F
Formosus
Guest
I fail to see how excommunicating St. Photios a second time would not have caused another schism. I ask you to show me one modern historian who says so.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
M
mardukm
Guest
Historians aside, just look at Church history for yourself. There are many times that a patriarch of a Church has been deposed, while not affecting communion with that local Church. I think it may have even been a case of one Patriarch excommunicating another Patriarch, and the excommunicated Patriarch not just paying any heed to it. Such a situation was not uncommon, especially if the excommunicated Patriarch had imperial support.I fail to see how excommunicating St. Photios a second time would not have caused another schism. I ask you to show me one modern historian who says so.
My main concern is this claim that the Pope signed on to a Council that asserted that filioque was heretical. This is simply and utternly not believable given the facts I gave in post #34 above.
In any case, we both agree he died in Catholic communion, which is the main point, correct?
Blessings,
Marduk
C
Coles_Law
Guest
Mardukm:
I’m not so sure the claim is that the Pope thought the filioque was heretical. It’s that the Pope agreed to keep it out of the Nicene Creed, at least unless and until a general council consented to add it.
Fr. Aidan Nichols’ book, Rome and the Eastern Churches, contains a short discussion in which he says the popes of the time personally agreed with the concept of the filioque as advanced by the Carolingian theologians, but they resisted for two centuries the Carolingian demand that the filioque be added to the Creed. A pope that preceded the Photian dispute by two generations, Leo III, had even mounted on the walls of St. Peter’s two silver plates on which the Creed was engraved, one in Latin, one in Greek, neither of which contained the filioque and both of which contained a notation to the effect that he had inscribed them for the protection of the true Faith. (From memory, I think the year was about 803.) No one knows what ultimately happened to the silver plates, but they were apparently noted by visitors in accounts of their visits to St. Peter’s for a few centuries. Fr. Nichols recites that Leo III himself thought the filioque was valid, but he also thought he had no right as Pope to make a unilateral addition to a creed that had been hammered out in the first two general councils. He was the one to whom the Carolingians made the demand to insert it, and he wrote letters back to the Emperor in Aachen refusing to do so. Mounting the silver plates in St. Peter’s was reinforcement of his position.
Cole
I’m not so sure the claim is that the Pope thought the filioque was heretical. It’s that the Pope agreed to keep it out of the Nicene Creed, at least unless and until a general council consented to add it.
Fr. Aidan Nichols’ book, Rome and the Eastern Churches, contains a short discussion in which he says the popes of the time personally agreed with the concept of the filioque as advanced by the Carolingian theologians, but they resisted for two centuries the Carolingian demand that the filioque be added to the Creed. A pope that preceded the Photian dispute by two generations, Leo III, had even mounted on the walls of St. Peter’s two silver plates on which the Creed was engraved, one in Latin, one in Greek, neither of which contained the filioque and both of which contained a notation to the effect that he had inscribed them for the protection of the true Faith. (From memory, I think the year was about 803.) No one knows what ultimately happened to the silver plates, but they were apparently noted by visitors in accounts of their visits to St. Peter’s for a few centuries. Fr. Nichols recites that Leo III himself thought the filioque was valid, but he also thought he had no right as Pope to make a unilateral addition to a creed that had been hammered out in the first two general councils. He was the one to whom the Carolingians made the demand to insert it, and he wrote letters back to the Emperor in Aachen refusing to do so. Mounting the silver plates in St. Peter’s was reinforcement of his position.
Cole
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Cole,
Two things:I’m not so sure the claim is that the Pope thought the filioque was heretical. It’s that the Pope agreed to keep it out of the Nicene Creed, at least unless and until a general council consented to add it.
Fr. Aidan Nichols’ book, Rome and the Eastern Churches, contains a short discussion in which he says the popes of the time personally agreed with the concept of the filioque as advanced by the Carolingian theologians, but they resisted for two centuries the Carolingian demand that the filioque be added to the Creed. A pope that preceded the Photian dispute by two generations, Leo III, had even mounted on the walls of St. Peter’s two silver plates on which the Creed was engraved, one in Latin, one in Greek, neither of which contained the filioque and both of which contained a notation to the effect that he had inscribed them for the protection of the true Faith. (From memory, I think the year was about 803.) No one knows what ultimately happened to the silver plates, but they were apparently noted by visitors in accounts of their visits to St. Peter’s for a few centuries. Fr. Nichols recites that Leo III himself thought the filioque was valid, but he also thought he had no right as Pope to make a unilateral addition to a creed that had been hammered out in the first two general councils. He was the one to whom the Carolingians made the demand to insert it, and he wrote letters back to the Emperor in Aachen refusing to do so. Mounting the silver plates in St. Peter’s was reinforcement of his position.
- I would be willing to concede that the Photian Council only wanted recognition that the filioque should not be in the Creed. But I would need to see the text of the Council for that. Do you have a link? Without such proof, I am inclined to deny that claim, given the fact that Photius did personally regard filioque as heresy (since he did not know Latin and likely did not understand that procedit was not equivalent to ekporeusai), and also given the fact that Photius was willing to condemn even mere disciplines in the Latin Church. I mean, if he was willing to condemn such minor things, I don’t see why he wouldn’t attempt to condemn the more important things.
- Pope Leo and Pope John were two different personalities and in two different circumstances. Pope Leo was strong-willed, in ideological combat with Charlemagne over the Emperor’s pretensions over authority in the Church, and had a deep concern for matters of theology. Pope John, on the other hand, was in an era when Rome was beseiged, completely dependent on the French Carolingians for support, and was more concerned about the temporal matters of the Church. Thus, even if the Photian Council of 879 merely wanted recognition that the filioque should not be in the Creed, I still find it very hard to believe that Pope John had the gusto to accede to it.
J
JohnVIII
Guest
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…”
“We not only do not assert this idea that the Spirit proceedeth from the Son, but we judge those who first had the hardihood in their own madness to do so to be transgressors of the divine words and refashioners of the theology of the Lord Jesus Christ and of the Fathers, who, assembled together in council, imparted the Holy Creed, or Symbol of Faith, and we class them with Judas.”
“We not only do not assert this idea that the Spirit proceedeth from the Son, but we judge those who first had the hardihood in their own madness to do so to be transgressors of the divine words and refashioners of the theology of the Lord Jesus Christ and of the Fathers, who, assembled together in council, imparted the Holy Creed, or Symbol of Faith, and we class them with Judas.”
J
JohnVIII
Guest
In the ORIGINAL 8th Ecumenical council of 879 IV of Constantinople, (attended by all the patriarchs or their Legates, including Rome) Which was reunion council presided over by St. Photios, the following was decreed:
"Jointly sanctifying and preserving intact the venerable and divine teaching of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, which has been established in the bosom of our mind, with unhesitating resolve and purity of faith, as well as the sacred ordinances and canonical stipulations of his holy disciples and Apostles with an unwavering judgement, and indeed, those Seven holy and ecumenical Synods which were directed by the inspiration of the one and the same Holy Spirit and effected the [Christian] preaching, and jointly guarding with a most honest and unshakeable resolve the canonical institutions invulnerable and unfalsified, we expel those who removed themselves from the Church, and embrace and regard worthy of receiving those of the same faith or teachers of orthodoxy to whom honor and sacred respect is due as they themselves ordered. Thus, having in mind and declaring all these things, we embrace with mind and tongue (τῇ διανοίᾳ καὶ γλώσσῃ) and declare to all people with a loud voice the Horos (Rule) of the most pure faith of the Christians which has come down to us from above through the Fathers, subtracting nothing, adding nothing, falsifying nothing; for subtraction and addition, when no heresy is stirred up by the ingenious fabrications of the evil one, introduces disapprobation of those who are exempt from blame and inexcusable assault on the Fathers. As for the act of changing with falsified words the Horoi (Rules, Boundaries) of the Fathers is much worse that the previous one. Therefore, this holy and ecumenical Synod embracing whole-heartedly and declaring with divine desire and straightness of mind, and establishing and erecting on it the firm edifice of salvation, thus we think and loudly proclaim this message to all:
"I believe in One God, Father Almighty, … and in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God… and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord … who proceeds from the Father… [the whole Creed is cited here]
Thus we think, in this confession of faith we were we baptized, through this one the word of truth proved that every heresy is broken to pieces and canceled out. We enroll as brothers and fathers and coheirs of the heavenly city those who think thus. If anyone, however, dares to rewrite and call Rule of Faith some other exposition besides that of the sacred Symbol which has been spread abroad from above by our blessed and holy Fathers even as far as ourselves, and to snatch the authority of the confession of those divine men and impose on it his own invented phrases (ἰδίαις εὑρεσιολογίαις) and put this forth as a common lesson to the faithful or to those who return from some kind of heresy, and display the audacity to falsify completely (κατακιβδηλεῦσαι ἀποθρασυνθείη) the antiquity of this sacred and venerable Horos (Rule) with illegitimate words, or additions, or subtractions, such a person should, according to the vote of the holy and Ecumenical Synods, which has been already acclaimed before us, be subjected to complete defrocking if he happens to be one of the clergymen, or be sent away with an anathema if he happens to be one of the lay people."
“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. 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 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, I have duly signed with my own hand.”
"Jointly sanctifying and preserving intact the venerable and divine teaching of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, which has been established in the bosom of our mind, with unhesitating resolve and purity of faith, as well as the sacred ordinances and canonical stipulations of his holy disciples and Apostles with an unwavering judgement, and indeed, those Seven holy and ecumenical Synods which were directed by the inspiration of the one and the same Holy Spirit and effected the [Christian] preaching, and jointly guarding with a most honest and unshakeable resolve the canonical institutions invulnerable and unfalsified, we expel those who removed themselves from the Church, and embrace and regard worthy of receiving those of the same faith or teachers of orthodoxy to whom honor and sacred respect is due as they themselves ordered. Thus, having in mind and declaring all these things, we embrace with mind and tongue (τῇ διανοίᾳ καὶ γλώσσῃ) and declare to all people with a loud voice the Horos (Rule) of the most pure faith of the Christians which has come down to us from above through the Fathers, subtracting nothing, adding nothing, falsifying nothing; for subtraction and addition, when no heresy is stirred up by the ingenious fabrications of the evil one, introduces disapprobation of those who are exempt from blame and inexcusable assault on the Fathers. As for the act of changing with falsified words the Horoi (Rules, Boundaries) of the Fathers is much worse that the previous one. Therefore, this holy and ecumenical Synod embracing whole-heartedly and declaring with divine desire and straightness of mind, and establishing and erecting on it the firm edifice of salvation, thus we think and loudly proclaim this message to all:
"I believe in One God, Father Almighty, … and in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God… and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord … who proceeds from the Father… [the whole Creed is cited here]
Thus we think, in this confession of faith we were we baptized, through this one the word of truth proved that every heresy is broken to pieces and canceled out. We enroll as brothers and fathers and coheirs of the heavenly city those who think thus. If anyone, however, dares to rewrite and call Rule of Faith some other exposition besides that of the sacred Symbol which has been spread abroad from above by our blessed and holy Fathers even as far as ourselves, and to snatch the authority of the confession of those divine men and impose on it his own invented phrases (ἰδίαις εὑρεσιολογίαις) and put this forth as a common lesson to the faithful or to those who return from some kind of heresy, and display the audacity to falsify completely (κατακιβδηλεῦσαι ἀποθρασυνθείη) the antiquity of this sacred and venerable Horos (Rule) with illegitimate words, or additions, or subtractions, such a person should, according to the vote of the holy and Ecumenical Synods, which has been already acclaimed before us, be subjected to complete defrocking if he happens to be one of the clergymen, or be sent away with an anathema if he happens to be one of the lay people."
“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. 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 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, I have duly signed with my own hand.”
C
Coles_Law
Guest
Mardukm:
I, too, would like to read the acts of the Council of 879-880, but it appears that they exist in full only in Latin and Greek, not English. Mansi is given as a source in the articles I have seen.
Father Dvornik’s book, The Photian Schism, contains a description of the sessions of the Council and its decisions, so if you have access to a library that contains that book, I would highly recommend it.
The quotations offered by our friend JohnVIII above appear to come from Orthodox Fr. Dragas’ article I mentioned above, “The Eighth Ecumenical Council: Constantinople IV (879/880) and the Condemnation of the Filioque Addition and Doctrine.” In it, Fr. Dragas says he is offering “the first complete translation of the Horos of the Eighth Ecumenical Council which appears in both the minutes of the sixth and the seventh acts.” It appears to be that translation that is recopied by JohnVIII above.
The Rudder offers a short description of the council and three canons enacted, but nothing there refers to the filioque or the acts that supposedly forbid any changes to the Nicene Creed. The portion dealing with the council of 879-880 may be found on-line at holytrinitymission.org/books/english/councils_local_rudder.htm#_Toc72635076.
If any other readers of this thread know of a source in English that offers all the acts of the council of 879-880, please post where it may be found.
Another article of some interest, touching on this council and others, is Fr. Dvornik’s 1966 article, “Which Councils Are Ecumenical?”, which Orthodox Fr. Hudson has published on-line with permission at orthodox.ws/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=22&Itemid=28.
In terms of the pressures on the Pope at this time, Fr. Dvornik offers the rivalry between Rome and Constantinople for influence over the new Christian king/tsar of the Bulgarians as the most important motive for the actions of both sides in the Photian era. The dependency of Rome upon the Carolingians and the ever-growing rivalry between Rome and Constantinople for supremacy in the church were always in the background, too, one supposes.
Cole
I, too, would like to read the acts of the Council of 879-880, but it appears that they exist in full only in Latin and Greek, not English. Mansi is given as a source in the articles I have seen.
Father Dvornik’s book, The Photian Schism, contains a description of the sessions of the Council and its decisions, so if you have access to a library that contains that book, I would highly recommend it.
The quotations offered by our friend JohnVIII above appear to come from Orthodox Fr. Dragas’ article I mentioned above, “The Eighth Ecumenical Council: Constantinople IV (879/880) and the Condemnation of the Filioque Addition and Doctrine.” In it, Fr. Dragas says he is offering “the first complete translation of the Horos of the Eighth Ecumenical Council which appears in both the minutes of the sixth and the seventh acts.” It appears to be that translation that is recopied by JohnVIII above.
The Rudder offers a short description of the council and three canons enacted, but nothing there refers to the filioque or the acts that supposedly forbid any changes to the Nicene Creed. The portion dealing with the council of 879-880 may be found on-line at holytrinitymission.org/books/english/councils_local_rudder.htm#_Toc72635076.
If any other readers of this thread know of a source in English that offers all the acts of the council of 879-880, please post where it may be found.
Another article of some interest, touching on this council and others, is Fr. Dvornik’s 1966 article, “Which Councils Are Ecumenical?”, which Orthodox Fr. Hudson has published on-line with permission at orthodox.ws/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=22&Itemid=28.
In terms of the pressures on the Pope at this time, Fr. Dvornik offers the rivalry between Rome and Constantinople for influence over the new Christian king/tsar of the Bulgarians as the most important motive for the actions of both sides in the Photian era. The dependency of Rome upon the Carolingians and the ever-growing rivalry between Rome and Constantinople for supremacy in the church were always in the background, too, one supposes.
Cole
- Status
- Not open for further replies.