Schism and Photius

[The Liturgist]

But this isn't interdenominational. It's just posturing to look good for one's team!

I think I shall anathematise orthodoxy It might be interesting.

Laity do not have the canonical right to pronounce anathemas, only bishops, and I would imagine neither your diocesan bishop, nor Pope Francis, who is on very friendly terms with Pope Tawadros II, Pope Ignatius Aphrem II and the Armenian Catholicoi, nor the Roman Catholics who have worked for years to restore communion with the Oriental Orthodox, a group which included blessed Pope Benedict XVI, memory eternal, would look favorably upon you issuing an anathema. At any rate such an anathema would have no force, because according to canon law, you can’t do that.

The Roman Church hasn’t anathematized anyone in a very long time, and actually rescinded its anathemas against the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East.

 

[The Liturgist]

Cardinal Gibbons wrote the above. It relates to the first eight oecumenical councils as received by the Catholic Church.

1. First Nicaea
2. First Constantinople*
3. Ephesus
4. Chalcedon
5. Second Constantinople*
6. Third Constantinople
7. Second Nicaea
8. Fourth Constantinople

* Not presided over by papal legates.​

All convoked by the pope, or at least the pope consented to their convocation.​

​

So what is your objection here? @jas3

Papal legates did not preside over any ecumenical council. They were merely present. Rome was very passively engaged in every ecumenical council except Chalcedon* , even those it supported, primarily because of the distance between the councils and Rome, and the majority of attendees being Greek and Syrian, and Greek being the language of the councils.

Indeed, in the case of the First Council of Nicaea, I am shocked you suggested the Papal legates presided over it, since it is well known by nearly everyone that the great Emperor St. Constantine convened the council and presided over it personally.

*Pontifex Maximus Leo was actually opposed to the convening of Chalcedon, but his meddling in its affairs contributed to an ecclesiastical disaster, although I believe Pope St. Dioscorus would have been deposed by that council even without the Tome, and Leo may even have been trying to help Dioscorus; the villains of Chalcedon were the crypto Nestorian Ibas, who lied and cheated to avenge his exiled master, and Eutyches, who deceived Dioscoeus by claiming to have renounced his heresy, when in fact he had not, and consequently this heresy, properly called Monophysitism, was falsely attributed to the Miaphysite Oriental Orthodox, who were guilty of nothing besides preserving the exact Christological formula of Pope St. Cyril the Great.

I suspect my Coptic Orthodox friend @dzheremi would agree with me on this issue. However it is important that we avoid division with our Eastern Orthodox brethren or our Roman Catholic brethren, which is why as a proponent of ecumenical reconciliation I disagree with nearly everything @Xeno.of.athens has said in this thread.

 

[The Liturgist]

A great example of the schism element inside the Catholic Church as seen in actual History. It is not as if the first time it was ever noticed was at the time of the protesting Catholics during the life of Martin Luther.



Luther commented on that same pattern of unreliable council decrees

Luther was referring to the latrocinia, or unsanctioned, non-ecumenical councils attributed ecumenical status by the Romans, such as the Council of Florence.

Martin Luther was inspired by the example of the Ethiopian Tewahedo Orthodox Church, which he discovered had existed since antiquity without ever being subject to the Pope, and this helped him make up his mind to initiate his Reformation. Additionally, Lutheran theology, while Chalcedonian, does make use of several concepts historically used mainly by the Oriental Orthodox and by the Eastern Orthodox after the Theopaschitism of St. Severus of Antioch influenced them via Nestorius, namely, Communicatio Idiomatum.

One reason why I reject EGW as a prophet is because she appears to have been unaware of the Eastern churches, and even if she was aware of them, she makes a false dichotomy of the struggle between the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches, ignoring that the issues were much more complex and that also many of the schisms and reconciliations had political motives. Church history cannot be simplified to Good vs. Evil in such a way that one denomination is good, one is evil and the rest are lukewarm. There is also her mischaacterization of the faith of the Montanists, Albigensians, Paulicans and Bogomils, which we know quite a lot about, and which were not by any means proto-Adventist Sabbatarian entities. Indeed we even have some of their scriptures!

I love the Roman Catholic Church, despite my opposition to Pope Francis, and remain committed to restoring ecumenical reconciliations with it.

 

[jas3]

Pontifex Maximus Leo was actually opposed to the convening of Chalcedon

Eh, this is kind of a stretch. Pope Leo was in agreement with the emperor Marcian on the need to call a council, but wanted to have it in the West and wanted to postpone calling the council. Marcian was not willing to wait, so Leo sent his legates and sent a letter to Marcian expressing his support for the council.

 

[dzheremi]

Martin Luther was inspired by the example of the Ethiopian Tewahedo Orthodox Church, which he discovered had existed since antiquity without ever being subject to the Pope, and this helped him make up his mind to initiate his Reformation.

Sort of an aside, but I always find these sorts of connections so fascinating. There seems to be a perennial rediscovery of the Oriental Church by westerners. I have a very small number of academic works in my personal library that deal with this sort of thing, such as the criminally-overpriced-for-its-length (read: "published by Gorgias Press") study of Syrian Orthodox-Anglican relations Antioch and Canterbury: The Syrian Orthodox Church and the Church of England (1874-1928) by Rev. William Taylor, or the excellent historical survey The Copts and the West, 1439-1822: The European Discovery of the Egyptian Church by Alastair Hamilton. There is also the incredibly interesting Pope Mark VII: Arabic Letters to Count Von Zinzendorf and Yohannes III, Metropolitan of Abyssinia, which publishes for the first time English translations of the indicated material. I love this last one so much because it's the closest thing we'll ever have to a historical "conference call" of sorts between two Oriental bishops and a western guy (cf. the earlier Council of Florence, wherein the westerners invited us to be physically present). Zizendorf was a representative of the Moravian church. This correspondence occurred between 1752 and 1783, and also included a statement of faith from HH Pope Mark VII, which is interesting to see not only for what it contains, but also at a macro-level of analysis, as this is in complete conformity with how we have traditionally dealt with others when there was some concern for the difference between our faith and theirs, e.g., Eutyches' infamous confession written as part of his defense at Ephesus II; it may have been full of what turned out to be lies, but the point is that it was asked for and given. Despite the attempts of Chalcedonian historians and churchmen to push such a narrative on occasion, he was not 'exonerated' at Ephesus II as a result of his personal friendship with HH St. Dioscorus any more than he could be said to have been protected or condemned by the same at Chalcedon, when HH famously answered his own accusers at that robber council by declaring that if Eutyches has said that is against the faith, then truly he deserves not only censure, but fire.

Anyway, it's interesting to see westerners and Oriental Orthodox continuously reintroduced to one another, either by historical circumstance or curiosity on the part of the westerners. I suspect that this is an area that is neglected in 'mainstream' (~Chalcedonian, sadly) studies on Church history, but it easily as fascinating and illuminating (in the secular sense of that word) as the more famous examples of Chalcedonian church leaders interacting with westerners, such as Patriarch Jeremias II of Constantinople's interactions with Lutherans in the 16th century.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Not at all, only that this statement

"The Bishops of Rome convoked these assemblages, or at least consented to their convocation; they presided by their legates over all of them, except the first and second Councils of Constantinople, and they confirmed all these eight by their authority."​

is false, unless you take an incredibly broad view of what "consented to their convocation" means.

So you object to, "convoked the first eight oecumenical councils (listed in post #23), or at least consented to their convocation"? Exactly which one, two, three ... did they (the popes in Rome) not convoke or at least consent to their convocation?

 

[Valletta]

But the biggest problem is that one Pope can reverse his predecessor, with Traditiones Custodes, in a manner cruel to traditional Catholics, and also not just Pope Benedict XVI, but Pope St. John Paul II, and then authorize the blessing of homosexual relations, which are not to be blessed but to be anathematized.

Jesus left sinners in the Church and in the entire world, flawed men and women, popes too. Pope Francis did NOT authorize the blessing of homosexual relationships:

4. Pope Francis’ recent response to the second of the five questions posed by two Cardinals[4] offers an opportunity to explore this issue further, especially in its pastoral implications. It is a matter of avoiding that “something that is not marriage is being recognized as marriage.”[5] Therefore, rites and prayers that could create confusion between what constitutes marriage—which is the “exclusive, stable, and indissoluble union between a man and a woman, naturally open to the generation of children”[6]—and what contradicts it are inadmissible. This conviction is grounded in the perennial Catholic doctrine of marriage; it is only in this context that sexual relations find their natural, proper, and fully human meaning. The Church’s doctrine on this point remains firm.
5. This is also the understanding of marriage that is offered by the Gospel. For this reason, when it comes to blessings, the Church has the right and the duty to avoid any rite that might contradict this conviction or lead to confusion. Such is also the meaning of the Responsum of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which states that the Church does not have the power to impart blessings on unions of persons of the same sex.

Declaration Fiducia Supplicans On the Pastoral Meaning of Blessings (18 December 2023)

Declaration Fiducia Supplicans On the Pastoral Meaning of Blessings (18 December 2023)

www.vatican.va

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

No, St. Photius was not schismatic.

Catholics regard as oecumenical the Fourth Council of Constantinople that anathematized Photios.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Laity do not have the canonical right to pronounce anathemas

But they certainly have the right to "anathematise "

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

actually rescinded its anathemas against the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East.

Well, Photios (aka Photius) was anathematised by the eighth oecumenical council (fourth Constantinople); and hence he is a figure of division and scandal.
Canon 6 [ Fourth Council of Constantinople - Papal Encyclicals ]

​

It appears that Photius, after the sentences and condemnations most justly pronounced against him by the most holy pope Nicholas for his criminal usurpation of the church of Constantinople, in addition to his other evil deeds, found some men of wicked and sycophantic character from the squares and streets of the city and proposed and designated them as vicars of the three most holy patriarchal sees in the east. He formed with these a church of evil-doers and a fraudulent council and set in motion accusations and charges entailing deposition against the most blessed pope Nicholas and repeatedly, impudently and boldly issued anathemas against him and all those in communion with him. The records of all these things have been seen by us, records which were cobbled together by him with evil intent and lying words, and all of which have been burnt during this very synod.​

​

Therefore, to safeguard church order, we anathematize first and foremost the above-mentioned Photius for the reason given; next everyone who henceforth acts deceitfully and fraudulently and falsifies the word of truth and goes through the motions of having false vicars or composes books full of deceptions and explains them in favour of his own designs. With equal vigour Martin, the most holy pope of Rome, a valiant contender for the true faith, rejected behaviour of this kind by a synodal decree.​

 

[jas3]

So you object to, "convoked the first eight oecumenical councils (listed in post #23), or at least consented to their convocation"? Exactly which one, two, three ... did they (the popes in Rome) not convoke or at least consent to their convocation?

As I said before,

The fifth, which famously struck the name of Pope Vigilius from the diptychs for his opposition to and refusal to attend the council.

Now, again, you could take an extremely broad view of what "consent to their convocation" means and argue that Pope Vigilius condemning the Three Chapters but not mentioning Constantinople II somehow counts as him consenting to the council's convocation, but that would be a very pained explanation.
To be clear, I think there are reasonable arguments that one could make for the early ecumenical councils supporting the Catholic view of the papacy, but this idea that popes were calling the shots at the first several councils is contradicted by the historical record.

 

[prodromos]

Photius was schismatic and the filioque has nothing to do with that.

Nope. The schism was caused by Pope Nicholas I.

 

[prodromos]

Catholics regard as oecumenical the Fourth Council of Constantinople that anathematized Photios.

Prior to the investiture controversy, the Catholic Church recognised the subsequent council in Constantinople as the Fourth Council of Constantinople which rejected as a false council, the one you now recognise.

 

[prodromos]

The records of all these things have been seen by us, records which were cobbled together by him with evil intent and lying words, and all of which have been burnt during this very synod.

How convenient. They claim they have all this evidence against St Photius, but then they state that they have destroyed that same evidence.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

As I said before,

Now, again, you could take an extremely broad view of what "consent to their convocation" means and argue that Pope Vigilius condemning the Three Chapters but not mentioning Constantinople II somehow counts as him consenting to the council's convocation, but that would be a very pained explanation.
To be clear, I think there are reasonable arguments that one could make for the early ecumenical councils supporting the Catholic view of the papacy, but this idea that popes were calling the shots at the first several councils is contradicted by the historical record.

Second Constantinople is one which did not have papal legates presiding. Some of its canons were ratified by the Holy See, and without ratification that council would not be oecumenical, thus, the pope consented to its convocation after it was finished.

 

[dzheremi]

Second Constantinople is one which did not have papal legates presiding. Some of its canons were ratified by the Holy See, and without ratification that council would not be oecumenical, thus, the pope consented to its convocation after it was finished.

I don't get how is supposed to work. Are you claiming that the Roman Pope's assent to what a council decides is necessary for it to be considered ecumenical even if he doesn't bother to send representatives to it? Or that ratifying the parts of the council that he happens to agree with is enough to make the council as a whole "ecumenical", even if he disagrees with other parts of it?

 

[The Liturgist]

Second Constantinople is one which did not have papal legates presiding. Some of its canons were ratified by the Holy See, and without ratification that council would not be oecumenical, thus, the pope consented to its convocation after it was finished.

No councils had Papal legates presiding. We have already established this. The Papal legates were in attendance, but they did not preside. The idea they did is frankly wishful thinking.

 

[The Liturgist]

Jesus left sinners in the Church and in the entire world, flawed men and women, popes too. Pope Francis did NOT authorize the blessing of homosexual relationships:

4. Pope Francis’ recent response to the second of the five questions posed by two Cardinals[4] offers an opportunity to explore this issue further, especially in its pastoral implications. It is a matter of avoiding that “something that is not marriage is being recognized as marriage.”[5] Therefore, rites and prayers that could create confusion between what constitutes marriage—which is the “exclusive, stable, and indissoluble union between a man and a woman, naturally open to the generation of children”[6]—and what contradicts it are inadmissible. This conviction is grounded in the perennial Catholic doctrine of marriage; it is only in this context that sexual relations find their natural, proper, and fully human meaning. The Church’s doctrine on this point remains firm.
5. This is also the understanding of marriage that is offered by the Gospel. For this reason, when it comes to blessings, the Church has the right and the duty to avoid any rite that might contradict this conviction or lead to confusion. Such is also the meaning of the Responsum of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which states that the Church does not have the power to impart blessings on unions of persons of the same sex.

Declaration Fiducia Supplicans On the Pastoral Meaning of Blessings (18 December 2023)

Declaration Fiducia Supplicans On the Pastoral Meaning of Blessings (18 December 2023)

www.vatican.va

It allows for the blessing of same sex couples and those in “irregular situations” extra liturgically. This blessing is a blessing of the relationship, since it is a blessing of the couple and not the individual. No same-sex couples should be permitted to enter a Catholic Church or receive the Eucharist, for they fall into the same category as adulterous couples.

What Pope Francis made, by making the blessings of couples rather than individuals, and disconnecting the blessings from any attempt to disarticulate the individuals from their wicked and sinful relationship, was to scandalize the faithful and make a spectacular concession to immorality. And I am not alone in fielding this opinion: I have on my side Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Muller, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, and the Holy Synod of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, in addition to leading scholars such as Dr. Peter Kwasniewski.

This is in addition to the gross mistreatment inflicted on traditional Catholics and the unravelling of the legacy of St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict with Traditiones Custodes.

 

[The Liturgist]

I don't get how is supposed to work. Are you claiming that the Roman Pope's assent to what a council decides is necessary for it to be considered ecumenical even if he doesn't bother to send representatives to it? Or that ratifying the parts of the council that he happens to agree with is enough to make the council as a whole "ecumenical", even if he disagrees with other parts of it?

Well we of course know better, that for a council to be ecumenical, the entire church has to accept it. Patriarch Bartholomew really hoped the Council of Crete would be ecumenical, but because he alienated several of the churches, it was a damp squib, but in the months leading up to it you had EP clergy declaring how its decisions would be “binding” on all Orthodox Christians, and it was scarcely able to do much of anything.

At one time, in 1980, it was planned to be the council where EO-OO communion was restored. A pity that didn’t happen, but having it happen under the warped quasi-Papal ecclesiology of the Ecumenical Patriarchate would be worse than the current status quo of close relations between the two churches of each group in Antioch and Alexandria.

 

[Valletta]

It allows for the blessing of same sex couples and those in “irregular situations” extra liturgically. This blessing is a blessing of the relationship, since it is a blessing of the couple and not the individual. No same-sex couples should be permitted to enter a Catholic Church or receive the Eucharist, for they fall into the same category as adulterous couples.

What Pope Francis made, by making the blessings of couples rather than individuals, and disconnecting the blessings from any attempt to disarticulate the individuals from their wicked and sinful relationship, was to scandalize the faithful and make a spectacular concession to immorality. And I am not alone in fielding this opinion: I have on my side Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Muller, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, and the Holy Synod of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, in addition to leading scholars such as Dr. Peter Kwasniewski.

This is in addition to the gross mistreatment inflicted on traditional Catholics and the unravelling of the legacy of St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict with Traditiones Custodes.

Personally I think the approach of Pope Francis did more harm than good because it opens up the subject to various misinterpretations which people will jump at the chance to exploit. But officially "Such is also the meaning of the Responsum of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which states that the Church does not have the power to impart blessings on unions of persons of the same sex."