Really confused about early Church councils

[Monica4316]

Hi

I have a question about something, but I dont know if anyone knows the answer. It’s a very deep complex topic. If no one knows, that’s oki. I’ll try to find an answer somewhere. But this is really, really troubling me. it’s regarding the filioque and the Schism.

the Catholics and the Orthodox seem to disagree on what the 8th Ecumenical Council was. There was one in 869, which is accepted by the Catholic Church, and another one in 879, which is accepted by the Orthodox Church. The Council in 879 overturned the 869 Council, it also rejected the filioque, and said that anyone who adds to the Creed from Constantinople (381, which mentions the procession) is excommunicated.

Now here is my question. If the 879 Council overturned the 869 one, why does the Church see it as the true 8th Council? the Pope was present at the 879 Council too…was there something wrong with it?

Furthermore, the 879 Council was apparently originally accepted by the Pope (some debate here…), but later rejected (in 200 years). I don’t know why this was, and if anyone knows, that would be great. My other question is, does the Pope have the authority to reject a council that another Pope had accepted?

HOWEVER different historians are saying different things…some are saying that the Pope of the time accepted the 879 Council, others are saying he rejected it… I dont know how I’ll ever find the answer if even the historians can’t make up their minds!!

This is all really causing me to doubt my conversion to Catholicism so if anyone has any info, please let me know. But I know it’s a very complex topic dealing with historical details that few people know…

here’s a wikipedia article about the 879 Council:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photian_council

God bless

ps: please I hope this won’t turn into a debate between Catholics and Orthodox. I’m honestly just looking for help and any information.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

the Catholics and the Orthodox seem to disagree on what the 8th Ecumenical Council was.

I would say so - the Orthodox only believe in seven ecumenical councils. The last ecumenical council the Orthodox accept was the Second Council of Nicea in 787 AD, which was over the issue of iconography. This is further evidence to me that one should not use Wikipedia as a source, and I thank you for pointing that out.

It terms of ecclisiastical history, this was a rather complicated time period - there was conflict between Photios and Ignatius (the two men later reconciled, with Ignatius passing away in 877 AD). When Photios was finally made patriarch for good, he undid much of what Ignatius had done, but by then it was a moot point - Nicolas was no longer pope, and the churches of Rome and Constantinople reconciled (which may explain your question regarding why things seemed to change afterward). It probably delayed the Schism by about 200 years, since things had been heating up at the time between Nicolas and Photios.

Incidentally, Saint Photios wrote a book about the filioque issue entitled The Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit. It’s hardly easy (I had to read it slowly) but it’s an excellent source for the Orthodox viewpoint on the subject.

 

[bpbasilphx]

It’s not insignificant that the Orthodox Chuch considers both Ignatius and Photius as saints.

It was Pope Nicholas who was making an issue over Filioque, and his successor, Pope John VIII had some trenchant things to say about it in a letter to St. Ignatius, calling it a soul-destroying heresy, and those who supported it were falsifiers of the faith and had their portion with Judas.

But he also said there were otherwise devout souls who simply didn’t know any better, and it would be prudent to wean them from it little by little. “Please, Your Holiness, so wise in God, do not separate yourself from the healthy part of our church.”

 

[Monica4316]

well there is this…

In his work The Photian Schism, Francis Dvornik [a Jesuit—ML] quotes the letter which Pope John VIII sent to Patriarch Photios wherein he recognizes Photios as Patriarch and the Constantinopolitan synod of 879-80 as a legitimate ecumenical council rescinding the synod of 869-70.
Basically, in his letter, John accepts Photios and his council conditionally. John intructed that his legates should insist on certain assurances from Photios. If his conditions (including that Photios acknowledge Roman supremacy) are met, then the council is accepted. If his conditions are not met, then the council is rejected. So, were John’s conditions accepted by Photios and the Constantinopolitan church? We have no letter in reply from Photios to John which would make his acceptance explicit. As such, given that John’s reception of the 879 synod is conditional on such acceptance, we cannot say with any precision that Rome did or did not receive the 879 synod as authoritative.
The relevant text of the letter reads: Nam et ea, quae pro causa tuae restitutionis synodali decreto Constantinopoli misericorditer acta sunt, recipimus. Si forasse nostri legati in eadem sinodo contra apostolicam preceptionem egerint, nos nec recipimus nec iudicamus alicuius existere firmitatis.
Now given that Rome eventually repudiated said council, we may conclude that in due course she judged the conditions not to have been met. Hence, the council can be said to have bound Rome only if one asumes that its authority obtained with or without Rome’s consent. Catholics as such cannot accept that assumption. And given the broader issues between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, such an assumption would only beg the question against the former.
But even supposing, for argument’s sake, that Rome really had accepted the council of 879-880, there remains the logical question whether the condemnation of adding anything to the confession embodied in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381 (‘NCC’ for short) is dogmatically binding by Rome’s own standards. That would indeed be the case if the condemnation entails that the filioque is, in fact, false, or otherwise adds anything of substance. But the pertinent conciliar text entails no such result. In the translation and with the emphasis Perry uses, here’s the most pertinent passage:

If one dares to rewrite another Symbol besides this one, or add to it, or subtract from it, or to remove anything from it, and to display the audacity to call it a Rule, he will be condemned and thrown out of the Christian Confession.For to subtract from, or to add to, the holy and consubstantial and undivided Trinity shows that the confession we have always had to this day is imperfect. It condemns the Apostolic Tradition and the doctrine of the Fathers. If one, then having come to such a point of mindlessness as to dare do what we have said above, and set forth another Symbol and call it a Rule, or to add to or subtract from the one which has been handed down to us by the first great, holy and Ecumenical Synod of Nicaea, let him be Anathema.

The key thing to note about that is its conditionality. Its condemnation extends to the filioque only if it be granted that the doctrine of the filioque “adds to the holy and consubstantial and undivided Trinity” and thus shows that the earlier confession is “imperfect.” But that is precisely what Rome does not grant.

The position of the Catholic Church is that the filioque does not “add” to the doctrine of the Trinity as developed by councils acknowledged as ecumenical by East and West. The Roman claim is that the phrase filioque merely helps to make explicit what was implicit in NCC, the “symbol” being referred to by the above condemnation. But it follows that the “confession” embodied in NCC is “imperfect” only if Rome’s later adding the filioque to NCC implies that she holds there is something wrong with the confession NCC embodied when it was issued in 381. No such implication holds, nor does Rome think it does. NCC was a perfectly adequate and orthodox response to the issues of its time, and its original text remains perfectly true. It just doesn’t say everything true that later contingencies might call for saying. Now as I’ve said before, I believe that Rome’s later judgment that the filioque was worth adding to NCC was pastorally unsound. But that doesn’t affect the question of the truth of the doctrine expressed by that phrase.

As always, the key issue lurking in the background here is that of “development of doctrine.” In a spirit quite similar to that of certain Catholic traditionalists and Protestant fundamentalists, Perry and some other Orthodox deny that there is any legitimate DD. I shall shortly resume addressing that issue in its own right.

mliccione.blogspot.com/2007/05/filioque-v-replies-to-objections.html

Maybe it all goes back to if you believe in the authority of the Pope or not… for me it’s hard not to, with the part in Matthew and Isaiah… catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp

 

[Monica4316]

I would say so - the Orthodox only believe in seven ecumenical councils. The last ecumenical council the Orthodox accept was the Second Council of Nicea in 787 AD, which was over the issue of iconography. This is further evidence to me that one should not use Wikipedia as a source, and I thank you for pointing that out.

oh - sorry!! thanks for letting me know.

why is the 8th council not considered ecumenical?

It terms of ecclisiastical history, this was a rather complicated time period - there was conflict between Photios and Ignatius (the two men later reconciled, with Ignatius passing away in 877 AD). When Photios was finally made patriarch for good, he undid much of what Ignatius had done, but by then it was a moot point - Nicolas was no longer pope, and the churches of Rome and Constantinople reconciled (which may explain your question regarding why things seemed to change afterward). It probably delayed the Schism by about 200 years, since things had been heating up at the time between Nicolas and Photios.

Incidentally, Saint Photios wrote a book about the filioque issue entitled The Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit. It’s hardly easy (I had to read it slowly) but it’s an excellent source for the Orthodox viewpoint on the subject.

history is so complex
thanks for the info

It’s not insignificant that the Orthodox Chuch considers both Ignatius and Photius as saints.

It was Pope Nicholas who was making an issue over Filioque, and his successor, Pope John VIII had some trenchant things to say about it in a letter to St. Ignatius, calling it a soul-destroying heresy, and those who supported it were falsifiers of the faith and had their portion with Judas.

But he also said there were otherwise devout souls who simply didn’t know any better, and it would be prudent to wean them from it little by little. “Please, Your Holiness, so wise in God, do not separate yourself from the healthy part of our church.”

but the Pope before John VIII, I think it was Pope Adrian, he opposed Photios and maybe he had different views… I’m just saying that different Popes had different opinions on the filioque. I read that Pope John VIII didn’t see anything theologically wrong with the filioque but he didn’t want to insert it into the creed for the sake of unity with the East… and there was a lot of politics involved too in all this… (in both the East and the West…)

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

But even supposing, for argument’s sake, that Rome really had accepted the council of 879-880, there remains the logical question whether the condemnation of adding anything to the confession embodied in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381 (‘NCC’ for short) is dogmatically binding by Rome’s own standards.

The Creed was formed at an ecumenical council - in other words, a council that entailed the entire church. To do away with something at an ecumenical council, one would need to hold another ecumenical council. It was dogmatic for the entire Church.

Furthermore, the Council of Ephesus of 431 AD (the third Ecumenical Council) explicitly stated:

We will state briefly what we are convinced of and profess about…adding nothing at all to the creed put forward by the holy fathers at Nicaea. For, as we have just said, that creed is sufficient both for the knowledge of godliness and for the repudiation of all heretical false teaching.

The version used at Ephesus was the version without the filioque. Saint John Damascene, an 8th century saint, also used a version of the Creed without the filioque, and explained clear eastern terminology and belief in his famous Exposition of the Orthodox Faith.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

oh - sorry!! thanks for letting me know.

why is the 8th council not considered ecumenical?

Probably because it had more to do with the politics of the Holy See in Constantinople than it did the Church entire - the previous seven ecumenical councils involved the entire church and were meant to guide all five holy sees together in theology and worship. They dealt with issues that faced all Christians (hence the word “ecumenical”).

And no problem.

 

[Monica4316]

I’m currently reading this article… catholic-legate.com/articles/filioque.html

The Creed was formed at an ecumenical council - in other words, a council that entailed the entire church. To do away with something at an ecumenical council, one would need to hold another ecumenical council. It was dogmatic for the entire Church.

Furthermore, the Council of Ephesus of 431 AD (the third Ecumenical Council) explicitly stated:

The version used at Ephesus was the version without the filioque. Saint John Damascene, an 8th century saint, also used a version of the Creed without the filioque, and explained clear eastern terminology and belief in his famous Exposition of the Orthodox Faith.

the 3rd Council said that we can’t change anything that was said at NICEA. In Nicea, no mention of the procession of the Holy Spirit was even made

if you want to be really technical, then why do the Orthodox not also say that the Constantinople Creed broke the rule of the 3rd Council, since it did change the Creed from Nicea, by putting in “proceeds from the Father”.

If there’s no problem with that, why is there a problem with the filioque…

 

[trophybearer]

I’m currently reading this article… catholic-legate.com/articles/filioque.html

the 3rd Council said that we can’t change anything that was said at NICEA. In Nicea, no mention of the procession of the Holy Spirit was even made

if you want to be really technical, then why do the Orthodox not also say that the Constantinople Creed broke the rule of the 3rd Council, since it did change the Creed from Nicea, by putting in “proceeds from the Father”.

If there’s no problem with that, why is there a problem with the filioque…

All other things aside, because the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

the 3rd Council said that we can’t change anything that was said at NICEA. In Nicea, no mention of the procession of the Holy Spirit was even made

if you want to be really technical, then why do the Orthodox not also say that the Constantinople Creed broke the rule of the 3rd Council, since it did change the Creed from Nicea, by putting in “proceeds from the Father”.

If there’s no problem with that, why is there a problem with the filioque…

The Third Ecumenical Council (it wasn’t just a council, it was ecumenical) said we couldn’t change the Nicene Creed, yes. The Nicene Creed had been reformed and explained further at the Second Ecumenical Council, and read the way the Orthodox (and I believe Coptics) read it today. The Third Ecumenical Council said of this Creed “It seems fitting that all should assent to this holy creed. It is pious and sufficiently helpful for the whole world.” Also refer back to the references of not making any further changes to the Creed within the text of the Third Ecumenical Council.

Furthermore, to say, “Well it didn’t read that way originally, so you should have a problem with it too!” is a non-sequitor. You have basically assented that the filioque version is wrong, but argue somehow accepting the version at the Second Ecumenical Council is also wrong, thereby everybody’s wrong - this line of argumentation does not help one side nor disprove the other.

 

[Monica4316]

All other things aside, because the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son.

it depends which Greek word you use…

"In 1995 the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity published in various languages a study on The Greek and the Latin Traditions regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit.[6]
It pointed out, in particular, that the Latin verb procedere (to proceed), used in the Latin version of the Nicene Creed, has a broader meaning than the verb ἐκπορεύεσθαι, which is used in the Greek text. It quoted Saint Gregory of Nazianzus, who used the Greek word to distinguish the Spirit’s form of coming from the Father from that of the Son from the Father, for both forms of which he used the Greek verb προϊέναι,[85] Προϊέναι was the word used by Greek Fathers of Alexandria when saying, as Saint Cyril of Alexandria did: “Since the Holy Spirit makes us like God when he has come to be in us, and since he also proceeds (προεῖσι) from the Father and the Son, it is clear that he is of the divine substance, proceeding (προϊόν) substantially (οὐσιωδῶς) in it and from it”[86]
Latin does not have two words, one of which corresponds to the precise meaning of ἐκπόρευσθαι and the other to the broader meaning of προϊέναι. Procedere is used for both these Greek verbs.
In this view, to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds (in the sense of the Greek word “ἐκπορευόμενον”) from the Father and the Son can be considered heretical; but to say the same, giving to the word “proceeds” the meaning of the Latin word “procedere” (or of the Greek “προϊέναι”), is not heretical.
The difficulty or near impossibility of finding in another language words that will reproduce with complete accuracy certain words of another language was remarked on by Saint Maximus the Confessor in the seventh century precisely with regard to the Filioque expression. Of the Latins he wrote: “It is true, of course, that they cannot reproduce their idea in a language and in words that are foreign to them as they can in their mother-tongue, just as we too cannot do.”[87]

The Third Ecumenical Council (it wasn’t just a council, it was ecumenical) said we couldn’t change the Nicene Creed, yes. The Nicene Creed had been reformed and explained further at the Second Ecumenical Council, and read the way the Orthodox (and I believe Coptics) read it today. The Third Ecumenical Council said of this Creed “It seems fitting that all should assent to this holy creed. It is pious and sufficiently helpful for the whole world.” Also refer back to the references of not making any further changes to the Creed within the text of the Third Ecumenical Council.

I meant something else though… I meant in the 3rd ecumenical council, where they said the Creed can’t be changed, they specified the one that was formulated by the fathers in Nicea. Not in Constantinople. The Creed in Nicae didn’t mention procession of the Holy Spirit. The Catholic Church never changed anything from the Creed that was written in Nicea… which is the one that the 3rd ecumenical council was talking about…

Furthermore, to say, “Well it didn’t read that way originally, so you should have a problem with it too!” is a non-sequitor. You have basically assented that the filioque version is wrong, but argue somehow accepting the version at the Second Ecumenical Council is also wrong, thereby everybody’s wrong - this line of argumentation does not help one side nor disprove the other.

I don’t think it’s wrong, I meant that IF you think that the filioque is wrong on these grounds, then your reasoning should also be applied to other changes of the Creed written in Nicea, including the changes made in Constantinople.

I myself accept these changes, as well as the filioque

I don’t think the filioque changes the meaning of the Creed, in fact several eastern Fathers talked about procession from the Father and the Son too…

The Greek Father **Saint Cyril of Alexandria **spoke of the Holy Spirit proceeding (προϊέναι not ἐκπορεύεσθαι) from Father and Son.[25][29] In his struggle against Nestorianism, he spoke of the Holy Spirit as belonging to the Son (τὸ ἴδιον τοῦ Υἱοῦ) and several times spoke of the Holy Spirit proceeding (προϊέναι) from the Father “and the Son”, alongside the phrase preferred in the East: “through the Son”, the former indicating the equality of principle, the latter the order of origin.[25] On the other hand, his Nestorian opponents Theodore of Mopsuestia and Theodoret denied that the Holy Spirit derives his existence from or through the Son.[30]

 

[Monica4316]

I really don’t want to debate I was just looking for any additional information… God bless

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

I really don’t want to debate I was just looking for any additional information… God bless

Too late, I’ve tracked your exact location now.

I kid of course God bless.

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

Hmmm…I pray that some Orthodox in communion with the See of St. Peter will respond to this thread soon. If you want my thoughts, you know how to contact me .

I would encourage you to contact James Likoudis and ask him about ordering his book: “The Divine Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and Modern Eastern Orthodoxy: Letters to a Greek Orthodox.”

I just got the book from him recently and it addresses this issue quite well showing what the Catholic Church has solemnly defined concerning the question of the filioque at the Ecumenical Council of Florence.

I would also think that he would be overjoyed to help you in any way he can as he too was born Orthodox but reconciled with the Catholic Church.

God bless my dear sister Monica.

 

[trophybearer]

Hmmm…I pray that some Orthodox in communion with the See of St. Peter will respond to this thread soon. If you want my thoughts, you know how to contact me .

I would encourage you to contact James Likoudis and ask him about ordering his book: “The Divine Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and Modern Eastern Orthodoxy: Letters to a Greek Orthodox.”

I just got the book from him recently and it addresses this issue quite well showing what the Catholic Church has solemnly defined concerning the question of the filioque at the Ecumenical Council of Florence.

I would also think that he would be overjoyed to help you in any way he can as he too was born Orthodox but reconciled with the Catholic Church.

God bless my dear sister Monica.

Florence was rejected by the East and is most certainly NOT an ecumenical council. Sorry

 

[marlo]

We Catholics agree as well, as we say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, the Father as the Source. Furthermore, The Orthodox should properly translate the creed in English so that difference in language is shown, it should be the “Holy Spirit who Originates from the Father” and not proceeds because proceeds does not equal originates, where proceeds comes from the latin procédit. If the creed is translated properly there is no confusion of the Orthodox Faith.

All other things aside, because the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son.

 

[JohnVIII]

[user]Monica4316[/user] your post #4 shows that you really know your stuff!

I chose my handle as "[user]JohnVIII[/user]"precisely because I believe that it was immediately after the death of Pope John VIII that the split between East and West truly began. I believe Pope John VIII was just as much against the filioque as St. Photius was, and as such I personally see him as the last Orthodox Pope. However, I may be mistaken about this. It is highly possible that the primary motivation that Pope John VIII had for being against the filioque was political in nature. It very well may have been part of how he attempted to persuade the Bulgarian king Boris to come back under the jurisdiction of Rome. It is very clear that Pope John VIII did believe in the primacy of Rome, and maybe even the supremacy of Rome, but the so-called Eighth Ecumenical Council sought to make Rome and Constantinople equal, and I’m sure Pope John VIII would never have agreed to that part of the Council.

There is a much easier way to settle the issue of the filioque. If the whole Church can revisit the issue of Miaphysite vs Diphysite that came about at the conclusion of the Council of Chalcedon, and if the whole Church can rule in favor of the Miaphysite view, then the issue of the filioque will take care of itself shortly thereafter. Because once the Church has articulated that the divine nature and the human nature of Christ are perfectly one and inseparable, it will become clear that the Holy Spirit cannot proceed also from the Son without also obtaining from the Son both the human and divine natures. And no one has ever confessed that the Holy Spirit has a human nature as well as a divine nature.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

JohnVIII, you have the most interesting “religion” status I’ve ever seen.

 

[4EverHis]

thanks for the replies everyone (I’m Monica4316, I just changed my name)

I’ve been researching this topic and found some interesting information. For one, when you translate the Creed from Greek to Latin, the words regarding the filioque mean different things…if it’s in Latin, it makes much more sense, from an Orthodox perspective.

Hmmm…I pray that some Orthodox in communion with the See of St. Peter will respond to this thread soon. If you want my thoughts, you know how to contact me .

I would encourage you to contact James Likoudis and ask him about ordering his book: “The Divine Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and Modern Eastern Orthodoxy: Letters to a Greek Orthodox.”

I just got the book from him recently and it addresses this issue quite well showing what the Catholic Church has solemnly defined concerning the question of the filioque at the Ecumenical Council of Florence.

I would also think that he would be overjoyed to help you in any way he can as he too was born Orthodox but reconciled with the Catholic Church.

God bless my dear sister Monica.

thanks brother

We Catholics agree as well, as we say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, the Father as the Source. Furthermore, The Orthodox should properly translate the creed in English so that difference in language is shown, it should be the “Holy Spirit who Originates from the Father” and not proceeds because proceeds does not equal originates, where proceeds comes from the latin procédit. If the creed is translated properly there is no confusion of the Orthodox Faith.

interesting…

[user]Monica4316[/user] your post #4 shows that you really know your stuff!

I chose my handle as "[user]JohnVIII[/user]"precisely because I believe that it was immediately after the death of Pope John VIII that the split between East and West truly began. I believe Pope John VIII was just as much against the filioque as St. Photius was, and as such I personally see him as the last Orthodox Pope. However, I may be mistaken about this. It is highly possible that the primary motivation that Pope John VIII had for being against the filioque was political in nature. It very well may have been part of how he attempted to persuade the Bulgarian king Boris to come back under the jurisdiction of Rome. It is very clear that Pope John VIII did believe in the primacy of Rome, and maybe even the supremacy of Rome, but the so-called Eighth Ecumenical Council sought to make Rome and Constantinople equal, and I’m sure Pope John VIII would never have agreed to that part of the Council.

There is a much easier way to settle the issue of the filioque. If the whole Church can revisit the issue of Miaphysite vs Diphysite that came about at the conclusion of the Council of Chalcedon, and if the whole Church can rule in favor of the Miaphysite view, then the issue of the filioque will take care of itself shortly thereafter. Because once the Church has articulated that the divine nature and the human nature of Christ are perfectly one and inseparable, it will become clear that the Holy Spirit cannot proceed also from the Son without also obtaining from the Son both the human and divine natures. And no one has ever confessed that the Holy Spirit has a human nature as well as a divine nature.

Hi, I think that the disagreement was indeed political in nature, because, there were Eastern Fathers who did agree with the Filioque

I think this is a really complex topic to research!!! =)

as for the Miaphysite and Diphysite issue…Im kind of confused, which one does the Catholic Church believe? what about the Orthodox Church? does Christ have one nature and two wills? how does that work? As for what that means about the nature of the Holy Spirit, that’s kind of beyond me… I don’t understand it. I think it says in Revelation…the river of life flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb…that seems to support the filioque =)

God bless!

 

[Aramis]

thanks for the replies everyone (I’m Monica4316, I just changed my name)

I’ve been researching this topic and found some interesting information. For one, when you translate the Creed from Greek to Latin, the words regarding the filioque mean different things…if it’s in Latin, it makes much more sense, from an Orthodox perspective.

thanks brother

interesting…

Hi, I think that the disagreement was indeed political in nature, because, there were Eastern Fathers who did agree with the Filioque

I think this is a really complex topic to research!!! =)

as for the Miaphysite and Diphysite issue…Im kind of confused, which one does the Catholic Church believe? what about the Orthodox Church? does Christ have one nature and two wills? how does that work? As for what that means about the nature of the Holy Spirit, that’s kind of beyond me… I don’t understand it. I think it says in Revelation…the river of life flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb…that seems to support the filioque =)

God bless!

Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are Diaphysite; The Oriental Orthodox are Miaphysite.