to him, to the Emperor Basil, and to the Byzantine Church by Pope John VIII, before having them read at the Photian Synod of 879-880. The answer is negative if takes into consideration other documents, such as the letter of Pope Stephen V to Emperor Basil I in 885-886. This letter states, in fact, that 20 years after the Fourth Council of Constantinople (869-870), Photius was still trying to have it annulled, a step that would be inexplicable if prior to this time John VIII had already taken the initiative in this matter.
While ecumenically-minded scholars such as Dvornik have written irenically in support of the thesis of abrogation by John VIII, others such as Venance Grumel and Martin Jugie have defended the thesis of non-abrogation and ecumenicity of the Fourth Council of Constantinople (869-870) as the Eighth Ecumenical Council of the Church. Ultimately, however, the issue is one of ecclesiastical authority, in testimony of which stands the record of decrees of the Holy See. >
< The ecumenical status of the Fourth Council of Constantinople of 869-870 has long been contested by the Anti-Western Orthodox. During the ecumenically-charged milieu leading up to and following the Second Vatican Council, many Roman Catholic scholars and ecumenists, eager to mend relations with their Eastern Orthodox brethren, have been back-pedaling and down-playing their former criticisms of Photius, amending and revising their accounts of the Photian Schism. In this process, some further details have been brought to light, but in some instances earlier details have been obfiscated and covered over. One of the most prominent Catholic scholars during this period has been Francis Dvornik (or Dvornic), whose books, The Photian Schism: History and Legend (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1948; rpt. 1970) and Byzantium and the Roman Primacy (New York: Fordham University Press, 1966; rpt. 1979) have been viewed by Anti-Western Orthodox scholars as having come a significant way towards accommodating some of their interpretations. To their delight, Dvornik accepts, for example, their claim that the belief that the successors of John VIII–Marinus I, Stephen V, and Formosus–had broken with Photius is a legendary invention. It must be conceded, in fact, that Photius did die in communion with Rome. Dvornik’s claim that Photius never actually questioned Roman primacy seems well-attested. However, the notion that the ecumenical status of the Fourth Council of Constantinople in 869-870 is fundamentally compromised by the acts of the Photian Council of 879-880 cannot be seriously maintained. First, the matter is ultimately a question of authority, and whether the matter was immediately settled in the ninth century or not is in the final analysis irrelevant. Second, the Council claimed for itself an ecumenical status by calling itself the universalis octava synodus; and it had at least the necessary geographical characteristics because of the authority of all the heads of the Church who were either present or represented.
Was it recognized as ecumenical by the Holy See? Three facts are certain and incontestable. First, Adrian II had already approved it in his letter of Nov. 10, 871, as well as in his letter to the faithful of Salerno and Amalfi in 875; and John VIII called it sancta octava synodus, thereby formally recognizing its ecumenical status. Second, the Council has been listed among the ecumenical councils recognized by the Roman Catholic Church since the beginning of the 12th century. Third, the Byzantine Church itself accepted the Council as ecumenical until the Photian Synod of 879-880, which is thought to have abrogated its Acts; and those portions of the Byzantine Church that reunited with Rome since that time have considered it as ecumenical.
The crux of debate is reducible to the question whether Pope John VIII, by means of his supreme power of binding and loosing, actually annulled the acts of the Council of 869-870, thus depriving it of ecumenical status. This is of course what is claimed by Anti-Western Orthodox scholars, who have a curious (if convenient) interest at this point in the Roman primacy of John VIII. The answer is affirmative if the Greek text of the last two sessions of the Photian Synod are considered authentic, which may be doubted, not least because of Photius’s history of altering the letters sent to him, to the Emperor Basil, and to the Byzantine Church by Pope John VIII, before having them read at the Photian Synod of 879-880. The answer is negative if takes into consideration other documents, such as the letter of Pope Stephen V to Emperor Basil I in 885-886. This letter states, in fact, that 20 years after the Fourth Council of Constantinople (869-870), Photius was still trying to have it annulled, a step that would be inexplicable if prior to this time John VIII had already taken the initiative in this matter.
While ecumenically-minded scholars such as Dvornik have written irenically in support of the thesis of abrogation by John VIII, others such as Venance Grumel and Martin Jugie have defended the thesis of non-abrogation and ecumenicity of the Fourth Council of Constantinople (869-870) as the Eighth Ecumenical Council of the Church. Ultimately, however, the issue is one of ecclesiastical authority, in testimony of which stands the record of decrees of the Holy See. >
B
Badaliyyah
Guest
I am curious if there are actually ANY saints that were removed from our calendars when we entered into communion with the Church of Rome. To my knowledge we did not strike any saints from our calendars, despite anthony’s effusive protestations about who is and isn’t Catholic. But I am not absolutely certain.
What I am certain about is that St.Gregory and St.Photios are both ON the calendar and we honor their memory, asking them always…
Ss.Gregory Palamas and Photios the Great, Pray for us!
salaam.
A
Apotheoun
Guest
St. Photios the Great pray for us.
H
Hesychios
Guest
- Status