Wandile:"The Photian Council is not accepted by Rome". And? The point is that it once was accepted, while the Council of 869 was never accepted by the East
It was accepted under false pretenses and soon revoked it an anathematized Photius. Secondly the east accepted the 869 council as ecumenical for 10 years which is why Patraitch St Ignatius regained his see and reigned until his death and why after the death of Photius some easterners still never regarded him as legitimate patriarch or even a legitimate priest and why the were questions over the legitimacy of his ordinations.
St. Antony Cauleas, who became patriarch of Constantinople in 893, says that
he reunited East and West, not Photius. It is not that any formal decree of reunion was issued, but rather now, for the first time since the death of St Ignatius, Constantinople had a patriarch whose legitimacy was unquestionable.
But according to +Kallistos Ware, even famous RC historian Francis Dvornik acknowledged that the Photian Council ended the schism for another couple of hundred years. How could it have done that if Rome hadn't accepted it?
Sincerely and with all due respect Porphy, did you read my post? I literally said, a regarding Pope John VIII and his successors subsequently anathematising Photius
“Note: This is not a second photian schism but a personal condemnation of photius alone. Constantinople and Rome were not in schism anymore”
Proof is that Photius’ successor, St. Antony Cauleas, who became patriarch of Constantinople in 893, says that he reunited East and West. That is, for the first time both east and west had a patriarch they both acknowledged.
From eminent Greek scholar Fr. George Dragas:
"Finally in Pope John VIII's Commonitorium or Mandatum ch. 10, which was read by the papal legates at the third Session of the same Council, we find the following: "We [Pope John VIII] wish that it is declared before the Synod, that the Synod which took place against the aforementioned Patriarch Photios at the time of Hadrian, the Most holy Pope in Rome, and [the Synod] in Constantinople [869/70] should be ostracized from this present moment and be regarded as annulled and groundless, and should not be co-enumerated with any other holy Synods." The minutes at this point add: "The Holy Synod responded: We have denounced this by our actions and we eject it from the archives and anathematize the so-called [Eighth] Synod, being united to Photios our Most Holy Patriarch. We also anathematize those who fail to eject what was written or said against him by the aforementioned by yourselves, the so-called [Eighth] Synod." (Latin text: Caput 10. Volumus coram praesente synodo pomulgari ut synodus quae facta est contra praedictum patriarcham Photium sub Hadriano sanctissimo Papa in urbe Roma et Constantinopoli ex nunc sit rejecta, irrita, et sine robore; neque connumeretur cum altera sancta synodo. Sancta Synodus respondit: Nos rebus ispsis condemnavimus et abjecimus et anathematizavimus dictam a vobis synodum, uniti Photio sanctissimo nostro Patriarchae: et eos qui non rejiciunt scripta dictave nostra cum in hac dicta a vobis synodo, anathematizamus. Mansi vol. xvii, cl. 472AB. See also cls. 489/490E which repeats these points as accepted by the Synod. See also Dositheos op. cit. p. 345 and p. 361). I have included these texts here because I repeatedly encounter comments in the works of Western scholars, especially Roman Catholics, who offer confusing and even disputed information about the unanimous Eastern and Western condemnation of the anti-Photian Council of 869/870.
This letter is a 14th century forgery that even Fr Francis Dvornik, with his excessive Photian bias, admitted.
19th Century French scholar/historian Abbe Guettee, who converted to Orthodoxy after having been given unlimited access to the Vatican library, wrote:
"The acts of the council of 879 have been found in the original in Rome itself, with all the authentic signatures, including those of the legates of Rome; and yet the ecclesiastical historians of the West insinuate that they may have been altered. On the other hand, the acts of the council of 869 were lost by the Roman legates, and are only known through Anastasius the librarian, who pretended to have a copy; and the Western historians will not allow of a doubt to their genuineness."
The acts being present at Rome mean nothing because the Latin translation was most likely attained in later decades or centuries.
We know for sure that they weren’t in Rome during the reign of Pope John VIII because :
- His letter to emperor Basil makes it clear that he believed his conditions for reunion with Photius were met when the acts of the council show that practically none of them were met especially Photius having to apologize for his prior crimes towards Saints Ignatius and Nicholas and repudiating any claims to Bulgaria. These were the two major conditions one of Pope John VIII for reunion and both were emphatically not met
- We also know because Marinus , who later became Pope, was sent by Pope John VIII to find out what
actually happened and upon recovering Marinus back in Rome, amathematized Photius and Marinus renewed this anathema as soon as he became Pope.
- Pope Stephen V writes that he did even recognize Photius as a patriarch nor even as priest and called him a layman. He also says that the anathemas of his predecessors were too light a sentence on Photius
- Many in the east itself did not regard Photius as legitimate patriarch even after his death
- Photius was still trying to have the 869/870 council annulled 10 years after the 879/880 council was held. Something absolutely unexplainable if the 879/880 council was confirmed by the whole church (as the council attempted to annul and repudiate the 869/879 council).
- Lastly St. Antony Cauleas, who became patriarch of Constantinople in 893, says that he reunited East and West and only in his reign did Rome and Constantinople finally have full peace.
