Nicene Creed

[djns9437]

From the Encyclopaedia Britannica

Francis Dvornik, The Photian Schism: History and Legend (1948, reprinted 1970), supersedes the older view of the contribution of Photius to the schism between the Eastern and Western Churches that is summarized by J. Ruinaut in Le Schisme de Photius (1910); and by Louis Bréhier, “The Greek Church: Its Relations with the West up to 1054” and “Attempts at Reunion of the Greek and Latin Churches,”

Encyclopaedia Britannica,oh well that just about sums it all up then.

 

[djns9437]

Ya know what I find interesting? One group says, "That book is a crock!!", because it doesn't fit their view on their faith because what if, I mean, just what if, **GASP**, they might be wrong. Then the next group says, "Oh no, your book is a crock!", because it doesn't fit their view on their faith because what if, I mean, just what if, **GASP**, they might be wrong.

So who's right? Well, I am, of course!!

You are right about whats wrong,but are you right about what's right?HeHe

 

[djns9437]

When history is does not look at the facts dispassionately, it becomes mere propoganda.
The one basic rule for looking at history, is that no one or no one side can be assumed to be innocent. When the version of events is presented where all the innocent victims are from your particular grouping, and all the tyrants belong to the other side, rest assured that you are no longer engaging in history, but merely in denominational apologetics.

WW II might dispute this.

Politics are inherent to human affairs, and engaging in politics was essential for both Roman pope and Byzantine coaltion of emperor and patriarch. This is a very intuitively safe premise to start from.

Gladly agree.

Before beginning a study of the church history in regards to the filioque clause, it is also a worthwhile venture to explore one;s own motivations for doing so. Are our interests merely academic, are we motivated in justifying the dogma of our own particular branch of the church, or is our primary motivation to build bridges across the schism that divides us through a greater understanding of the past?

Do I need a psychologist?

In this respect, my personal motivation would be to build bridges, although I am quite skeptical that this is really possible, save for the grace of a few more centuries. By that time though, will anybody still think that such Christianity, fragmented as it is , is anything still worth believing in?

[/QUOTE]Do you need a psychologist?He He

 

[Kripost]

Regarding the fillioque clause, there is a difference between proceeding and sending.

 

[SolomonVII]

Regarding the fillioque clause, there is a difference between proceeding and sending.

I'm listening...

 

[Iacobus]

As per post 2, which no one EO has yet refuted, RC would be one of the ancient heresies due to its inclusion of the filioque clause.
In comparison, Arians are very much yesterday's news.


7

Hi Solomon

I thought post 2 was pretty good, and hadn't really thought it needed refuting. The fact that the filioque first appeared as an effort to combat arianism at some local level does not make it good. None of us of any stripe would say that ends ever justify the means. More telling to me from that post is that Pope Leo I (? I forget the number.) made a point of not including it on his silver plaques.

So, is its use an ancient heresy? The answer is yes. Yet it is just one of the heresies that constantly recur. A casual reading of posts here on CF reveals active arians, nestorians, marcionites and a host of others. Certainly from the EO position, the vitality and importance of the Creed has not diminished a bit.

BTW, I had meant to say earlier how much I've enjoyed your posts on this thread. I haven't agreed 100% with what you say, but I have thought them very well reasoned. I'm glad you entered the fray.

James

 

[prodromos]

Encyclopaedia Britannica,oh well that just about sums it all up then.

So you have no comment on Dave Armstrong's preferences? No comment at all on the Catholic historian Francis Dvornik? Do you dismiss everything I have posted thus far simply because of my quoting a secular reference? What if I hadn't posted the reference to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, what would your response have been then?

I realise it may not look like it, but I am actually trying to do you a favour here. Former Catholic views regarding Patriarch Photius have been demonstrated by Catholics to be completely unfounded. You don't have to agree with Photius, but at least base your opinion of him on facts rather than hearsay.

John.

 

[SolomonVII]

Hi Solomon

I thought post 2 was pretty good, and hadn't really thought it needed refuting. The fact that the filioque first appeared as an effort to combat arianism at some local level does not make it good. None of us of any stripe would say that ends ever justify the means. More telling to me from that post is that Pope Leo I (? I forget the number.) made a point of not including it on his silver plaques.

So, is its use an ancient heresy? The answer is yes. Yet it is just one of the heresies that constantly recur. A casual reading of posts here on CF reveals active arians, nestorians, marcionites and a host of others. Certainly from the EO position, the vitality and importance of the Creed has not diminished a bit.

BTW, I had meant to say earlier how much I've enjoyed your posts on this thread. I haven't agreed 100% with what you say, but I have thought them very well reasoned. I'm glad you entered the fray.

James

Since modern Roman rite catholicism adheres to the filioque clause, if this is indeed a heretic teaching, the orthodox position would be that the Catholic church is heretic according to post 2.
The question then becomes what are the implications of the patriarch of Constantine unilaterally declaring the position of the papacy of Rome to be acvocating heresy. Would this not imply that not only is the pope not first among equals in terms of the apostolic church, but in fact that the patriarch of Constantine is assuming primacy in order to declare the papal teaching heretic? If the Eastern church does not recognize the authority of the pope in its territory, then on what authority short of a general council of the whole the whoe of Christendom can the teaching of the Rome be declared to be heretic?

Because the papacy itself believes, rightly or wrongly, that its has authority extends over the whole of Christendom, to declare any bishop as heretic is within its authority, as it sees its authority to be. But if the position of the eastern church is that each of the traditional patriarchs is independant in and of itself, and tthen to go on and assert that the teaching of the Bishop of Rome is in fact heretic, this is in fact going beyond the authority that it has traditionally claimed as its own.

While many eastern orthodox still understand the Catholic positon to be heretic, the meeting between the pope and the patriarch -sometimes in the 1960's if I am recalling correctly- seems to contradict this claim. The excommunications that pope and patriarch laid against each other all those years ago have been rescinded, as well they should be. Indeed, it is very easy to see the mere crass politics more than any deep theological divisions were behind these excommunications in the first place.

Definitely, the creed recited by the eastern church is orthodox, and it follows the Nicean decision faithfully. For any pope to excommunicate on the basis of the creed was incorrect, and the twentieth century has seen that this was corrected. However, this does not imply that the filoque clause should be believed to be heretic. For any eastern rites catholic to delcare this of the latin rite goes beyond the jurisdiction of the Constantine patriarch.

Evidently, there were good historical reasons for the western church to include this addition to the creed that were specific to the needs of their own particular jurisdiction of Spain. If the position of the eastern church is that the Roman bishop does not have a mandate to interfere in the decisions of their own branch, then this same respect should also be afforded to the western church. Labelling the western church as heretic because of this clause, from my perspective, may be an honestly held opinion of many Eastern Orthodox, but it only serves to sustain discord long after the political reasons for that discord have become obsolete.

 

[linden branch]

To djns9437,

It is true that the Catholic historian Dvornik has fairly thoroughly unseated the older view of Photius, and that his work has received the consensual agreement of other historians of all religious backgrounds.

You don't have to take the Encyclopedia Britannica's word for it, though, as I have seen his work on the subject sited in just about every church history book I have read that has spoken on the subject. I highly recommend obtaining his book, although it will probably not be available for purchase. You might try inter-library loan. His work on Byzantium And The Roman Primacy (the link is to a synopsis of the book. This one is also out of print and probably available only through inter-library loan) is also a highly respected work on the subject of Papal primacy and its relation to the Eastern Church.

 

[djns9437]

So you have no comment on Dave Armstrong's preferences?

Never heard of him.Will be glad to give him a read.

No comment at all on the Catholic historian Francis Dvornik?

Never heard of him.Will be glad to give him a read.

Do you dismiss everything I have posted thus far simply because of my quoting a secular reference? What if I hadn't posted the reference to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, what would your response have been then?

I don't care if he's secular writer.

I realise it may not look like it, but I am actually trying to do you a favour here. Former Catholic views regarding Patriarch Photius have been demonstrated by Catholics to be completely unfounded. You don't have to agree with Photius, but at least base your opinion of him on facts rather than hearsay.

I don't think because someone disputes this view of Photius that automatically it is completely unfounded. You have shown no facts,just your preference.I'm sorry I didn't respond sooner to your post but havn't had the time.In H.W.Crockers notes about this issue he writes,( It is also what prompted some Greek Orthodox clerics in the year 2001 to call Pope John Paul II the "arch-heretic" and "two-horned grotesque monster of Rome.")See John Thavis,"Bold Moves:Upcoming Papal Trips Pose Major Ecumenical Test,"The Arlington Catholic Herald,5 april 2001,p.23 It's a bit of a sore spot for you folks,I can see why.

 

[djns9437]

To djns9437,

It is true that the Catholic historian Dvornik has fairly thoroughly unseated the older view of Photius, and that his work has received the consensual agreement of other historians of all religious backgrounds.

You don't have to take the Encyclopedia Britannica's word for it, though, as I have seen his work on the subject sited in just about every church history book I have read that has spoken on the subject. I highly recommend obtaining his book, although it will probably not be available for purchase. You might try inter-library loan. His work on Byzantium And The Roman Primacy (the link is to a synopsis of the book. This one is also out of print and probably available only through inter-library loan) is also a highly respected work on the subject of Papal primacy and its relation to the Eastern Church.

nonsense.

 

[linden branch]

nonsense.

What is nonsense and why do you say it is so?

 

[SolomonVII]

What is nonsense and why do you say it is so?

i am surprised that by this claim of your link being nonsense as well. Dvornik's article seemed to support the Catholic claim of papal primacy by showing the eastern church to have believed in it historically as well.

 

[linden branch]

Yes, I am not sure whether he is "nonsensing" Dvornik's work on Photius or on the Roman primacy, but as I tried to make clear before, Dvornik was a faithful Catholic. His work was recommended to me by a traditional Catholic as being respectful of Catholic dogma while maintaining a balanced and even-handed approach to the historical data.

 

[SolomonVII]

From Dvornik's article:
"The reconciliation was made in the reign of Pope Hormisdas (514-23) when the Eastern Bishops signed the so-called Libellus Hormisdae which contained a clear definition of the Roman primacy in matters of faith. It is an important document recalling the promise of the Lord given to Peter (Matt. 16:18 f.) and declaring that “in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept immaculate” and that in it “persists the total and true strength of the Christian religion.” (22) Some of the Eastern prelates may have signed the Libellus with mixed feelings, for never before had they read such a clear definition of Roman primacy, but even the Patriarch John signed it. They objected only to certain declarations of Gelasius which threatened the autonomous status of their Church. The Libellus dealt only with questions of dogma in which Rome had always proved to be a staunch defender of the Orthodox faith.

Interesting also in this respect is the declaration of John’s successor Epiphanius in his letter to Pope Hormisdas: “It is my greatest desire to be united with you and to embrace the divine doctrines which have been entrusted to your holy See by the blessed and holy disciples and God’s Apostles, especially by Peter, the head of the Apostles, and to esteem nothing more than them.” (23) At the same time the Patriarch and the Emperor Justinian, in referring in their letters to the four general Councils, had persuaded Pope Hormisdas to accept implicitly Canon Three of the Council of 381, which gave the See of Constantinople second rank in the hierarchy of the Church.
On the other hand, Justinian, when sanctioning in his Novel 131,224 the rank of the Patriarchs, expressed very clearly that the Bishop of Constantinople was inferior to the Bishop of Rome. This is important, and contradicts the statements of the mediaeval Greek controversialists who argued that because Rome was called the Old City, and Constantinople the New City, Rome outranked Constantinople only in age and in no other respect. This thesis was also rejected in the twelfth century by the famous Byzantine canonist Zonaras, who bases his rejection on the wording of Justinian’s Novel 131.25."

Much of the earliest disputes between Byzantium and Rome seem to be centred around the rise of Constantinople as an important centre of Christianity, especially in relationship to Antioch and Alexandria. Earlier councils had always defined these centres as third and second in importance to Rome, and with Constantine becoming the new headquarters for the Roman empire, the Bishops of Rome could foresee where there would be grounds for future conflicts over the matter of ultimate primacy.

 

[SolomonVII]

In regards to the same article, what in the following quotation, should we be regarding as nonsense?:

"Photius is regarded both by Catholics and Orthodox as a staunch defier of the Roman primacy. This judgment needs radical correction as the result of recent studies. First of all it should be remembered that for the first time in Byzantine history Bishops who later became supporters of Photius had appealed against the judgment of Patriarch Ignatius, which they regarded as unjustified, to the first Patriarch, the Bishop of Rome. There were, of course, other Byzantine Patriarchs who had turned to Rome when unjustly condemned, such as St. Chrysostom and St. Flavian, but in their cases doctrinal questions were involved. The appellations of Gregory Asbestas and of his supporters were made, however, in purely disciplinary matters.

Documentary evidence shows that Rome had begun to act as the supreme judge in this disciplinary affair, and that the Byzantine prelates took advantage of a decision of the Synod of Sardica (343) which had acknowledged the supreme position of Rome and had established the right of appeal to the Pope as representing the ultimate authority in the Church. The Canons of this local Synod of Western prelates had not been accepted, so far, in the East. This is the first time in which the Canon was invoked by the Eastern Church. (36)

This is important, but there is much more. When, in 861, Ignatius who had resigned the patriarchal throne, but had been acclaimed as Patriarch by certain enemies of the new Patriarch, Photius, canonically elected, was judged by the Roman legates, the Byzantine prelates making declarations which amounted to an official acceptance of the famous Canon of the Synod of Sardica. First, let us stress the fact that the Byzantine Church, in consenting to the judgment of her Patriarch by the legates of the Pope, thus recognized Rome as the supreme tribunal of the Church in disciplinary matters. It does not matter if the legates were or were not authorized by Pope Nicholas I to pronounce judgment. The fact that the Byzantine Church allowed them to do so is in itself eloquent enough.

At the beginning of the Synod the legates repeatedly proclaimed that they were proceeding according to the Canons of Sardica, which declared the Pope to be the ultimate authority in the Church. What happened during the second meeting of the Synod is particularly important. The legates said: “Believe us, brethren, it is because the Fathers in the Council of Sardica decided that the Bishop of Rome has power to reopen the cause of any bishop that we desire, with the authority we have mentioned, to re-examine the case.” The Bishop of Laodicea, Theodore, the speaker of the Byzantine Church, said: “Our Church rejoices at it and has no objection to it and is not offended by it (“et ecclesia nostra gaudet in hoc et nullam habet contradictionem aut tristitiam”). Subsequent events resulted in this Synod being rejected by the Pope and its Acts forgotten. They were rediscovered in 1870, but it is certainly time that Church historians and canonists paid more attention to these outstanding declarations. (37)

Furthermore, Photius is severely criticized by Catholic theologians for having altered the letters sent to him, to the Emperor Basil, and to the Byzantine Church by Pope John VIII, which were read at the Council of 879-80 convoked to clear his name. It is true that in the Greek version of the letters Photius omitted all that he considered misrepresented his case but, after explanations, the legates consented to the changes because the Patriarchal Chancellory retained in the Greek version some passages from the Latin original which very clearly expressed the Pope’s ideas on the Roman primacy.

Photius’ versions contain also the quotation of the famous passage of Matt. 16:19 on which the Pope based “the power to bind and loose, and in the words of Jeremiah, to uproot and to plant.” Furthermore, Photius did not add the name of Paul to that of Peter when the Pope, in the original version, spoke of the founder of his See. (38) This is proof that in the ninth century the Byzantines abandoned the old custom which was still in practice in the eighth century, as is clear from the Acts of the Seventh Oecumenical Council, and had accepted the Roman custom of attributing the foundation of the See of Rome to Peter alone.

It is said also that Photius publicly denied the primacy and transferred it to Byzantium in 867 and convoked a Council which had condemned Pope Nicholas. Here, however, we have to distinguish between the person of the Pope and the papacy. The Council condemned Nicholas I for his neglect of the customs of the Byzantine Church and for his direct interference in an internal affair which the Patriarch and his Bishops regarded as unjustified. Evidently this was Photius’ greatest mistake forwhich the West never forgave him. But this does not mean that he denied the Roman primacy."

 

[SolomonVII]

Yes, I am not sure whether he is "nonsensing" Dvornik's work on Photius or on the Roman primacy, but as I tried to make clear before, Dvornik was a faithful Catholic. His work was recommended to me by a traditional Catholic as being respectful of Catholic dogma while maintaining a balanced and even-handed approach to the historical data.

This article is very respectful of Catholicism. In it seems to be an attempt to find in history a reconciliation between the two main branches of Christendom based in our common history, while at the same time sidestepping much of the angry rhetoric that has become typical after 1204.

 

[Jay2004]

either way..

Primacy of Authority was always there..

The only reason why the Orthodox claim it was just honour..Is because of the history that followed Photius.

Constantinople lost it's authority after the fall of Constantinople. The biggest blow to Constantinople was when the Russian Czar decreed that the Russian Patriarch be appointed in Russia rather than the EP.

Rome was also the only Patriarchal see that was not occupied by the Moslems.

Alexandria is really #2 after Rome for Primacy too. Constantinople was only made #2 because the Emporor resided there..

 

[Lotar]

Actually the councils do say "honor," not "authority." Rome had the primacy of honor because it was the capital of the Empire. Constantinople was later created and given second in honor because it was the new capital. It's pretty clearly written.

 

[linden branch]

Hello Jay2004,

Were you wanting to discuss these items you mentioned, or were you simply stating them to reiterate the Catholic position irregardless of how Photius is perceived?

I would agree with you that the fall of Constantinople, the subsequent set up of a Latin Patriarch in Constantinople, and the accompanying independence of the Russian Church from this Latin appointed Patriarchate were all serious blows to the jurisdictional authority as well as its symbolic power in the East. Additionally, it is quite true that Rome is the only one of the pentarchy Patriarchate not to eventually be conquered by Muslim armies.

However, I believe there is sufficient reason to conclude that the roots of Orthodox objection to Roman claims of universal jurisdiction preceed either Photius or the Photian schism. Also, I believe that Rome accepted the 28th canon of Chalcedon around the same time as the Latin control of the patriarchate of Constantinople, so it wouldn't appear proper to continue insisting on Alexandria's position being second after Rome when Rome has accepted Chalcedon's decision to elevate Constantinople to that position. However, you are correct that the main reason for Constantinople's elevation was the fact that it was the imperial city.

As for Roman primacy, I would be in agreement with you that it pertained to authority, although we might not agree on the nature of that authority or the context in which it is properly exercised.