The IV council of Constantinople 869 was not ecumenical?

[mardukm]

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.

Amazing. In one breath, you speak against my distinction of matters of Faith and morals from merely disciplinary/canonical matters in order to disparage the papacy, then in the VERY SAME breath, you avow it in order to defend the consistency of 4th and 5th Ecumenical Councils.

That’s “logic” (your own words) for you.

Blessings
Marduk

 

[Gregory_I]

Before I continue my discussion, allow me to make some possibly needed apologies:

First, I do not hold anyone in contempt. Perhaps I have not checked my zeal for truth and it has flawed my brain and manners. I am sorry.

However, let me restate my claim: Pope John VIII Favored the Findingd of THe Photian Union COuncil of 879 over the Pseudo-Synod of 869. By Virtue of his authority (as perceived by Romans) It should have been sufficient to abrogate the council just as leo abrogated the 431 latrocineum.

Now, did Pope John VIII Really abrogate the council of 869 or the conduct of bishops after the council? That is the question, here is the answer:

**Emperor Basil I **and the patriarch Ignatius, after being restored to his see of Constantinople, asked Pope Nicholas I to call a council to decide about the bishops and priests who had been ordained by Photius. It was held at Constantinople after the arrival of legates from Pope Hadrian II, who had meanwhile succeeded Nicholas. These legates were Donatus, Stephen and Marinus and they presided at the council. It began in the cathedral of Hagia Sophia on 5 October 869. The tenth and last session was held on 28 February 870, when 27 canons were read out and approved by the council. All who were willing to sign the Liber satisfactionis, which had been sent by Pope Hadrian II, were admitted to the council. The account made by Anastasius contains the authentic list of those who signed the acts of the council. Emperor Basil I and his sons, Constantine and Leo, signed the acts after the patriarchs and in the same year they promulgated the council’s decisions, after drawing up a decree for this purpose.

As regards the canonical authority of these deliberations, various facts regarding the council held in the cathedral of Hagia Sophia in November 879, so that Photius might be restored to the see of Constantinople, should be remembered. Peter, a Roman cardinal, presided at this council. It took account of a letter of Pope John VIII, which had been sent to the emperor and translated into Greek. This reads (chapter 4): ***“We declare that the synod held at Rome against the most holy patriarch Photius in the time of the most blessed pope Hadrian, as well as the holy synod of Constantinople attacking the same most holy Photius (i.e., in 869-870), are totally condemned and abrogated and must in no way be invoked or named as synods. Let this not happen”. ***Some people have thought that this text had been altered by Photius; but in the so-called “unaltered” text of the letter this passage is replaced by dots (. . .), and the following passage reads: “For the see of blessed Peter, the key-bearer of the heavenly kingdom, has the power to dissolve, after suitable appraisal, any bonds imposed by bishops. This is so because it is agreed that already many patriarchs, for example Athanasius … … after having been condemned by a synod, have been, after formal acquittal by the apostolic see, promptly reinstated”. Ivo of Chartres

(**Saint **Ivo (Yves) of Chartres (c. 1040 – 23 December 1115) was the Bishop of Chartres from 1090 until his death and an important canon lawyer during the Investiture Crisis. Ivo is claimed to have studied at the Abbey of Bec in Normandy under Lanfranc, where he would have met Anselm of Aosta, the great Scholastic. In 1069 or not much later, he became, at the desire of his bishop, prior of the canons of St-Quentin at Beauvais. As bishop of Chartres and a canonist he contended strongly against simony and opposed King Philip I’s repudiation of his wife Bertha of Holland in order to marry Bertrade of Anjou in 1092. Ivo was briefly imprisoned for his opposition.)

explicitly affirms: “The synod of Constantinople which was held against Photius must not be recognised. John VIII wrote to the patriarch Photius (in 879): We make void that synod which was held against Photius at Constantinople and we have completely blotted it out for various reasons as well as for the fact that Pope Hadrian did not sign its acts”. Ivo adds from the instructions that John VIII gave to his legates for the council in 879: "You will say that, as regards the synods which were held against Photius under Pope Hadrian at Rome or Constantinople, we annul them and wholly exclude them from the number of the holy synods". For these reasons there is no ground for thinking that the text was altered by Photius.

Now do you think I am merely misquoting? THis is HISTORY FRIENDS. WE CANNOT deny the force of history in the councils of the church.

A. The 869 Council was abrogated by Papal authority and canon lawyers interpreted it this way until after the 11th century.

B. The Findings of the 879 Union Council were certainly ecumenical in nature and by imperial decree and were assented to by Pope John VII even if not ecumenical on Paper. This can happen. Case in point: The council of Jerusalem. Not declared ecumenical. Yet it is considered so because its decrees were received with ecumenical authority. Do you know of anyone Roman or Orthodoxwho will resist the decrees of the apostles in council?

C. Yet, the popes of the reformed papacy (Thos after Gregory VII and Leo IX) Have decided that they were to reinstate the canonicity of the of the 869 council! This is a flagrant contradiction! This is a violation of tradition. NOWHERE has any bishop attempted such a thing. Did LEO acquiesce to Dioscorus and approve the Latrocineum of 431? NO, because it was not canonical, and nothing can make it otherwise.

D. Therefore: CONTRADICTUR! THe metaphorical knot has been tied by the pope and this will land his claims on their face. THis is satire, not hatred.

 

[Gregory_I]

E. AS a side note: If the pope never acts alone from the rest of the bishops even when speaking infallibly on his own…Then in what sense is he speaking on his own? HIs voice is simply the spokesman of the majority in this case. IF the function of the Pope is to simply declare as true that which everybody else believes…well what kind of charism is that? Anyone can do that who is dully elected maybe like, hm Cyril of Alexandria at the council of Ephesus! Cyril spoke on behalf of the ROman bishop and presided in his place, MEANING That any priviledge the pope may have in regards to being the church’s mouthpiece is obviously transferable and in no way particular to himself!

IN other words, if the pope never acts apart from bishops, then why does he need a charism of infallibilty at all since he is speaking on behalf of the church??? It would make sense to say that the church is infallible, a council that is a true representation of the mind of the church is ecumenical by nature, and the pope has been elected as the spokesman of the findings of said council. BUt this has nothing to do with him: The infallibilty rests in the church! He would only be infallible by extension, by proclaiming what has been determined to be truth: BUT ALL BISHOPS CAN DO THAT!

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Gregory,

Before I continue my discussion, allow me to make some possibly needed apologies:

First, I do not hold anyone in contempt. Perhaps I have not checked my zeal for truth and it has flawed my brain and manners. I am sorry.

Don’t worry. We here at CAF always give new posters the benefit of the doubt at first.

As regards the canonical authority of these deliberations, various facts regarding the council held in the cathedral of Hagia Sophia in November 879, so that Photius might be restored to the see of Constantinople, should be remembered. Peter, a Roman cardinal, presided at this council. It took account of a letter of Pope John VIII, which had been sent to the emperor and translated into Greek. This reads (chapter 4): ***“We declare that the synod held at Rome against the most holy patriarch Photius in the time of the most blessed pope Hadrian, as well as the holy synod of Constantinople attacking the same most holy Photius (i.e., in 869-870), are totally condemned and abrogated and must in no way be invoked or named as synods. Let this not happen”. ***Some people have thought that this text had been altered by Photius; but in the so-called “unaltered” text of the letter this passage is replaced by dots (. . .), and the following passage reads: “For the see of blessed Peter, the key-bearer of the heavenly kingdom, has the power to dissolve, after suitable appraisal, any bonds imposed by bishops. This is so because it is agreed that already many patriarchs, for example Athanasius … … after having been condemned by a synod, have been, after formal acquittal by the apostolic see, promptly reinstated”.

It is well known that Photius altered the text of Pope John VIII’s letter, which is part of the reason that John VIII EXCOMMUNICATED PHOTIUS AGAIN. The supposed contents of the letter pale before the historical fact of the excommunication.

Ivo of Chartres …explicitly affirms: “The synod of Constantinople which was held against Photius must not be recognised. John VIII wrote to the patriarch Photius (in 879): We make void that synod which was held against Photius at Constantinople and we have completely blotted it out for various reasons as well as for the fact that Pope Hadrian did not sign its acts”. Ivo adds from the instructions that John VIII gave to his legates for the council in 879: "You will say that, as regards the synods which were held against Photius under Pope Hadrian at Rome or Constantinople, we annul them and wholly exclude them from the number of the holy synods". For these reasons there is no ground for thinking that the text was altered by Photius.

It is known that in his learned collection of canons, Ivo made comments that attempted to explain the inconsistencies between the canons. What you have quoted is merely Ivo recounting the events and debates that have occurred over particular canons.

A. The 869 Council was abrogated by Papal authority

If he did (and it is doubtful), it is obvious it was only because he did not consider the Council to have any doctrinal import. This is proven by the fact that the supposed text intimately and consistently connects the abrogation of the council ONLY to the question of Photius’ deposition. That in itself should leave a reader suspicious of the supposed text of the letter.

But even if the contents of the letter are true, then it is obvious that Pope John VIII regarded the prior council as one that dealt with a PURELY DISCIPLINARY/canonical matter. So not a big deal. There’s no inconsistency, because matters of discipline/canon/practice/etc. (which are indeed changeable) are not covered by the grace of Infallibility.

and canon lawyers interpreted it this way until after the 11th century.

Not so. Already explained above.

B. The Findings of the 879 Union Council were certainly ecumenical in nature and by imperial decree and were assented to by Pope John VII even if not ecumenical on Paper. This can happen.

EVERY council that defends Catholic orthodoxy is ecumenical “in nature.” But that alone does not gain for it Ecumenical status.

Case in point: The council of Jerusalem. Not declared ecumenical. Yet it is considered so because its decrees were received with ecumenical authority. Do you know of anyone Roman or Orthodoxwho will resist the decrees of the apostles in council?

The Council of Jerusalem was a LOCAL council called to deal with a LOCAL matter, that affected only PARTICULAR regions, not the whole Church. It was not Ecumenical in purpose or end.

C. Yet, the popes of the reformed papacy (Thos after Gregory VII and Leo IX) Have decided that they were to reinstate the canonicity of the of the 869 council! This is a flagrant contradiction! This is a violation of tradition. NOWHERE has any bishop attempted such a thing. Did LEO acquiesce to Dioscorus and approve the Latrocineum of 431? NO, because it was not canonical, and nothing can make it otherwise.

There is very good reason to doubt the genuineness of the text (i.e., the subsequent excommunication of Photius by Pope John VIII himself!!). And, as already state, if the Council was considered to have a purely discplinary intent, then it can be changed, rejected and accepted 100 times over, without casting any doubt upon the infallibility of the Church nor papal infallibility - and you had readily admitted earlier that there is a difference between doctrinal matters and merely discplinary/canonical matters (the latter being changeable).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

E. AS a side note: If the pope never acts alone from the rest of the bishops even when speaking infallibly on his own…Then in what sense is he speaking on his own? HIs voice is simply the spokesman of the majority in this case. IF the function of the Pope is to simply declare as true that which everybody else believes…well what kind of charism is that? Anyone can do that who is dully elected maybe like, hm Cyril of Alexandria at the council of Ephesus! Cyril spoke on behalf of the ROman bishop and presided in his place, MEANING That any priviledge the pope may have in regards to being the church’s mouthpiece is obviously transferable and in no way particular to himself!

IN other words, if the pope never acts apart from bishops, then why does he need a charism of infallibilty at all since he is speaking on behalf of the church??? It would make sense to say that the church is infallible, a council that is a true representation of the mind of the church is ecumenical by nature, and the pope has been elected as the spokesman of the findings of said council. BUt this has nothing to do with him: The infallibilty rests in the church! He would only be infallible by extension, by proclaiming what has been determined to be truth: BUT ALL BISHOPS CAN DO THAT!

Papal infallibility was given to Peter and passed on to his successors in the Petrine office (the bishops of Rome) for two reasons: 1) To be the confirmer of the his fellow ministers in the Faith. 2) To be the final arbiter between the his fellow ministers.

The first is exemplified in Scripture itself by St.Paul who visited St. Peter (AND NO ONE ELSE) so that he could make sure that he (St. Paul) was not “running in vain.” Despite St. Paul’s own credentials, he needed to make sure that his (St. Paul’s) BELIEFS, and what he (St. Paul) was TEACHING to others, was confirmed by St. Peter (even though we know that as a man, St. Peter himself was a sinner).

The second was confirmed by the Council of Sardica (originally intended to be Ecumenical, but was not so because almost all the Eastern bishops were heretics and did not submit to it), which itself was confirmed by the Seventh Ecumenical Council.

Blessings
Marduk

 

[Gregory_I]

I have already addressed this: The latrocineum in Ephesus was not necessarilly heretical, but it was abrogated, the 869 no less.

but in the so-called “unaltered” text of the letter this passage is replaced by dots (. . .), and the following passage reads:

“For the see of blessed Peter, the key-bearer of the heavenly kingdom, has the power to dissolve, after suitable appraisal, any bonds imposed by bishops. This is so because it is agreed that already many patriarchs, for example Athanasius … … after having been condemned by a synod, have been, after formal acquittal by the apostolic see, promptly reinstated”.

In other words he is adressing the issue of Photios exile, this is tantamount to saying the findings of the previous council were to be understood as no effect.

if the previous council was only a disciplinary one (and it was) then on what basis is it ecumenical? it condemned no heresies…it issued no definitions, it did not deny photios’ opinions…but the council of 879 in its horos clearly definedf and treated doctrinal matters. have you read its horos?

"The Photian Council was also convoked by the Emperor Basil I, and representatives of all five patriarchs were present together with 380 Fathers. The Fathers were thus fully entitled to designate the assembly as a “holy and ecumenical synod.” In the Acts this council is called ‘a holy Synod convoked under the most holy and ecumenical Patriarch Photius for the union of the holy and apostolic Church of God.’”

“A similar title is given to this synod by the Patriarch Euthymius (907-912).1 In his treatise on synods the Patriarch gives it the designation of “holy and ecumenical synod,” but it is not called the Eighth—it merely remains the “Union Synod.” This means that it was assembled in order to seal the union between Rome and Con*stantinople, disrupted by the condemnation of Photius, which had been regarded as unjust by the great majority of the Byzantine clergy, and also to end a schism in the Byzantine patriarchate by reconciling definitely the pro-Photian and the pro-Ignatian clergy.”

ROME NEVER EXCOMMUNICATED PHOTIOS! SHow me where he was, historically and not fraudulently, like in the donation of constantine.

Βut while Photius was still Patriarch, the Constantinopolitan Synod of 879-80 repudiated the anti-Photian Synod of 869-70, and received the sanction and approval of Pope John VIII in 880, who concurred in the annulment and cοndemnation of the anti-Photian decrees of his predecessors, Nicholas Ι and Hadrian ΙΙ.(148) Ιn exchange for John’s favourable verdict, Photius and Basil Ι agreed to turn over Bulgaria to Roman ecclesiastical
Colonization. But Rome never derived any benefit from the Byzantine surrender οn this point because Boris-Michael had decided to form an independent church of his οwn, which, however, followed the Byzantine tradition rather than the Roman.

***Nevertheless, neither John VIII nοr any of his immediate successors ever subsequently disowned or excommunicated Photius, and the whole account of their having done so belongs to the realm of phantasy. ***The fable that Photiust had been condemned by Rome did not arise until the end of the eleventh century, when canonists in the entourage of Pope Gregory VII (1013-85) were attracted by the arguments against lay investiture that they found in the canons of the anti-Photian Synod of 869-70. They took the latter at its face value and eagerly proclaimed it as the Eighth Oecumenical Council, although the ***distinguished canonists Deusdedit and Ιvo of Chames had had some hesitation about its authority and oecumenicity.But ***these doubts were so effectively brushed aside by Gratian in his Concordantia
discordantium canonum (ca. 1150) that the memory of the papal chancery’s reversal in the matter of Photius and in the subsequent rehabilitation of Photius by John VΙΙI was effaced from the record, having been suppressed by Gratian in accordance with his principle of reconciling contradictory canons.

SO while these did not admit of the photian council they certainly did not admit of the anti-photian councils as ecumenical either.

I have tried also to explain why the Ignatian Council had been added in the West to the list as the Eighth Ecumenical. This happened during the reign of Gregory VII, who had opened the Lateran archives to his canonists who were looking for new arguments for the papal primacy and who were against the intervention of laymen in the appointment of bishops and abbots. They needed a strongly worded official document which they could use in their fight against the investiture, or appointment of clergy to ecclesiastical dignities by influential laymen. They found such a document in Canon twenty-two voted by the Ignatian Council, which forbade laymen to influence the appointment of prelates. All canonists and reformists of the Gregorian period used this canon as their most powerful weapon in their struggle for the freedom of the Church in the election of prelates. To give more weight to this argument they promoted the Ignatian Council to one of the most important ecumenical synods, overlooking the Acts of the Photian Council which had cancelled the Council of 869-70, although the Acts of this council were also kept in the Lateran Archives. Only Cardinal Deusdedit copied a part of the Acts of the Photian Synod of 861 and of 879-880. He was followed by Ivo of Chartres, who, in the famous prologue to his col1ection of Canon Law, quoted a long passage of the letter of John VIII to Basil I concerning the restoration of Photius in the “doctored” version read at the council.17

 

[Gregory_I]

(The latest edition of the formula containing the profession of faith of the newly elected popes is preserved in the collection of Canon Law composed by **Cardinal Deusdedit **during the reign of Pope Gregory VII (1073-1085). He copied it from the Liber Diurnus which then must have been reedited in the eleventh century, most probably during the reign of Leo IX. It is very significant that in this new edition of the formula only seven councils are enumerated as ecumenical and binding upon all Christians. Also, the so-called Cautio Episcopi, or the profession form recited by bishops after their election, contained in the new edition of the Liber Diurnus, enumerates only seven ecumenical councils. All this shows clearly that up to the end of the eleventh century the Roman chancellery recognized only seven ecumenical councils, excluding the council of 869-870, and that of 879-880. Both Churches were thus in perfect accord on this important matter.
So while these did not admit of the photian council they certainly did not admit of the anti-photian councils as ecumenical either.)

 

[Gregory_I]

Papal infallibility was given to Peter and passed on to his successors in the Petrine office (the bishops of Rome) for two reasons: 1) To be the confirmer of the his fellow ministers in the Faith. 2) To be the final arbiter between the his fellow ministers.

The first is exemplified in Scripture itself by St.Paul who visited St. Peter (AND NO ONE ELSE) so that he could make sure that he (St. Paul) was not “running in vain.” Despite St. Paul’s own credentials, he needed to make sure that his (St. Paul’s) BELIEFS, and what he (St. Paul) was TEACHING to others, was confirmed by St. Peter (even though we know that as a man, St. Peter himself was a sinner).

The second was confirmed by the Council of Sardica (originally intended to be Ecumenical, but was not so because almost all the Eastern bishops were heretics and did not submit to it), which itself was confirmed by the Seventh Ecumenical Council.

Blessings
Marduk

OK, you seem to not see the point exactly:

1. Peter confirms his brethrens faith by proclaiming the faith held by all. BUt this is not due to infallibility on his part, it is the infallibility of the church that he is wresting to his own credit, if he truly never acts alone. If a council decides that the mary is theotokos, and the pope recognizing the claims of the council as true declares their definitions, this has nothing to do with him personally, he is merely saying what others have said. THis means his “authority” si not real, it is a position of spokesman and this can be passed to whomever he sees fit, like Cyril of Alexandria at Ephesus.

2.The council of Sardica did not setup a papacy of universal jurisdiction, but gave all bishops the right of universal appeal. It is ecumenical because it was ratified at Chalcedon:

"CANON I.

** WE have judged it fight that the canons of the Holy Fathers made in every synod even until now, should remain in force.**

NOTES.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON I.

The canons of every Synod of the holy Fathers shall be observed.

HEFELE. (a ROman)
Before the holding of the Council of Chalcedon, in the Greek Church, the canons of several synods, which were held previously, were gathered into one collection and provided with continuous numbers, and such a collection of canons, as we have seen, lay before the Synod of Chalcedon. As, however, most of the synods whose canons were received into the collection, e.g. those of Neocaesarea, Ancyra, Gangra, Antioch, were certainly not Ecumenical Councils, and were even to some extent of doubtful authority, such as the Antiochene Synod of 341, the confirmation of the Ecumenical Synod was now given to them,*** in order to raise them to the position of universally and unconditionally valid ecclesiastical rules.*** It is admirably remarked by the Emperor Justinian, in his 131st Novel, cap.j.; "We honour the doctrinal decrees of the first four Councils as we do Holy Scripture, but the canons given or approved by them as we do the laws."

 

[Ghosty]

Βut while Photius was still Patriarch, the Constantinopolitan Synod of 879-80 repudiated the anti-Photian Synod of 869-70, and received the sanction and approval of Pope John VIII in 880, who concurred in the annulment and cοndemnation of the anti-Photian decrees of his predecessors, Nicholas Ι and Hadrian ΙΙ.

This is false. If it was correct then Patriarch Ignatios would be considered an anti-Patriarch, and he is not. What was annulled was any decision that would further inhibit Photios from taking office, not the Council of 869.

If you believe that the Council of 869 was totally annulled, do you then disagree with the Eastern Orthodox Church that Patriarch Ignatios was the rightful Patriarch of Constantinople? You’re arguing yourself into a trap and a self-contradiction. A little less fire and a little more critical thinking might be in order.

Peace and God Bless!

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Gregory,

There are some things you have not taken into consideration, which I will point out in response to the relevant statements in your response:

if the previous council was only a disciplinary one (and it was) then on what basis is it ecumenical? it condemned no heresies…it issued no definitions, it did not deny photios’ opinions…but the council of 879 in its horos clearly definedf and treated doctrinal matters. have you read its horos?

First, please understand that the Fifth Ecumenical Council was also purely disciplinary. It was called simply to condemn three persons who the Fourth Ecumenical Council had explicitly exonerated. All the doctrinal matters had already been settled during the Fourth Ecum Council.

Second, it has been called Ecumenical because it gained the adherence, through patriarchal legates, of all the Chalcedonian Patriarchates.

Third, many Eastern Catholics do not admit this Council as Ecumenical anyway. It in no way affects the unity of the Catholic Church whether this or that Council is called “Ecumenical.” What is important to Catholics is that the FAITH of the Catholic Church is upheld, whether it be in a Council that is called “Ecumenical” or not. The number of “21” Councils has never been a defined matter of Faith for Catholics. Ask anyone here who has translated from Orthodoxy to Catholicism, and we will all testify that none of us was accepted into Catholic communion on condition that we accept a certain NUMBER of Ecumenical Councils.

“A similar title is given to this synod by the Patriarch Euthymius (907-912).1 In his treatise on synods the Patriarch gives it the designation of “holy and ecumenical synod,” but it is not called the Eighth—it merely remains the “Union Synod.” This means that it was assembled in order to seal the union between Rome and Con*stantinople, disrupted by the condemnation of Photius, which had been regarded as unjust by the great majority of the Byzantine clergy, and also to end a schism in the Byzantine patriarchate by reconciling definitely the pro-Photian and the pro-Ignatian clergy.”

As an Oriental (not an Eastern) I don’t know why it would be considered a “Union Synod” at all. From what I know, it condemned clerical celibacy, the use of unleavened bread, the practice of not permitting priests to confirm, etc., etc, that did nothing but distance East from West.

ROME NEVER EXCOMMUNICATED PHOTIOS! SHow me where he was, historically and not fraudulently, like in the donation of constantine.

That’s a wholly unfounded (fraudulent?) claim. You yourself quoted Pope John VIII as saying he rebuffed the decisions of the aforementioned council regarding Photius. If he was never excommunicated, why would Pope John VIII even need to make such a statement? Why was it that Photius was exiled if he was never excommunicated?

***Nevertheless, neither John VIII nοr any of his immediate successors ever subsequently disowned or excommunicated Photius, and the whole account of their having done so belongs to the realm of phantasy. ***The fable that Photiust had been condemned by Rome did not arise until the end of the eleventh century, when canonists in the entourage of Pope Gregory VII (1013-85) were attracted by the arguments against lay investiture that they found in the canons of the anti-Photian Synod of 869-70.

It is true that Photius died in the communion of the Catholic Church, but the fable is the claim that Photius was never excommunicated. Not only was he excommunicated and reinstated, but he was excommunicated ONCE AGAIN by Pope John VIII HIMSELF in 881, when Pope John had learned of how Photius altered the papal letters. He was apparently restored to communion again in 886 and died in Catholic communion.

They took the latter at its face value and eagerly proclaimed it as the Eighth Oecumenical Council, although the ***distinguished canonists Deusdedit and Ιvo of Chames had had some hesitation about its authority and oecumenicity.But ***these doubts were so effectively brushed aside by Gratian in his Concordantia
discordantium canonum (ca. 1150) that the memory of the papal chancery’s reversal in the matter of Photius and in the subsequent rehabilitation of Photius by John VΙΙI was effaced from the record, having been suppressed by Gratian in accordance with his principle of reconciling contradictory canons.

It seems you have answered your own question here. First of all, history shows that not all Ecumenical Councils were admitted as such RIGHT AWAY. So a late recognition by the Catholic Church is not so out-of-the-ordinary. Secondly, if the Council was not considered Ecumenical until later, then the question of “how can a Pope cancel the Ecumenical character of a Council” is totally irrelevant - for Pope John VIII was not cancelling an Ecumenical Council at the time. Third, as you agree that the Council was addressing purely disciplinary/canonical matters, then its repudiation and subsequent recognition as “Ecumenical” would not affect the doctrine of papal infallibility in any way. As already stated in an earlier post, disciplinary/canonical matters can be repudidated and reaccepted a hundred times over, and it still would not make the slightest dent in the dogma of papal infallibility. So no inconsistency exists in Catholic teaching on the matter.

IMO, it was considered an Ecumenical Council later on simply because it satisfied the requirements - namely, it was confirmed by the Pope and had the participation and adherence of all the Patriarchates.

In any case, to conclude, I repeat my earlier assertion that the NUMBER of Ecumenical Councils is not a matter that involves infallibility, but is a purely canonical matter.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Formosus]

“It is well known that Photius altered the text of Pope John VIII’s letter, which is part of the reason that John VIII EXCOMMUNICATED PHOTIUS AGAIN. The supposed contents of the letter pale before the historical fact of the excommunication.”

That is not historical fact. St. Photios was only excommunicated once, there is no evidence for a second excommunication. The Roman Catholic Historian (Dvorak I think is his name) disproved that in his work concerning Patriarch Photius. There is a copy of it in my school’s library if you would like me to get you the ISBN or something.

 

[mardukm]

That is not historical fact. St. Photios was only excommunicated once, there is no evidence for a second excommunication. The Roman Catholic Historian (Dvorak I think is his name) disproved that in his work concerning Patriarch Photius. There is a copy of it in my school’s library if you would like me to get you the ISBN or something.

I’ve heard of Dvornik. I thought his major contribution was demonstrating that Photius died in the Catholic communion, not that he was only excommunicated once. The sources I’ve read don’t deny the second excommunication, but do not deny that he died in Catholic communion either.

Do you have a link I can read on the matter, instead of the book? Thanks.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ddddyyyyy]

I agree with Gregory

gucci shoes Gate valve mobile phone manufacturer

 

[JohnVIII]

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

Pope John VIII also told the Bulgarian king Boris that the faith of St. Photius and the faith of Pope John VIII were one and the same faith. Pope John VIII was very much against the filoque. That’s why I think he was the last of the “Orthodox” Popes.

 

[mardukm]

Pope John VIII also told the Bulgarian king Boris that the faith of St. Photius and the faith of Pope John VIII were one and the same faith.

That’s the standard claim of most Catholics - that there is no substantial discrepancy between the Faith of the East and that of the West - during those times, and today as well.

Pope John VIII was very much against the filoque. That’s why I think he was the last of the “Orthodox” Popes.

That’s not believable. The French Carolingians were the foremost proponents of the filioque and Pope John VIII was of the pro-French Carolingian party, constantly courting them to defend the papal estates, even crowning several French Carolingians as Emperor. It is more likely that Photius had added a clause deprecatory of filioque when he revised John’s letters to him, and that, among other revisions, caused John VIII to excommunicate him anew in 881. The sources I’ve read claim that the excommunication was lifted once again by Pope Stephen V in 886, perhaps in order to induce the Eastern Emperor for help against the Saracens, who were invading Italy.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[marlo]

Let’s not robbed this thread of the topic and avoid going to the filioque issue

Pope John VIII also told the Bulgarian king Boris that the faith of St. Photius and the faith of Pope John VIII were one and the same faith. Pope John VIII was very much against the filoque. That’s why I think he was the last of the “Orthodox” Popes.

 

[mardukm]

I had forgotten about this portion of your comments, and I just remembered it today, for some wierd reason. Sorry for not responding sooner, but here it is:

1. Peter confirms his brethrens faith by proclaiming the faith held by all. BUt this is not due to infallibility on his part, it is the infallibility of the church that he is wresting to his own credit, if he truly never acts alone. If a council decides that the mary is theotokos, and the pope recognizing the claims of the council as true declares their definitions, this has nothing to do with him personally, he is merely saying what others have said.

That’s a sophistic take on what it means TO CONFIRM. To confirm something is no more nor less than to establish the truth of something by INDEPENDENT AUTHORITY. To confirm something is certainly premised on a prior agreement by another party, but that does not detract from the independent authority of the one who confirms what the other party has submitted for confirmation. Indeed, according to your definition, the confirmation of a head bishop is nothing more than a figurehead’s assent. But therein lies the inconsistency. The assent of a figurehead, who merely parrots the will of the majority or the populace, is not necessary, but is merely for decorum. However, according to Apostolic Canon 34/35, such confirmation by a head bishop is NECESSARY. Your definition violates the intent of the Apostolic Canon, so it cannot be accepted…

In any case, please answer this question: what use is it to ask confirmation from someone - ESPECIALLY ON A MATTER SO IMPORTANT FOR SALVATION AS FAITH - if that someone has the possibility of being wrong on the matter for which you want confirmation? Papal confirmation is not about power in the least - rather it is about the edification of the Church.

THis means his “authority” si not real, it is a position of spokesman and this can be passed to whomever he sees fit, like Cyril of Alexandria at Ephesus.

Oh, no, no, no. Pope St. Celestine did not merely pass on his position of “spokesman,” to Pope St. Cyril. Pope St. Cyril actually sought confirmation from Pope St. Celestine FIRST.

2.The council of Sardica did not setup a papacy of universal jurisdiction, but gave all bishops the right of universal appeal. It is ecumenical because it was ratified at Chalcedon:

Very true. The Council of Sardica did not set up a papacy of universal jurisdiction. That the Pope had a say throughout the Church as an elder brother who is to be heeded out of love and respect was a reality that already existed PRIOR to the Council. All the Council did was formalize into canonical law an already long-standing belief and practice. Bishops East and West were appealing to Rome long before the Council. So it is indeed true that the Council did not “set up” papal universal jurisdiction, but only because it had already existed prior to that time.

Having said that, I personally don’t like the term “jurisdiction.” The idea of “jurisdiction” is a development in the Church that seems to have come around only in the 4th century. I rather view the papal prerogative as “universal solicitude” rather than “universal jurisdiction.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Formosus]

I’ve heard of Dvornik. I thought his major contribution was demonstrating that Photius died in the Catholic communion, not that he was only excommunicated once. The sources I’ve read don’t deny the second excommunication, but do not deny that he died in Catholic communion either.

Do you have a link I can read on the matter, instead of the book? Thanks.

Blessings,
Marduk

books.google.com/books?id=mlM1SRCdXtkC&pg=PA132&lpg=PA132&dq=Dvornik+historian&source=bl&ots=9lDyrkRjur&sig=IvjBoP7iCOJLBz061tmdAspKVwg&hl=en&ei=2QoRSoDAAY-uMpP1yaoG&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#PPA132,M1

 

[Coles_Law]

It would seem that a council that has been suppressed by a later council, when the later council was accepted by the Pope, would no longer legitimately be cited for any purpose, whether it counts as an ecumenical council or not. The council of 869 was accepted by the reigning Pope, Hadrian II, but so was the council of 879, John VIII then reigning. The council of 879 decreed that the council of 869 should be held null and void.

Fr. Francis Dvornik’s 1947 book, The Photian Schism, may be found in theological libraries in most large cities. I have not had time to give it the study it deserves. (I have not subscribed to the university library to have check out privileges, so have not been able to take it home with me.) In perusing it for a couple of hours stolen from work, I have read the pages in which he says the second excommunication of Photius is a legend that has no historical validity. I have never found any refutation of that statement by competent scholar, but I have not had the chance to research the theological journals.

The only source on-line that attempts a refutation is a piece by Professor Phil Blosser that begins with an ad hominem attack on Fr. Dvornik as a “conciliarist,” an attack that says nothing about the accuracy of Fr. Dvornik’s historical work and conclusions. The scholarly world seems to have found all of Fr. Dvornik’s voluminous historical writing to be impeccable. Prof. Blosser further claims that other historians disagree with Fr. Dvornik, but in looking at other descriptions of their work, it appears that Prof. Blosser is wrong about them. Prof. Blosser finally says he will stand on Rome’s official statements that the council of 869 is ecumenical; that the council of 879 was a false council like the “robber council” of 449; and that Photius was excommunicated a second time. His stand strikes me not only as being circular, for it assumes the truth of what his argument is supposed to demonstrate, it is also demolished by Fr. Dvornik’s study of the actual historical records. Professor Blosser’s article is found on-line at catholictradition.blogspot.com/2005_01_01_catholictradition_archive.html.

On-line sources reflect that only Orthodox scholars have supplemented Fr. Dvornik’s scholarship with serious studies of their own; except for Phil Blosser and people who cite back to his article, I cannot find any Catholic refutations on-line. The Orthodox source most often found is Fr. George Dragas’ article that quotes from the Acts of the Council of 879 in support of Fr. Dvornik’s conclusions. Fr. Dragas’ article is found on-line at www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/dragas_eighth. html.

It is claimed that the Council of 879 approved an act which forbade any change in the wording of the Nicene Creed, an act aimed at stopping the use of the filioque (“and the Son”) in that Creed. I wonder if that is true, but I cannot find a Catholic writer who has disputed it. (The Acts of the Council of 879 are not published in English; one must read them in Latin from Mansi, apparently. Fr. Dragas translates a portion in his article, but it would be nice to read them all.) Rome had not yet adopted the filioque, but the German bishops from the court of the western Emperor (later, the “Holy Roman Emperor”) on down had adopted it, and they were teaching it to the Bulgarians and other Slavs. The Greeks under Patriarch Photius had protested this as heretical. It was only in 1014 or so that the Roman See adopted the filioque as its own.

Fr. Dvornik reports that the decrees of the Council of 869 were revived in the eleventh century because they became useful in another battle Rome had to fight (the investitute controversy). It is then that the story about a second excommunication of Photius surfaced. How could a council that was suppressed with the apparent consent of the Popes for at least a couple hundred years could ever be revived? How can it be considered legitimate now, whether or not it is “ecumenical”? Finally, how could the popes of the eleventh century and afterward declare the council of 879 as a false council when it had been accepted by John VIII and his successors? These are questions to which I have not been able to find good answers.

Cole

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Formosus,

books.google.com/books?id=mlM1SRCdXtkC&pg=PA132&lpg=PA132&dq=Dvornik+historian&source=bl&ots=9lDyrkRjur&sig=IvjBoP7iCOJLBz061tmdAspKVwg&hl=en&ei=2QoRSoDAAY-uMpP1yaoG&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#PPA132,M1

Thanks for the link. It is a good explanation. However, the explanation does not seem to contradict the idea that Photius was excommunicated twice. The explanation only asserts that a second SCHISM did not occur. Photius can certainly have been considered excommunicated a second time without causing a second schism. It’s the same principle of Michael Cerularius excommunicating Pope Leo IX (by striking his name off the diptychs), yet the actual schism did not occur until several months later, with the injudicious actions of the papal legates.

Blessings,
Marduk