• For users new and old: the forum rules were streamlined when we transitioned to the new software. Please ensure that you are familiar with them. Continued use of the forum means that you (a) know the rules, and (b) pledge that you'll abide by them. For more information, check out the OrthodoxChristianity.Net Rules section. (There are only 2 threads there - Rules, and Administrative Structure.)

Roman Acceptance of the Council of 879-80 as Ecumenical

Athanasios

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
1,800
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Diocese of Youngstown
Hello,

Αριστοκλής said:
NOW you are really reaching. This is becoming a waste of time as you can't see what is obvious to us all - that you are squirming in obfuscation attempts of denial...and now an appeal to Schaff's editorial conjecture and innuendo about 'pretended' letters (a tactic of the west usually).  ::)
I tried to quote from someone who wasn't too biased one way or the other. Being neither Orthodox or Catholic, I felt that he didn't have a hand in the game - so to speak.


It does seem that Photius was again excommunicated soon after the Council by Pope John VIII. The question to ask is why? The legates were punished upon their return (the precise reason and what the punishment were, I am not certain), again why? Maybe this is all coincidence - I don't know. But why?

The idea that I have (which may be incomplete, but from all I have seen so far (which is more then has been presented on this thread), this is what I have deduced) is that the Pope sent the legates to a Council convened to heal the schism that had erupted. The legates, for some reason, went further than they were instructed in their agreements with the Council. When they returned to Rome, the Pope could not agree to what the legates had agreed to. He sent another Bishop to Constantinople, who was detained and when the Bishop finally returned to Rome, the Pope again renewed the excommunication against Photius. Thus the Pope's tacit agreement to the Council, which he originally had intended to declare valid to heal the schism when he sent his legates, was nullified upon the Pope's assessment of the actual Councils decisions.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,867
Reaction score
81
Points
48
Location
Chicago
greekischristian said:
Yes, an Imperial Synod summoned by the Emperor that was subsequently upheld as an Imperial Synod also summoned by the Emperor. They very word 'ecumenical' is from Imperial terminology, it was a synod that held the undisputed authority of the Empire. Thus we had 'ecumenical' Emperors, 'ecumenical' synods, 'ecumenical' fathers, 'ecumenical' patriarchs, an 'ecumenical' Church, 'ecumenical' barbers, etc. An 'ecumenical' synod is simply a synod that is consonant with the consensus of the bishops of the Empire.
Actually, no, because many of the bishops came from outside the empire (St. Gregory the Illuminator being one in point), and many inside didn't agree.  Not that the emperors didn't try to make imperial=ecumenical=Christian, they did.  But the councils reached beyond the empire, whether the 1st or the 7th.
 

Aristocles

Merarches
Joined
Apr 23, 2003
Messages
10,031
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Pittsburgh
Athanasios said:
The idea that I have (which may be incomplete, but from all I have seen so far (which is more then has been presented on this thread), this is what I have deduced) is that the Pope sent the legates to a Council convened to heal the schism that had erupted. The legates, for some reason, went further than they were instructed in their agreements with the Council. When they returned to Rome, the Pope could not agree to what the legates had agreed to. He sent another Bishop to Constantinople, who was detained and when the Bishop finally returned to Rome, the Pope again renewed the excommunication against Photius. Thus the Pope's tacit agreement to the Council, which he originally had intended to declare valid to heal the schism when he sent his legates, was nullified upon the Pope's assessment of the actual Councils decisions.
Surely smells of revised history to me.
 

Athanasios

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
1,800
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Diocese of Youngstown
Hello,

Αριστοκλής said:
Surely smells of revised history to me.
Maybe if I had access to certain University libraries and such, I could have a more complete view (which may or may not be the one I have expressed) - but given what I have researched here and on the internet, that is what I have deduced to be historically accurate.

For some reason - there are varying reports. Some say that the legates were bullied by Photius and the Council, some say they were incompetent, some say they were treacherous. All I know is that the Pope was not pleased with their conduct at the Council. And for some reason (whatever that reason may actually be) they went beyond the bounds set for them by the Pope.
 

Symeon

High Elder
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
582
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Schaff is a bit out of date.

Bishop Kallistos Ware:
But there were further changes to come. The 869-70 council requested the Emperor to resolve the status of the Bulgarian Church, and not surprisingly he decided that it should be assigned to the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Realizing that Rome would allow him less independence than Byzantium, Boris accepted this decision. From 870, then, the German missionaries were expelled and the Filioque was heard no more in the confines of Bulgaria. Nor was this all. At Constantinople, Ignatius and Photius were reconciled to one another, and when Ignatius died in 877, Photius once more succeeded him as Patriarch. In 879 yet another council was held in Constantinople, attended by 383 bishops - a notable contrast with the meagre total at the anti-Photian gathering ten years previously. The council of 869 was anathematized and all condemnations of Photius were withdrawn; these decisions were accepted without protest at Rome. So Photius ended victorious, recognized by Rome and ecclesiastically master of Bulgaria. Until recently it was thought that there was a second 'Photian schism', but Dr Dvornik has proved with devastating conclusiveness that this second schism is a myth: in Photius' later period of office (877-86) communion between Constantinople and the Papacy remained unbroken. The Pope at this time, John VIII (872-82), was no friend to the Franks and did not press the question of the Filioque, nor did he attempt to enforce the Papal claims in the east. Perhaps he recognized how seriously the policy of Nicolas had endangered the unity of Christendom.
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/general/greatschism.aspx

The next step would be to dig up Dr. Dvornik's book "The Photian Schism" which appears to have become unfortunately rare. I'm not sure if he was a priest or not, but Dr. Dvornik was quite a respected Catholic historian.
 

rakovsky

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
12,491
Reaction score
151
Points
63
Location
USA
Website
rakovskii.livejournal.com
Faith
Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox Church in America
Quote from: Αριστοκλής on January 15, 2008, 11:26:50 AM
Again, re-read the article. You are expounding the Frankish historical revision (and know full well what we think of Lyons).

I think we're all aware of what the Orthodox think of the Council of Lyons. Be that as it may, the Catholic Church (the Church I place my full loyalty and faith in as THE Church) declares Lyons to be a valid Ecumenical Council.
Can you please tell me why the Orthodox church does not consider the Council of Lyons Ecumenical? Were representatives of the historical patriachs not present and would that make it not ecumenical? (eg. Egypt, Antioch?)
 

Aristocles

Merarches
Joined
Apr 23, 2003
Messages
10,031
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Pittsburgh
rakovsky said:
Quote from: Αριστοκλής on January 15, 2008, 11:26:50 AM
Again, re-read the article. You are expounding the Frankish historical revision (and know full well what we think of Lyons).

I think we're all aware of what the Orthodox think of the Council of Lyons. Be that as it may, the Catholic Church (the Church I place my full loyalty and faith in as THE Church) declares Lyons to be a valid Ecumenical Council.
Can you please tell me why the Orthodox church does not consider the Council of Lyons Ecumenical? Were representatives of the historical patriachs not present and would that make it not ecumenical? (eg. Egypt, Antioch?)
See  answer given to your duplicate question in 'Orthodox-Catholic Discussion'.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,867
Reaction score
81
Points
48
Location
Chicago
Athanasios said:
Hello,

FrChris said:
Does anyone read any of the articles that we have on the site?

http://www.orthodox.ws/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=22&Itemid=28
We have articles on this website?  :D

Seriously, I think I was vaguely cognizant of that fact, but you are the first to direct me to an article here.


FrChris said:
Please read the rest of this article, published in 1966 by the famed RC priest Fr. Francis Dvornik. He very clearly indicates that actually your church adopted the Council of 879, but later stated that they had adopted the Council of 869...and I'll let you read the reasons why, since the reasons only buttress the allegations of historical revisionism that are being discussed in a different thread.
I read it in full later, if I have time. Giving it just a quick glance, I see nothing that indicates the the Catholic Church ever officially recognized the Council of 879 as an Ecumenical Council. I see nothing that indicates the same of the Orthodox Church.

The fact that the Council of 869 was not immediately and officially recognized as Ecumenical until centuries later (if that is indeed the case) does not prove or disprove anything. The Second Ecumenical Council was not officially declared Ecumenical until 70 years later at the Council of Chalcedon.
This bit of revisionism dealt with here:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25516.new.html#new
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,14289.msg202070.html#msg202070
 

mike

Protostrator
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Messages
24,873
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
31
Location
Białystok / Warsaw
Faith
Christian
Jurisdiction
Diocese of Białystok and Gdańsk
Interesting interview: http://www.portal-credo.ru/site/?act=news&id=102889
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,867
Reaction score
81
Points
48
Location
Chicago
Michał Kalina said:
Interesting interview: http://www.portal-credo.ru/site/?act=news&id=102889
it is interesting, but what does it have to do with the First-Second Council?

Another example of why the canon 28 myth needs to be throttled at every opportunity.
 

Jude1:3

High Elder
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
553
Reaction score
67
Points
28
Location
USA
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Check out these links everyone :




 
Top