8th Ecumenical Council

[GreekGrl]

I have a question. i am a bit confused. It is my understanding that the Roman Catholic church accepted the Fourth Council of Constantinople (869-870) as the 8th Ecumenical Council. According to this Orthodox time table this was the context of that council:

879-80 AD
—Council of Constantinople, convened by Roman Emperor Basil II, presided over by Patriarch Photius, and attended by 383 bishops of both east and west. It declares the Council of Nicea in 787 to truly be the Seventh Ecumenical Council, and anathematizes those who refuse to recognize it (particularly those in France). It also annuls the Councils of Rome and Constantinople which had condemned Patriarch Photius. In addition, it declares that the Creed, the Symbol of the Faith, must remain exactly as it was handed down by the Holy Fathers. Anyone who dares to make any additions or subtractions (especially in regards to the filioque clause) is anathematized. Finally, it is decreed that the Churches of East and West are not to interfere in one another's jurisdiction, that the west is to depose western bishops and the east is to depose eastern bishops, and that these depositions must be recognized by all of the Churches. This council is also accepted and fully embraced by Pope John VIII of Rome.
​

If this is the case which it appears to be then the Catholic church formally declared the filioque as heretical. Yet it was later added in any how.



Why is that?????

 

[Sphinx777]

The Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church hold to two different Ecumenical Councils, both of them being named the Fourth Council of Constantinople...

8. (RC) Fourth Council of Constantinople (869-870) deposed Patriarch Photios I of Constantinople as an usurper and reinstated his predecessor Saint Ignatius. Photius had already been declared deposed by the Pope, an act which the Church of Constantinople accepted at this council. After the death of Ignatius, Photius was reinstated as Patriarch with papal approval.

Today, this council is accepted by the Roman Catholic Church but rejected as a robber council by the Eastern Orthodox Church.


Roman Catholic Councils - #8 to #21

 

[Eucharisted]

Ecumenical Councils texts (degrees, etc.):

All Ecumenical Councils - All the Decrees

 

[Eucharisted]

Orthodox position on the Councils:

Ecumenical Councils - OrthodoxWiki

 

[Davidnic]

If this is the case which it appears to be then the Catholic church formally declared the filioque as heretical. Yet it was later added in any how.



Why is that?????

Yes, we accept that council.

On your question of filioque it was because when the Church added filioque it was (in the opinion of the time and of those who did it) not a change to the creed only a clarification of the Latin translation to resolve a problem with the Spanish Church and their understanding of it. Whether someone accepts that as valid is up to them. But they did not see it as an addition in the concept only a translation clarification and it was recommended by Pope Leo III that it remain omitted from the creed.

However sometime around 1015 (about 200 years after it was first used and after having been custom in Spanish churches) it made its way widespread likely with the approval of Benedict VIII. The view of the Church was that the council forbade additions but not clarifications that did not introduce new Theology.

When said in Greek we do not add Filioque and our Eastern Rite Churches do not say it.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

Are we talking about two different Councils?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Council_of_Constantinople_(Catholic)

 

[MoNiCa4316]

Yes, we accept that council.

On your question of filioque it was because when the Church added filioque it was (in the opinion of the time and of those who did it) not a change to the creed only a clarification of the Latin translation to resolve a problem with the Spanish Church and their understanding of it. Whether someone accepts that as valid is up to them. But they did not see it as an addition in the concept only a translation clarification and it was recommended by Pope Leo III that it remain omitted from the creed.

However sometime around 1015 (about 200 years after it was first used and after having been custom in Spanish churches) it made its way widespread likely with the approval of Benedict VIII. The view of the Church was that the council forbade additions but not clarifications that did not introduce new Theology.

When said in Greek we do not add Filioque and our Eastern Rite Churches do not say it.

that is my understanding also, but what about where it says:

especially in regards to the filioque clause

I'm confused about that part.. it seems they are specifically talking about the filioque..

but I think we're talking about two different councils here? Because in the text that GreekGrl quoted, it says that the council overturned the other councils that condemned Photius.. but on Wikipedia, it says the opposite, that this Council deposited Photius.

 

[GreekGrl]

so which is it? were there 2 councils of constantinople occuring at the exact same time? or are they in fact the same councils? this is sooo confusing

 

[Eucharisted]

so which is it? were there 2 councils of constantinople occuring at the exact same time? or are they in fact the same councils? this is sooo confusing

It becomes clearer when you realize the "robber council" is a joke. It never happened. You realize the "robber council" is a joke once you read the council documents and you understand why the Orthodox Church has not had an Ecumenical Council since its schsim: For the exact same reason it doesn't have dogmas or exercises infallibility: It lacks authority, and is unwilling to accept that.

 

[GreekGrl]

It becomes clearer when you realize the "robber council" is a joke. It never happened. You realize the "robber council" is a joke once you read the council documents and you understand why the Orthodox Church has not had an Ecumenical Council since its schsim: For the exact same reason it doesn't have dogmas or exercises infallibility: It lacks authority, and is unwilling to accept that.

Please explaine in further detail please....

 

[Eucharisted]

Please explaine in further detail please....

The "robber council" is a hoax made up by whoever. The Orthodox consider Photios to be a saint. He can't be a saint, though, if he was really heretical. So someone had to spread the lie about a robber council. You might even wonder why the Orthodox Church, which claims to have had ecumenical councils, doesn't have any more: In fact, an ecumenical council would solve a lot of problems the Church is dealing with. Yet it lacks the authority, and its Bishops know it. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, has had ecumenical councils and continues to have ecumenical councils. It has the Pope, who has the authority to make such councils. The Catholic Church, not the Orthodox Church, has the authority to make councils, dogmas, infallible statements, just as it always has since Apostolic Times. This is clear from reading the council documents and writings of the Church Fathers. This is even clearer from a study of Judaism (fun fact: the High Priest could make infallible statements, just like the Pope can). I will admit us Catholics have our own problems to deal with - like the Sacraments of Initiation being separated, for one thing - but such problems have to do with traditions, not Sacred Tradition, and so do not make us less Christian. At any rate, the "robber account" accusation is unfounded, just like how the Orthodox are taught by their historians that a certain Pope claimed the Pope isn't Supreme Pontiff (the quote used for this teaching is out of context and only backed by fallacious understandings of the Papacy), so I wouldn't take the idea of there being two ecumenical councils seriously. That's my two cents and I can be wrong.

 

[ThePilgrim]

The "robber council" is a hoax made up by whoever. The Orthodox consider Photios to be a saint. He can't be a saint, though, if he was really heretical. So someone had to spread the lie about a robber council. You might even wonder why the Orthodox Church, which claims to have had ecumenical councils, doesn't have any more: In fact, an ecumenical council would solve a lot of problems the Church is dealing with. Yet it lacks the authority, and its Bishops know it. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, has had ecumenical councils and continues to have ecumenical councils. It has the Pope, who has the authority to make such councils. The Catholic Church, not the Orthodox Church, has the authority to make councils, dogmas, infallible statements, just as it always has since Apostolic Times. This is clear from reading the council documents and writings of the Church Fathers. This is even clearer from a study of Judaism (fun fact: the High Priest could make infallible statements, just like the Pope can). I will admit us Catholics have our own problems to deal with - like the Sacraments of Initiation being separated, for one thing - but such problems have to do with traditions, not Sacred Tradition, and so do not make us less Christian. At any rate, the "robber account" accusation is unfounded, just like how the Orthodox are taught by their historians that a certain Pope claimed the Pope isn't Supreme Pontiff (the quote used for this teaching is out of context and only backed by fallacious understandings of the Papacy), so I wouldn't take the idea of there being two ecumenical councils seriously. That's my two cents and I can be wrong.

I know we can't debate Catholic theology on this board, but are we allowed to correct blatant falsehoods about the Orthodox Church?

Grace and peace,
Sbn John

 

[Eucharisted]

I know we can't debate Catholic theology on this board, but are we allowed to correct blatant falsehoods about the Orthodox Church?

Grace and peace,
Sbn John

Sure ^^

If a debate gets underway, we could take it to the appropriate thread.

 

[GreekGrl]

sorry Eucuristed, I'm afraid you are wrong. I thought your explanation would be full of facts and useful information.

Fact: the only reason the Orthodox church has not held an ecumenical council is because historically it was the Emperor who would call a council (Not the Pope) . and the only way to radify a council was and is to declare it Ecumenical at the next council. The church seperated and and there was a lot of war and no more emporer to call a council. Now, just to be clear it is not a hard rule or anything that the emperor must call a council but it was the historical tradition. In any event since it takes a council to delare a council ecumeical it would fully appear as though all the subsequent Roman Catholic Councils were in fact, not ecumenical as they lacked the authority to be so.

 

[Gwendolyn]

I know we can't debate Catholic theology on this board, but are we allowed to correct blatant falsehoods about the Orthodox Church?

Grace and peace,
Sbn John

Please do.

Additionally, I have always wondered what would happen if it became apparent to the Orthodox that an ecumenical council would be truly needed. Since there hasn't been an emperor for centuries upon centuries, how would that even work? Clearly the Orthodox Church hasn't stopped holding councils; they hold pan-orthodox councils and such. Do those hold the same weight, the same authority, as ecumenical councils for the Orthodox church? I have been told that they are often treated as such.

I would rather ask that question here than in taw.

 

[prodromos]

Christ is Risen!

The "robber council" is a hoax made up by whoever.

I guess that 'whoever' would be Pope John VIII. He accepted the decisions of the Council of 879-880 which repudiated the council of 869-870. Up until the end of the 11th century, the 869-870 council was not listed among the ecumenical councils in the West. It was only at the end of the 11th century that Latin canonists found canon 22 of this false council to be to their advantage, so this council was quietly re-instated and the reunion council of 879-880 was forgotten.

This council, designated as the eighth ecumenical council by western canonists, is not found in any canonical collections of the Byzantines; its acts and canons are completely ignored by them. Modern scholars have shown that it was included in the list of ecumenical councils only later, that is, after the eleventh century. We have decided to include the council, for the sake of historical completeness.

Fourth Council of Constantinople : 869-870

The Orthodox consider Photios to be a saint. He can't be a saint, though, if he was really heretical. So someone had to spread the lie about a robber council.

Of what heresy is St Photius accused? As noted above, Rome considered the 869-870 council as false until it did an about face at the end of the 11th century.

You might even wonder why the Orthodox Church, which claims to have had ecumenical councils, doesn't have any more:

Could it be that no new heresy has reared its ugly head in the Church? That is the reason the councils were called in the past.

In fact, an ecumenical council would solve a lot of problems the Church is dealing with. Yet it lacks the authority, and its Bishops know it.

which bishops' minds have you read in order to make this claim?

The Catholic Church, on the other hand, has had ecumenical councils and continues to have ecumenical councils.

Ecumenical in name only, but hey, you can call them whatever you like.

It has the Pope, who has the authority to make such councils.

Can you state the canons of the pre-schism councils which give the Pope of Rome this authority?

The Catholic Church, not the Orthodox Church, has the authority to make councils, dogmas, infallible statements, just as it always has since Apostolic Times. This is clear from reading the council documents and writings of the Church Fathers.

We come to different conclusions through reading the same council documents and Church fathers.

This is even clearer from a study of Judaism (fun fact: the High Priest could make infallible statements, just like the Pope can).

Citation?

I will admit us Catholics have our own problems to deal with - like the Sacraments of Initiation being separated, for one thing - but such problems have to do with traditions, not Sacred Tradition, and so do not make us less Christian.

Excommunicating infants is a rather large issue.

At any rate, the "robber account" accusation is unfounded, just like how the Orthodox are taught by their historians that a certain Pope claimed the Pope isn't Supreme Pontiff (the quote used for this teaching is out of context and only backed by fallacious understandings of the Papacy), so I wouldn't take the idea of there being two ecumenical councils seriously. That's my two cents and I can be wrong.

Lucky for you that 2 cents isn't worth anything anymore. Have a read of Catholic historian Francis Dvornik.
Dvornik on Photius (1967)

John

 

[MoNiCa4316]

The Fourth Council of Constantinople of 879-880 is believed to have been the Eighth Ecumenical Council by some Eastern Orthodox[1]. Photios, had been appointed Patriarch of Constantinople but deposed by a Council of Constantinople called in 869 by Emperor Basil I the Macedonian and Pope Adrian II.[2] Called in 879, this Greek Fourth Council of Constantinople, held after Photios had been reinstated on order of the Emperor, annulled the earlier one.[2] Today, the Roman Catholic Church recognizes the council in 869-870 as "Constantinople IV", while the Eastern Orthodox Churches recognize the councils in 879-880 as "Constantinople IV" and revere Photios as a saint. At the time that these councils were being held, this division was not entirely apparent.


So yes there are 2 councils... you're talking about the one from 879.

The reason the Catholic Church doesn't consider this council is because there are issues like whether the Pope really accepted it at the time.. the prelates were there, but some historians argue that he was tricked into first agreeing with the council, and then later he disagreed with it. It was then annulled in the 11th century I think.

Also, the Filioque began to be seen more as an explanation rather than a change, because it was used to defend a heresy and better explain the faith. Some Eastern fathers agreed with this while others disagreed.

It seems this was all very complex.

 

[prodromos]

The reason the Catholic Church doesn't consider this council is because there are issues like whether the Pope really accepted it at the time.. the prelates were there, but some historians argue that he was tricked into first agreeing with the council, and then later he disagreed with it. It was then annulled in the 11th century I think.

Francis Dvornik has laid all of this to rest in his research of these councils.
I suggest you read the excerpt given in the link
Dvornik on Photius (1967)
or better still, read his book.

John

 

[MoNiCa4316]

I read it, but I don't see how it changes anything.... it's actually saying that Photius was not against Rome... and recognized the Pope... how does this support the Orthodox view?

In the meantime Basil I revoked Photius' exile and entrusted him with the education of his sons. Ignatius was reconciled with Photius and asked Rome to send legates to a new council of union. Unfortunately, before the papal legates, Bps. Paul of Ancona and Eugenius of Ostia, had reached Constantinople, Ignatius was dead and Photius had been reinstated as patriarch. John VIII sent Cardinal Peter to Constantinople with instructions to recognize Photius as the legitimate patriarch after the latter expressed to the legates and the fathers his regret for his former behavior. Photius could not accept this condition because he had been elected by a synod after Ignatius had abdicated and could not be held responsible for the troubles caused by the zealots. The synod was to put an end to the strife between the two parties and give satisfaction to Photius and his followers for their unjust treatment. For this reason the letters sent by the Pope to Photius and to the council were changed, with the consent of the legates, who had become convinced that Rome had been wrongly informed about the true situation in Constantinople. All passages that did not correspond to the spirit of the union council were left out in the Greek version read to the fathers of the council (879-880). It should be stressed, however, that the main scriptural arguments by which the Pope confirmed his own primacy were left in the Greek version, a circumstance that shows that Photius, although defending the autonomy of his Church, did not deny the primacy of the Pope. The anti-Photian council of 869-870 was suppressed. Because of the canceling of this council by the union synod, the genuine Greek acts of this council are not preserved. We have only their Latin translation made by Anastasius the Librarian and an extract in Greek, preserved in the anti-Photianist collection. Consequently, the Orthodox Church accepts only the first seven councils as ecumenical, calling the Photian synod of 879-880 a union synod.

John VIII protested against the changes made in his letter by the Greeks, but he accepted the decisions of the union synod and recognized the rehabilitation of Photius. This explains the fact that in the West before the end of the 11th century the council of 869-870 was not counted among the ecumenical councils (see COUNCILS, GENERAL). It was given an ecumenical character by the canonists of the Gregorian reform who, during the investiture struggle, exploited for their cause canon 22 of this council, forbidding laymen to appoint bishops. The union synod was forgotten, and only Cardinal Deusdedit and Ivo of Chartres made some quotations from its Acts. So it happened that the Photian legend grew in the West, picturing the patriarch as the father of schism and the archenemy of papal primacy (see EASTERN SCHISM).

During his second patriarchate Photius endeavored to bring about a reconciliation with all his former enemies, especially with Marinus and Stylianus. He made concessions to Rome in Bulgaria, but Boris I refused to return to the Roman jurisdiction. According to a version of the Synodicon Vetus [MS Sinaiticus 482 (1117), fols. 357-365], Photius himself canonized Ignatius, whose feast (Oct. 23) is marked in the Typikon, which was revised under the second patriarchate of Photius. The Emperor Leo VI induced Photius to abdicate, probably because of his hostility to Theodore Santabarenus, promoted by Photius to be metropolitan of Euchaita, and appointed his brother Stephen as patriarch. The belief that the successors of John VIII — Marinus I, Stephen V, and Formosus — had broken with Photius is a legendary invention. Photius died in communion with Rome. His feast (Feb. 6) is noted in several Synaxaria from the end of the 10th and 11th centuries and is celebrated by all Orthodox Churches.

 

[prodromos]

I read it, but I don't see how it changes anything.... it's actually saying that Photius was not against Rome... and recognized the Pope... how does this support the Orthodox view?

You said the following:

The reason the Catholic Church doesn't consider this council is because there are issues like whether the Pope really accepted it at the time

Dvornik demonstrates that the Pope did indeed accept it, which means the 869 council was repudiated.

It was then annulled in the 11th century I think

Not because it was a false council and the earlier council true, but because canonists wanted canon 22 of the earlier council and couldn't very well have the later council which repudiated it left lying around. You may not like them, but they are the facts.

John