Having doubts after looking at Eastern Orthodoxy, development of doctrine

[addictedkoala]

It would be like fifty Popes in a row saying Vatican II was an Ecumenical Council every Catholic should subscribe to, and then it wasn’t.

I don’t know what the Catholic church says about Vatican II or Vatican I or Trent, but that is what the basic issue is. You will have to get the answer from a reliable Catholic source.

Can a new Pope overturn an Ecumenical Council (like Lateran IV or Vatican II) after fifty Popes and many generations of Catholics (millions of people) have known it to be an Ecumenical Council?

Can a Pope suddenly approve and recognize an old Council that fifty Popes had refused to recognize?

It is an interesting question.

What do we mean by recognize, as far as I can tell the council in 879 was never considered ecumenical by the Catholic Church, though I’m sure the popes accepted some parts of the council, most notably the reestablishment of Photios. However if you have a source that shows they did consider it ecumenical I would like to see it. Since I don’t believe anyone considered either of them ecumenical yet, the later popes were perfectly alright supporting the council in 869.

 

[addictedkoala]

This was a problem for me also before I converted to Holy Orthodoxy. Frankly, any innovation can be declared and rationalized as “doctrinal development” (even something as unknown to the undivided Church as papal supremacy/infallibiliy and universal jurisdiction).

of course what you state (“unknown”) is very contested. It would be very hard to point to something completely new and call it development, because if it’s new then it didn’t develop. If the Pope tomorrow said every Catholic man must be named asparagus, and declared it dogma and rationalized it as development then we can obviously see the flaw.

 

[Hesychios]

… Since I don’t believe anyone considered either of them ecumenical yet, the later popes were perfectly alright supporting the council in 869.

According to Podromos post (above):
As Pope John VIII wrote to the council of 879, the same being read out at the council by his legates:"We [Pope John VIII] wish that it is declared before the Synod, that the Synod which took place against the aforementioned Patriarch Photios at the time of Hadrian, the Most holy Pope in Rome, and [the Synod] in Constantinople [869/70] should be ostracized from this present moment and be regarded as annulled and groundless, and should not be co-enumerated with any other holy Synods."

 

[prodromos]

He wanted ecumenical councils.

I asked John for more information on the other stuff he posted, before I answered him.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6680224&postcount=272

No, I asked for an explanation of how the Catholic Church justifies doing a complete about face regarding the council of 869-870 and the one which it had accepted for 200 years, the council of 879-880.
What more information do you need that I haven’t already given you?

 

[crazzeto]

According to Podromos post (above):
As Pope John VIII wrote to the council of 879, the same being read out at the council by his legates:"We [Pope John VIII] wish that it is declared before the Synod, that the Synod which took place against the aforementioned Patriarch Photios at the time of Hadrian, the Most holy Pope in Rome, and [the Synod] in Constantinople [869/70] should be ostracized from this present moment and be regarded as annulled and groundless, and should not be co-enumerated with any other holy Synods."

A couple of comments here, first and formost is the fact that John him self would later denouce Photious, and secondly that the historical record isn’t as clear as you pretend it is. Some say based on evidence such as this that John supported '79 as Constantinople IV, others based upon his later condemnation of this council (and Photious) that he was being mislead by his legates as to what was actually happening at this council.

I suppose it would make you happy as an Eastern Christian to know that John VIII personally did not pulmigate or support the filioque, but even there John VIII never offered any statement (certainly not excathedra) condeming it.

 

[Harpazo]

A couple of comments here, first and formost is the fact that John him self would later denouce Photious, and secondly that the historical record isn’t as clear as you pretend it is. Some say based on evidence such as this that John supported '79 as Constantinople IV, others based upon his later condemnation of this council (and Photious) that he was being mislead by his legates as to what was actually happening at this council.

It’s pretty clear. I would dare say crystal clear. The about face on this council did not take place until the late 11th century. I’d like to see sources from what Pope John’s contemporaries had to say, if they are naysayers as you claim.

I suppose it would make you happy as an Eastern Christian to know that John VIII personally did not pulmigate or support the filioque, but even there John VIII never offered any statement (certainly not excathedra) condeming it.

Ex cathedra statements are a good 1000 years from this point. I found Pope Leo III’s witness to be a far better cause against the filioque.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[crazzeto]

It’s pretty clear. I would dare say crystal clear. The about face on this council did not take place until the late 11th century. I’d like to see sources from what Pope John’s contemporaries had to say, if they are naysayers as you claim.

Ex cathedra statements are a good 1000 years from this point. I found Pope Leo III’s witness to be a far better cause against the filioque.

In Christ,
Andrew

It is also crystal clear that when Pope John VIII was finally informed of Photious’s intentions he immedatly and permentantly excommunicated him. Actions speak louder than words indeed.

 

[steve_b]

No, I asked for an explanation of how the Catholic Church justifies doing a complete about face regarding the council of 869-870 and the one which it had accepted for 200 years, the council of 879-880.
What more information do you need that I haven’t already given you?

I just finished reading about all the intrigues in Constantinople surrounding the councils. That would have been helpful information in advance, to know. Maybe it’s you who should explain…

 

[StevieD]

I find it interesting that you accuse us of being anti-Catholic and then proceed to make gross generalizations about what Orthodox think. Sounds rather anti-Orthodox.
First the Orthodox Churches don’t make any claim at all regarding Marian Apparitions. Like most things the Church itself does not comment. Individuals within the Church may, but unless you have an account of the Holy Synod of the Church commenting on a matter, no Church in the communion has commented.
Second there is nothing which makes a certain sign of sainthood, including an incorrupt body. That is foolishness. It may be used as an argument for, but it does not make it certain.
Thirdly we do not count unity the same way you do. We do not believe one Church is subject to another on matters of practice. Additionally the whole contraception thing is brought up by Catholics again and again, and it has been answered by Orthodox on this forum again and again, so I’m not going to touch it. However what I will touch is “Competition outside their Church areas, which is unknown in the Catholic Church” Really? So why are there Latin Churches in countries with established Eastern Catholic Churches (Like Ukraine), and just what Church holds jurisdiction in North America?

For someone who started their post by saying Orthodox are “Anti-Catholic” you sure came out swinging and making very anti-Orthodox statements. If you haven’t met a Catholic who hates Orthodoxy I suggest you look in the mirror because that is the message you are conveying. If it isn’t the one you wished to convey, well judge not lest ye be judged.

As I stated I was brought up to regard Orthodoxy VERY positively but have been appalled to discover, and only fairly recently, that their attitude to Catholicism and the Papacy is usually cynical and negative (just go to any EO forum and most EO websites). I am reacting to a general (I did not say universal) distaste for all things Catholic among the EO. The EO as a whole isn’t really in a position to comment with one voice about anything as they do not have any means to do so in any routine way but I can assure you that I have yet to hear a positive or even polite reference to Marian apparitions from any EO source on the net. This must be a reflection, at least of what they hear from their priests.
There is disunity among the EO in some basic matters other than contraception (important enough) such as Catholic orders (recognised by the ROC not by the GOC) so it seems that the EO groups move gradually further apart without any action to come to any official joint voice.

 

[prodromos]

It is also crystal clear that when Pope John VIII was finally informed of Photious’s intentions he immedatly and permentantly excommunicated him. Actions speak louder than words indeed.

This is actually a myth. It never happened.

 

[josie_L]

Ex cathedra statements are a good 1000 years from this point. I found Pope Leo III’s witness to be a far better cause against the filioque.

In Christ,
Andrew

You’re going to have change your position on that:

9th Century
West: Pope St. Leo III of Rome (6/12)

58.Eastern Orthodox apologists make much of the fact that Pope St. Leo III opposed the edition of Filioque to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381 and had it engraved in its original form in Greek and Latin on two silver shields in front of St. Peter’s/,{1} but that is where the usefulness of their polemical weapon ceases. St. Leo III told Bl. Charlemagne (1/28) that he agreed with the doctrine of Filioque.{2} But Pope St. Leo III–who omitted Filioque from the Creed for the sake of Church unity{3} and was aware of the sensitivity of the Greeks about their Creed{4} and the nuances of ἐκπορευόμενον vs. προείναι{5}–openly confessed, in letter to all the Eastern Churches, his belief in “the Holy Spirit, proceeding equally from the Father and from the Son, consubstantial, coeternal with the Father and the Son. The Father, complete God in Himself, the Son, complete God begotten of the Father, the Holy Spirit, complete God proceeding from the Father and the Son…” {6} This manifestly concerns the hypostatic procession of the Holy Spirit.

{6} Swete, H. B. On the History of the Doctrine of the Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Apostolic Age to the Death of Charlemagne. Cambridge and London, 1876. p. 230. The Latin reads, “Spiritum Sanctum a Patre et a Filio aequaliter procedentem, consubstantialem, coaeternum Patri et Filio. Pater plenus Deus in se, Filius plenus Deus a Patre genitus, Spiritus Sanctus plenus Deus a Patre et Filio procedens.”

catholicpatristics.blogspot.c…/filioque.html

p.s. The article mentions every church father and figure (which there are many) who expressed and/or taught the filioque.

p.p.s See what happens when you take things out of context.

 

[prodromos]

I just finished reading about all the intrigues in Constantinople surrounding the councils. That would have been helpful information in advance, to know. Maybe it’s you who should explain…

LOL you simply won’t answer the question will you? Or perhaps “intrigues” is your answer? So tell me, what ‘intriguing’ information suddenly came to light at the end of the 11th Century that the 50 previous popes were not privy to, and caused the ruling pope to reverse the decisions of the council of 879. Please give citations because I have been unable to find any evidence of the 879 council being abrogated…

 

[Bluegoat]

As I stated I was brought up to regard Orthodoxy VERY positively but have been appalled to discover, and only fairly recently, that their attitude to Catholicism and the Papacy is usually cynical and negative (just go to any EO forum and most EO websites). I am reacting to a general (I did not say universal) distaste for all things Catholic among the EO. The EO as a whole isn’t really in a position to comment with one voice about anything as they do not have any means to do so in any routine way but I can assure you that I have yet to hear a positive or even polite reference to Marian apparitions from any EO source on the net. This must be a reflection, at least of what they hear from their priests.
There is disunity among the EO in some basic matters other than contraception (important enough) such as Catholic orders (recognised by the ROC not by the GOC) so it seems that the EO groups move gradually further apart without any action to come to any official joint voice.

I can understand why you found the EO attitude rather disconcerting. I think Catholics are set up a bit unfairly because they are often taught that they and the EO are two peas in a pod, and so it is a shock when they find those feelings are not reciprocated (I suppose it may be good for one’s humility - it gives an idea how many Protestants feel about Catholic attitudes to them.)

And EO forums are some of the most inward looking I have ever seen, and can be quite nasty to outsiders. I am not sure that this is necessarily reflective of actual people in real parishes though.

As for Marian apparitions - I am not sure, but my gut feeling is that Orthodoxy is very suspicious of such things. They often seem to see many Western types of prayer and spirituality as questionable or dangerous - too individualistic, too emotional, and prone to creating deceptions and unhealthy spiritual focus. I think Marian apparitions could be seen as related to that. Also, in icons I believe it is the case that Mary never appears alone - only with Christ. I think that could also indicate a basic attitude that makes Marian apparitions suspicious to them.

But I am pulling this out of my butt, so perhaps an Orthodox poster could provide more insight.

 

[josie_L]

No, I asked for an explanation of how the Catholic Church justifies doing a complete about face regarding the council of 869-870 and the one which it had accepted for 200 years, the council of 879-880.
What more information do you need that I haven’t already given you?

The Church (pope John VIII) never accepted 879-880, moreover, I doubt he even repudiated the 869 council, in fact, a letter written by pope John VIII to emperor Basil stated that he would recognize Photius as patriarch if he apologized for his past behaviour, returned Bulgaria to Roman ecclesiastical administration, promoted no laymen to bishop, and brought peace to the eastern Church. Part of the letter to Emperor Basil reads as such:

(Dvornik, Photian Schism, pp. 182-186, 207-236; Jedin and Dolan, History of the Church, III, 185; Vogt, Basile 1er, pp. 240-242.)

“Knowing that the Patriarch Ignatius has departed this life and having considered all the circumstances mentioned in your letters, we decree that Photius may be forgiven whatever he is known to have done in the past, although he usurped functions that were forbidden him without reference to our See; and we decree this without prejudice to the apostolic statutes or the rules of the Holy Fathers: rather do we act on the strength of those rules and their manifold authority.”

(Dvornik, Photian Schism, pp. 183.)

The letter written by Pope John VIII to emperor Basil was reworded courtesy of Photius:

1. Alterations to Pope John VIII’s Letter to Basil

(1) Photios embellishes Pope John VIII’s praise of the emperors and changes the letter to say that the emperor consults Rome merely “for the sake of union” (Mann 258). (2) Photios omits everything about St. Ignatios and “the circumstances of the time,” pretends Pope John VIII was yearning to restore him, and pretends that he was unwillingly restored by the emperor (259). (3) He eliminates the letter’s statements that he has to ask for forgiveness before a council, and omits Pope John VIII’s mention that he, as the supreme pastor with the plenitude of power, absolves Photios and all those condemned with him (259). (4) **Photios adds self-praise and makes John condemn all the councils, including the Eighth Ecumenical Council, that condemned him **(259). (5) Photios palliates John’s conditions that after Photios dies, a Constantinopolitan cardinal priest or deacon (but not layman or court member) is elected Patriarch, that clerics are not to be speedily elevated, and that Photios relinquishes his pretensions to have jurisdiction over Bulgaria (260). (6) Photios omits John VIII’s threat to excommunicate him should he receive any bishops the pope has condemned (260).

thebananarepublican1.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/the-photian-robber-council-of-879-880/

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You might need a colonoscopy now!

I can understand why you found the EO attitude rather disconcerting. I think Catholics are set up a bit unfairly because they are often taught that they and the EO are two peas in a pod, and so it is a shock when they find those feelings are not reciprocated (I suppose it may be good for one’s humility - it gives an idea how many Protestants feel about Catholic attitudes to them.)

And EO forums are some of the most inward looking I have ever seen, and can be quite nasty to outsiders. I am not sure that this is necessarily reflective of actual people in real parishes though.

As for Marian apparitions - I am not sure, but my gut feeling is that Orthodoxy is very suspicious of such things. They often seem to see many Western types of prayer and spirituality as questionable or dangerous - too individualistic, too emotional, and prone to creating deceptions and unhealthy spiritual focus. I think Marian apparitions could be seen as related to that. Also, in icons I believe it is the case that Mary never appears alone - only with Christ. I think that could also indicate a basic attitude that makes Marian apparitions suspicious to them.

**But I am pulling this out of my butt, so perhaps an Orthodox poster could provide more insight./**QUOTE]

 

[steve_b]

LOL you simply won’t answer the question will you? Or perhaps “intrigues” is your answer? So tell me, what ‘intriguing’ information suddenly came to light at the end of the 11th Century that the 50 previous popes were not privy to, and caused the ruling pope to reverse the decisions of the council of 879. Please give citations because I have been unable to find any evidence of the 879 council being abrogated…

re:The council of 879

• Not all the EO accept the council of 879
• The RO say pope John VIII didn’t accept the council of 879 " In the same year of 879, a council assembled in Constantinople with legates from Pope John VIII. Not one of the pope’s conditions did the council accept; and the pope did not recognize the enactments of the council." stjohndc.org/Russian/orthhtrdx/e_P04.htm
• The CC accepts the council of 869

What am I supposed to say?

 

[searn77]

I can understand why you found the EO attitude rather disconcerting. I think Catholics are set up a bit unfairly because they are often taught that they and the EO are two peas in a pod, and so it is a shock when they find those feelings are not reciprocated (I suppose it may be good for one’s humility - it gives an idea how many Protestants feel about Catholic attitudes to them.)

And EO forums are some of the most inward looking I have ever seen, and can be quite nasty to outsiders. I am not sure that this is necessarily reflective of actual people in real parishes though.

As for Marian apparitions - I am not sure, but my gut feeling is that Orthodoxy is very suspicious of such things. They often seem to see many Western types of prayer and spirituality as questionable or dangerous - too individualistic, too emotional, and prone to creating deceptions and unhealthy spiritual focus. I think Marian apparitions could be seen as related to that. Also, in icons I believe it is the case that Mary never appears alone - only with Christ. I think that could also indicate a basic attitude that makes Marian apparitions suspicious to them.

But I am pulling this out of my butt, so perhaps an Orthodox poster could provide more insight.

I just thought I’d say that I rarely see bad attitudes on the Orthodox forum that I go to, although it gets a little heated up when you start talking about the council of Chalcedon.

 

[Contarini]

You’re going to have change your position on that:

Not at all. The fact that Pope Leo agreed with the theology of the Filioque does not change the fact that he opposed its addition to the Creed.

There is no reason to believe that God has revealed the Holy Spirit to proceed from the Son. It is at best a legitimate theological speculation.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

What I find notable about the EO is that they are generally anti-Catholic enough to make a Southern Baptist blush.

Well, now you know how we Anglicans feel about your attitude to us!

but not our EO friends who likewise denigrate Saint Bernadette who is incorrupt which is supposed to be a certain sign of sainthood in the EO (but not in Catholicism).

I don’t believe that that’s the case.

There is also their problem of lack of unity (e.g. the ROC bans contraception but the GC permits it where a priest has given permission)

Economia.

and of competition outside their national church areas of influence which is unknown in the Catholic Church.

If you had heard the Byzantine Rite priest trying to persuade me to join his parish rather than the Latin-Rite parishes that were much closer to where I lived, you’d have to take that back.

Furthermore, unlike most conflicts within canonical Orthodoxy, this one included casting doubt on the orthodoxy of the Latin-Rite parishes (which were admittedly quite liberal in that area–the point is that this is a far more substantive form of disunity than you find within Orthodoxy).

Catholic parishes vary theologically a lot more than Orthodox parishes do, by and large, and Catholics are generally more likely to say that other members of the Catholic Church in good standing are “not really Catholic” than Orthodox are.

A lot of the EO hate Catholicism but I have never met a Catholic who hates Orthodoxy - By their fruits?

This assumes

a. that “hatred” of a religious institution or theological tradition is uncharitable in the way hatred of an individual is, and

b. that Catholicism is no more worthy of such “hatred” than Orthodoxy

Edwin

 

[wynd]

a. that “hatred” of a religious institution or theological tradition is uncharitable in the way hatred of an individual is, and

b. that Catholicism is no more worthy of such “hatred” than Orthodoxy

And c) that this poster’s experience is the same everywhere. I had a few good Roman Catholic friends who completely stopped talking to me when I became Orthodox. By their fruits?