The IV council of Constantinople 869 was not ecumenical?

[Gregory_I]

How can Roman Catholics accept as ecumenical the 869 IV council of constantinople that deposed Photios and re-instated ignatius as ecumenical, when it was neither accepted by the whole church at the time and was declared invalid by Pope John the VIII?

Pope John VIII writes: “And first of all receive Photios the **most amazing **and most reverend High-Priest of God our Brother Patriarch and co-celebrant who is co-sharer, co-participant and inheritor of the communion which is in the Holy Church of the Romans… receive the man unpretentiously. No one should behave pretentiously [following] ***the unjust councils ***which were made against him. No one. as it seems right to many who behave like a herd of cows, should use the negative votes of the blessed Hierarchs who preceded us. Nicholas, I mean, and Hadrian as an excuse [to oppose him]; since they did not prove what had been cunningly concocted against him… ***Everything that was done against him has now ceased and been banished…” ***

How is this possible?

 

[marlo]

The question is invalid because Eastern Orthodox does not even accept the Council of Constantinople 879 as Ecumenical as well, so EO should not question Catholic’s on how we choose our Ecumenical Council.

How can Roman Catholics accept as ecumenical the 869 IV council of constantinople that deposed Photios and re-instated ignatius as ecumenical, when it was neither accepted by the whole church at the time and was declared invalid by Pope John the VIII?

Pope John VIII writes: “And first of all receive Photios the **most amazing **and most reverend High-Priest of God our Brother Patriarch and co-celebrant who is co-sharer, co-participant and inheritor of the communion which is in the Holy Church of the Romans… receive the man unpretentiously. No one should behave pretentiously [following] ***the unjust councils ***which were made against him. No one. as it seems right to many who behave like a herd of cows, should use the negative votes of the blessed Hierarchs who preceded us. Nicholas, I mean, and Hadrian as an excuse [to oppose him]; since they did not prove what had been cunningly concocted against him… ***Everything that was done against him has now ceased and been banished…” ***

How is this possible?

 

[Formosus]

Its not an invalid question. Its a serious question. The fact is one Pope proclaimed it as Ecumenical, and then later Popes (roughly 200 years later) decided it wasn’t because they didn’t like it.

 

[marlo]

its not, the fact that it was not even accepted as ecumenical by Catholic’s and Orthodox automatically answer the question raised. Catholic’s accepts the 869 council because it was called for the benefit of the church, the other was a council hidden in deceit, the good Pope wanted peace and would forgive and forget for the sake of unity of the whole church as long as the Patriarch accepts his mistake and he did. History would later tell that the same old argument will be used against the future Popes severing ties between East and West. How would we accept a council that would later be used as a reference to strengthen the schism in the church and would divide it for more that 1000 years.

Its not an invalid question. Its a serious question. The fact is one Pope proclaimed it as Ecumenical, and then later Popes (roughly 200 years later) decided it wasn’t because they didn’t like it.

 

[mardukm]

How can Roman Catholics accept as ecumenical the 869 IV council of constantinople that deposed Photios and re-instated ignatius as ecumenical, when it was neither accepted by the whole church at the time and was declared invalid by Pope John the VIII?

Pope John VIII writes: “And first of all receive Photios the **most amazing **and most reverend High-Priest of God our Brother Patriarch and co-celebrant who is co-sharer, co-participant and inheritor of the communion which is in the Holy Church of the Romans… receive the man unpretentiously. No one should behave pretentiously [following] ***the unjust councils ***which were made against him. No one. as it seems right to many who behave like a herd of cows, should use the negative votes of the blessed Hierarchs who preceded us. Nicholas, I mean, and Hadrian as an excuse [to oppose him]; since they did not prove what had been cunningly concocted against him… ***Everything that was done against him has now ceased and been banished…” ***

How is this possible?

Pope John VIII was one of the “bad Popes” I think, who was interested more in secular politics than anything else. He gave those statements about Photius hoping to bring Bulgaria back into Latin jurisdiction. When this did not work, he repudiated his own statements by excommunicating Photius once again.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Its not an invalid question. Its a serious question. The fact is one Pope proclaimed it as Ecumenical, and then later Popes (roughly 200 years later) decided it wasn’t because they didn’t like it.

I agree with you that it’s not an invalid question. Also, I would like to point out that Pope St. Nicholas and Pope John VIII held their offices within 10 years of each other, not 200 years.

Blessings

 

[Addai]

its not, the fact that it was not even accepted as ecumenical by Catholic’s and Orthodox automatically answer the question raised. Catholic’s accepts the 869 council because it was called for the benefit of the church, the other was a council hidden in deceit, the good Pope wanted peace and would forgive and forget for the sake of unity of the whole church as long as the Patriarch accepts his mistake and he did. History would later tell that the same old argument will be used against the future Popes severing ties between East and West. How would we accept a council that would later be used as a reference to strengthen the schism in the church and would divide it for more that 1000 years.

I hate to ask this… but how is this rationalized with the doctrine of Papal Infallibility?

 

[marlo]

He is the good pope

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_VIII

Pope John VIII was one of the “bad Popes” I think, who was interested more in secular politics than anything else. He gave those statements about Photius hoping to bring Bulgaria back into Latin jurisdiction. When this did not work, he repudiated his own statements by excommunicating Photius once again.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[marlo]

You decide, here’s the category

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

According to the teaching of the First Vatican Council and Catholic tradition, the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are as follows:

1. "the Roman Pontiff"
2. "speaks ex cathedra" ("that is, when in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority….")
**3. "he defines"
4. "that a doctrine concerning faith or morals"**
5. "must be held by the whole Church" (Pastor Aeternus, chap. 4)

I hate to ask this… but how is this rationalized with the doctrine of Papal Infallibility?

 

[mardukm]

He is the good pope

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_VIII

OOPS! I confused him with one of the bad Popes who was also named John. My bad. In any case, he did excommunicate Photius again, and he did make those statements in hopes that Photius would concede the Bulgarians back to the Roman jurisdiction (which I guess it was before the Iconoclastic controversy).

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Addai,

I hate to ask this… but how is this rationalized with the doctrine of Papal Infallibility?

Papal infallibility only pertains to matters of faith or morals, not disciplinary matters (such as depositions).

Blessings

 

[Addai]

Dear brother Addai,

Papal infallibility only pertains to matters of faith or morals, not disciplinary matters (such as depositions).

Blessings

(Ok after looking into this more I thought you were going to mention that he was given bad information / manipulated like this place mentions.

catholictradition.blogspot.com/2005_01_01_catholictradition_archive.html )

But the issue of declaring whether something is an “Ecumenical counsel” fall into that? As far as Faith matter.

 

[mardukm]

(Ok after looking into this more I thought you were going to mention that he was given bad information / manipulated like this place mentions.

catholictradition.blogspot.com/2005_01_01_catholictradition_archive.html )

But the issue of declaring whether something is an “Ecumenical counsel” fall into that? As far as Faith matter.

As far as I know, the declaration of whether a council is Ecumenical or not is a CANONICAL matter, and has nothing to do with Faith or morals. An Ecumenical Council can involve the discussion of many things (disciplinary actions, local practices, administrative decisions, etc.), but it is only those things that pertain to Faith and Morals that have the Grace of Infallibility protecting them.

For example, the Fourth Ecumenical Council explicitly exonerated the persons of Theodore, Theodoret and Ibas, but the Fifth Ecumenical Council condemned them. The TEACHINGS were adjudged as heretical - that never changed - and it is the the judgment on TEACHINGS that is encompassed by the Grace of Infallibility given to the Church by God. But whether or not a certain person is to be condemned for those teachings is not covered by the definition of Infallibility. The judgments on particular persons is a matter of discpline, not a matter of faith or morals.

In any case, to repeat, whether a Council is considered Ecumenical is a purely canonical matter, and has nothing to do with Faith or morals per se.

Does that help?

Blessings

 

[Formosus]

Mardukum, Nicholas reigned before John VIII, not after. John’s council of Constantinople was later rejected after the Schism because it condemned the filioque so they claimed it had been a robber council and that John VIII had been tricked some how.

 

[Gregory_I]

THere is still no real answer here.

Explain to me in crystal clear terms please, how one POPE can declare a council abrogated and invalid as Latrocinium Ephesus in 431 and then another Can ratify said abrogation without contradiction.

Or are ROman Catholics really mormons and they embrace double-speak? Two contradictiory truths being held as individually and collectively true.

THis is a knot the pope tied in his laces, and consequently lands him on his face.

As for Ex CATHEDRA: Find ONE Ex Cathedra statement before Vatican I. By Ex Cathedra I mean the Roman Definition PLUS the POpe speaking in isolation from the Bishops of his Church. If he does not, then he is expressing the assent of all and is not really speaking on his own authority.

 

[Ghosty]

I’m not sure what you’re talking about, Gregory. It seems pretty clear that Pope John was abolishing the decisions made against Photios after the Council of 869, not the Council of 869 itself.

Photios was removed from office in 869, and the previous, rightful Patriarch reinstated. When that Patriarch died years later, Photios was elected Patriarch and some in Constantinople opposed him citing the decision of 869. Pope John VIII voided the banishment of Photios from the Patriarchate, and annulled the moves made by those who were opposing him at this later juncture. There is no evidence whatsoever that John VIII was refering to the Council of 869 as “unjust”, especially since Patriarch Ignatios (the one who was reinstated in 869) is still considered the rightful Patriarch of Constantinople for that time period by the Eastern Orthodox (see here).

So your argument simply doesn’t stand. Remember, the Catholic Church doesn’t consider canonical penalties to be permanent or infallible, even if they are proclaimed at and Ecumenical Council. So the judgement against Photios being overturned by a later Pope does nothing to invalidate the Council of 869. Whether that Council should be considered Ecumenical is another question, but your argument doesn’t touch on it.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Gregory_I]

Also, Let’s weed out those who aren’t speaking the truth, or their opinions on a facet of history they obviously have NOT studied:

"As far as I know, the declaration of whether a council is Ecumenical or not is a CANONICAL matter, and has nothing to do with Faith or morals. An Ecumenical Council can involve the discussion of many things (disciplinary actions, local practices, administrative decisions, etc.), but it is only those things that pertain to Faith and Morals that have the Grace of Infallibility protecting them.

*For example, the Fourth Ecumenical Council (869?) explicitly exonerated the persons of Theodore, Theodoret and Ibas, but the Fifth Ecumenical Council condemned them. The TEACHINGS were adjudged as heretical - that never changed - and it is the the judgment on TEACHINGS that is encompassed by the Grace of Infallibility given to the Church by God. But whether or not a certain person is to be condemned for those teachings is not covered by the definition of Infallibility. The judgments on particular persons is a matter of discpline, not a matter of faith or morals.

In any case, to repeat, whether a Council is considered Ecumenical is a purely canonical matter, and has nothing to do with Faith or morals per se.

Does that help?*"

Not at all, because an ecumenical council is never called EXCEPT to determine a matter related to faith and morals. Legalistic Butchering of a supposed Charism into neat pieces is a sloppy way to protect a dogma. You are not THINKING, you are merely using logic:

First, NO ecumenical council can contradict itself. AS you pointed out, the 5th and 4th don’t really contradict because of the distenction you make between persons and teachings. BUT according to you the decrees of a Pope when issued solemnly with the intention of the church to abide by them ought to be obeyed.

IF The Pope can issue definitively on the ecumenicity of a council, whether by abrogation (The Robber Synod of Ephesus) or affirmation (Your view of every ecumenical and western general synod till now) then that is binding. But here we have a Pope definitively stating that the Synod of 869 held against Photios by Nicholas was to be of no effect.

Consequently this must be binding. IF the Pope’s abrogation of the council is NOT binding, then why would another Pope’s AFFIRMATION be more binding since the mere CANONICITY of the issue is all that we are dealing with? IN other words, is the Pope’s authority only working in ONE direction? In the Affirmative? Or is it only when convenient? I think Human nature will speak for itself.

Second How can the ecumenicity of a council be a PURELY canonical matter??? ANY Council when accepted by the whole church as its Dogmatic Compass acquires Ecumenical authority, for the whole church cannot err.
Listen closely: THE COUNCILS ARE NOT AUTHORITY THAT CONSTRAIN THE CHURCH. THe Ecumenical and Valid council is the council THAT FAITHFULY EXHIBITS THE MIND OF THE CHURCH. Consequently it is universal de facto. Any council can acquire ecumenicity if its faith is held to by all. THis is what happened with the 2nd ecumenical council.

SO: Did the ACTUAL COUNCIL OF 879 acquire Universalf Authority? Yes. It was accepted as true by both east and west. All the PAtriarchs or Their legates (including the papal ones) were present and subscribed.

Recalling the fate of papal delegates who had failed to condemn Photius in 861, the papal delegates abstained from any proceedings until they had received new instructions from Old Rome. Pope John VIII sent new delegates to join the old delegates with a letter instructing that Photius was to be accepted as patriarch by the pope’s supremacy over the whole Church on the condition that Illyricon and Bulgaria be placed under Old Rome’s jurisdiction (the Empire’s military successes in southern Italy made it imprudent to demand this territory), and that* Photius make an apology to the synod for his previous conduct.* The papal delegates found themselves in a quandary: they were taking heat from the Emperor for their non-participation and from the pope because their non-participation left him without a complete picture of the situation. ***Recognising the papal demands were unjust and were based on wrong prejudices, the delegates deleted the imperious claims of papal supremacy and the request for Photius’ apology from the Greek translation of John VIII’s letter rather than continuing their non-participation. (But, on their return to Rome, they blamed Photius for the deletions.) ***The synod deliberated at Constantinople from 879 to 880. It annulled the synod of 869-870, acquitted Photius of all charges, condemned the addition of the Filioque to the Symbol of Faith, and refused to place both Illyricon and Bulgaria under papal jurisdiction.Upon learning of the synod’s decisions, John VIII was angry about the deletions from the Greek text, but ***recognised all the synod’s decisions except the ones regarding Illyricon and Bulgaria. ***Since this Ecumenical Synod was approved by the patriarchates of Old Rome, New Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem, it has a much greater claim to being ecumenical than the Robber Council of 869-870. However, because Latin canonists of the twelfth century determined they needed the 22nd canon of the Robber Council of 869-870 to justify papal supremacy, they then began referring to it as the Eighth Ecumenical Council.

 

[Gregory_I]

As well as this: The sixth act of the council of 879:

We read in the minutes of the Sixth act that after reading the Horos the Bishops shouted:

"Thus we think, thus we believe, into this confession were we baptized and became worthy to enter the priestly orders. We regard, therefore, as enemies of God and of the truth those who think differently as compared to this. 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. [In other words the problem which is implied but not named has to do with the Trinitarian doctrine]. 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."27

The minutes go on to record the approbation of this solemn statement by the representatives of the other Patriarchates and finally by the Emperor himself. The Emperor’s statement and signature leave no doubt of the seriousness of this theological Horos which was issued by an ecumenical Council of the Church:

**"In the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, Basil Emperor in Christ, faithful king of the Romans, agreeing in every way with ***this holy and ecumenical Synod *in confirmation and sealing of the holy and ecumenical Seventh Synod, in confirmation and sealing of Photios the most holy Patriarch of Constantinople and spiritual father of mine, and in rejection of all that was written or spoken against him, 1 have duly signed with my own hand."

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Gregory,

THere is still no real answer here.

Explain to me in crystal clear terms please, how one POPE can declare a council abrogated and invalid as Latrocinium Ephesus in 431 and then another Can ratify said abrogation without contradiction.

The problem with your assumption is that the quote does not say the council was abrogated. It simply says that the deposition was not made worthily. But the Council of 869 ruled on other matters of a doctrinal nature (e.g. iconoclasm, which still had remnants in the Western Patriarchate), aside from the purely disciplinary matter concerning Photius.

In any case, I think your source might have mispelled “councils.” It should probably be spelled “counsels.” It doesn’t make sense that someone “MADE councils against him.” Besides there was only ONE “Council” to speak of that judged Photius, so it’s conspicuous that the word is in the plural.

Or are ROman Catholics really mormons and they embrace double-speak? Two contradictiory truths being held as individually and collectively true.

THis is a knot the pope tied in his laces, and consequently lands him on his face.

What does this contribute to the discussion? It is overly uncharitable and serves no purpose.

As for Ex CATHEDRA: Find ONE Ex Cathedra statement before Vatican I. By Ex Cathedra I mean the Roman Definition PLUS the POpe speaking in isolation from the Bishops of his Church. If he does not, then he is expressing the assent of all and is not really speaking on his own authority.

The formulation of a dogma always involves the Church as a whole, because it is the Faith of the Church that is being dogmatized. The dogmatization (that it is a belief to be definitively held by the entire Church) itself is another matter. This latter action can be done infallibly by the Pope in his capacity as supreme shepherd and spokesman for the entire Church, or it can be done in an Ecumenical Council, which has the same capacity, or it can be done thorugh the unified voice of bishops around the world even when dispersed, which likewise has the same capacity. The promulgation of a dogma is another aspect of dogmatization, and in this, the entire body of bishops is also involved.

In any case, the Pope NEVER speaks in isolation from the Church, whether mediately or immediately, as he is a MEMBER of the Church, and that just one of the misconceptions non-Catholics often have about papal infallibility. The only thing the dogma of infallibility states is that the Grace of Infallibility is not obtained from the Church, but from God directly. In fact, the Grace of infallibility is not the Church’s to give, but only God’s. Likewise, the infallibility of the Church as a whole, or of an Ecumenical Council, is from God directly, and not from the Pope because, once again, Infallibility is a DIVINE Grace that is God’s alone to give.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[marlo]

I still do not see what arguments would make it abrogate the 869 council, but here is my simple answer: God did not make 879 council Ecumenical and as a proof , even the Orthodox did not proclaim it as ecumenical, but the Catholic Church guided by the Holy Spirit proclaim 869 council as Ecumenical,

it was a Miracle.

As well as this: The sixth act of the council of 879:

We read in the minutes of the Sixth act that after reading the Horos the Bishops shouted:

"Thus we think, thus we believe, into this confession were we baptized and became worthy to enter the priestly orders. We regard, therefore, as enemies of God and of the truth those who think differently as compared to this. 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. [In other words the problem which is implied but not named has to do with the Trinitarian doctrine]. 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."27

The minutes go on to record the approbation of this solemn statement by the representatives of the other Patriarchates and finally by the Emperor himself. The Emperor’s statement and signature leave no doubt of the seriousness of this theological Horos which was issued by an ecumenical Council of the Church:

**“In the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, Basil Emperor in Christ, faithful king of the Romans, agreeing in every way with ***this holy and ecumenical Synod *****in confirmation and sealing of the holy and ecumenical Seventh Synod, in confirmation and sealing of Photios the most holy Patriarch of Constantinople and spiritual father of mine, and in rejection of all that was written or spoken against him, 1 have duly signed with my own hand.”