- Nov 28, 2003
- 23,732
- 14,173
- 59
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Keep repeating the lie.Photius was anathematised by the fourth council of Constantinople, it has never been retracted, never been withdrawn, though for the sake of oecumenical relations it is de-emphasised in the Catholic Church.
Canons of the fourth council of ConstantinopleKeep repeating the lie.
So you've quoted the robber council which Rome had abrogated until the investiture controversy, when they decided it had some canons they could use to their advantage.Canons of the fourth council of Constantinople
4 In tearing up by the roots the love of power, as being an evil root nourishing the scandals which have arisen in the church, we condemn, with a just decree, him who boldly, cunningly and unlawfully, like a dangerous wolf, leapt into the sheepfold of Christ; we are speaking about Photius, who has filled the whole world with a thousand upheavals and disturbances. We declare that he never was nor is now a bishop, nor must those, who were consecrated or given advancement by him to any grade of the priesthood, remain in that state to which they were promoted. Moreover, we debar from this kind of preferment those who received from Photius the customary rescripts for promotion to special office.As for the churches which Photius and those who were ordained by him are thought to have consecrated and the altars which they are thought to have renovated after they had been torn down, we decree that they are to be consecrated, anointed and renovated again. In sum, everything that was done in his person and by him, for the establishing or penalizing of the sacerdotal state, has been abrogated. For the God of the whole universe says through his prophet: Because you have rejected knowledge, I reject you from being a priest to me and, You have forgotten the laws of your God, I also will forget your children. The more they increased, the more they sinned against me; I will change their glory into shame. They feed on the sin of my people; they bloat their souls with their iniquities. And again he says: Because Ephraim has multiplied altars for sinning, they have become to him altars for sins; 1 will write copiously about them.5 Since we desire to ensure, in Christ, that the stability of the canons should always remain firm in the churches, we renew and confirm the limits and conditions which were formerly decreed by the holy apostles and our holy fathers and which made it a law in the church that nobody, who is a neophyte in the faith or priestly office, should be made a bishop, lest he be puffed up and fall into the judgment and snare of the devil, as the Apostle says. Therefore, in accordance with the previous canons, we declare that nobody of senatorial rank or a secular way of life, who has recently been admitted to the tonsure with the intention or expectation of the honour of becoming a bishop or patriarch, and who has been made a cleric or monk, should rise to such a level, even if he is shown to have completed a considerable time in each stage of the divine priesthood. For it is clear that the tonsure was not received for religious reasons, love of God or hope of progressing along the path of the virtues, but for love of glory and honour. We exclude such people still more rigorously if they are pushed forward by imperial backing.However, if someone gives no suspicion of seeking the worldly benefits just mentioned, but, prompted by the actual good of a humility which is centred on Christ, renounces the world and becomes a cleric or monk and, while passing through every ecclesiastical grade, is found without reproach and of good character during the periods of time currently established, so that he completes one year in the order of lector, two in that of subdeacon, three as deacon and four as priest, this holy and universal synod has decreed that such a one may be chosen and admitted. As for those who have remained religiously in the order of cleric or monk and have been judged worthy of the dignity and honour of the episcopacy, we reduce the aforesaid period of time to that which the superiors of these bishops approved at the time. If, however, anyone has been advanced to this supreme honour contrary to this directive of ours, he must be condemned and completely excluded from all priestly functions, because he has been elevated contrary to the sacred canons.6 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.
It is now and has been from the age in which the council was held, received by the Catholic Church as oecumenical.So you've quoted the robber council which Rome had abrogated until the investiture controversy, when they decided it had some canons they could use to their advantage.
That is the lie that Rome has chosen to repeat.It is now and has been from the age in which the council was held, received by the Catholic Church as oecumenical.
Clearly you haven't clicked on the links to sources I have given you. It might be helpful if you did.That is the lie that Rome has chosen to repeat.
The article you cited from Papal Encyclicals says the council was not received as ecumenical at the time in its introduction:It is now and has been from the age in which the council was held, received by the Catholic Church as oecumenical.
And in the portion you quoted which mentions Constantinople 879, we see that Pope John VIII didn't accept Constantinople 869: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.
As far as Photius' anathematization being deemphasized for ecumenical purposes, he's venerated as a saint in eastern Catholicism. It doesn't get much more deemphasized than that.We declare that the synod held at Rome against the most holy patriarch Photius in the time of the most blessed pope Hadrian, as well as the holy synod of Constantinople attacking the same most holy Photius (i.e., in 869-870), are totally condemned and abrogated and must in no way be invoked or named as synods. Let this not happen.
That's not quite right; for ten years it was received by the Catholic Church, then for a while the pope(s) attempted to discard it - do you believe that a pope really has the authority to discard an oecumenical council? - and that around two hundred years later it was received as oecumenical by the Catholic Church.The article you cited from Papal Encyclicals says the council was not received as ecumenical at the time in its introduction:
The Catholic Church believes the Pope is judged by no one and that he is above any council.do you believe that a pope really has the authority to discard an oecumenical council?
So the Orthodox (eastern kind) say. The Catholic Church says it is.that it was not an Ecumenical council.
Who is "they?" Can you provide an example?I disagree with this characterization of what is going on. It's not "debating" to point out who actually convened and chaired the earliest ecumenical councils, for instance. It's informing, which I can understand that the RCC wouldn't like, because the actual ecclesiology of the early Church is obviously not what they say it is,
I reckon that he means "Catholics" when he wrote "they".Who is "they?" Can you provide an example?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?