Three apostolic sees

[Xeno.of.athens]

There are some sources for more recent views on the errors of Photius. Here is one; Mortalium Animos (January 6, 1928) | PIUS XI

Newadvent.org (the Catholic Encyclopaedia) says: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Photius of Constantinople

Photius of Constantinople, chief author of the great schism between East and West, was b. at Constantinople c. 815 (Hergenröther says "not much earlier than 827", "Photius", I, 316; others, about 810); d. probably 6 Feb., 897. His father was a spatharios (lifeguard) named Sergius. Symeon Magister ("De Mich. et Theod.", Bonn ed., 1838, xxix, 668) says that his mother was an escaped nun and that he was illegitimate. He further relates that a holy bishop, Michael of Synnada, before his birth foretold that he would become patriarch, but would work so much evil that it would be better that he should not be born. His father then wanted to kill him and his mother, but the bishop said: "You cannot hinder what God has ordained. Take care for yourself." His mother also dreamed that she would give birth to a demon. When he was born the abbot of the Maximine monastery baptized him and gave him the name Photius (Enlightened), saying: "Perhaps the anger of God will be turned from him" (Symeon Magister, ibid., cf. Hergenröther, "Photius", I, 318-19). These stories need not be taken seriously. It is certain that the future patriarch belonged to one of the great families of Constantinople; the Patriarch Tarasius (784-806), in whose time the seventh general council (Second of Nicæa, 787) was held, was either elder brother or uncle of his father (Photius: Ep. ii, P.G., CII, 609). The family was conspicuously orthodox and had suffered some persecution in Iconoclast times (under Leo V, 813-20). Photius says that in his youth he had had a passing inclination for the monastic life ("Ep. ad Orient. et Oecon.", P.G., CII, 1020), but the prospect of a career in the world soon eclipsed it.​

 

[prodromos]

Are you familiar with how the Catholic Church views "Photianism"?

I have never heard of such a term. Are you aware that St Photius is considered a pillar of Orthodoxy?

 

[prodromos]

These stories need not be taken seriously

Amen to that.

The NewAdvent article begins with the false claim, "Photius of Constantinople, chief author of the great schism between East and West". The entire article is a hit piece.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I have never heard of such a term. Are you aware that St Photius is considered a pillar of Orthodoxy?

I have heard him called a saint by Orthodox folk on CF.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Amen to that.

The matter develops thus: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Photius of Constantinople

But Photius had the emperor and the Court on his side. Instead of obeying the pope, to whom he had appealed, he resolved to deny his authority altogether. Ignatius was kept chained in prison, the pope's letters were not allowed to be published. The emperor sent an answer dictated by Photius saying that nothing Nicholas could do would help Ignatius, that all the Eastern Patriarchs were on Photius's side, that the excommunication of the legates must be explained and that unless the pope altered his decision, Michael would come to Rome with an army to punish him. Photius then kept his place undisturbed for four years. In 867 he carried the war into the enemy's camp by excommunicating the pope and his Latins. The reasons he gives for this, in an encyclical sent to the Eastern patriarchs, are: that Latins

1. fast on Saturday
2. do not begin Lent till Ash Wednesday (instead of three days earlier, as in the East)
3. do not allow priests to be married
4. do not allow priests to administer confirmation
5. have added the filioque to the creed.

Because of these errors the pope and all Latins are: "forerunners of apostasy, servants of Antichrist who deserve a thousand deaths, liars, fighters against God" (Hergenröther, I, 642-46). It is not easy to say what the Melchite patriarchs thought of the quarrel at this juncture. Afterwards, at the Eighth General Council, their legates declared that they had pronounced no sentence against Photius because that of the pope was obviously sufficient.

Then, suddenly, in the same year (Sept. 867), Photius fell. Michael III was murdered and Basil I (the Macedonian, 867-86) seized his place as emperor. Photius shared the fate of all Michael's friends. He was ejected from the patriarch's palace, and Ignatius restored. Nicholas I died (Nov. 13, 867). Adrian II (867-72), his successor, answered Ignatius's appeal for legates to attend a synod that should examine the whole matter by sending Donatus, Bishop of Ostia, Stephen, Bishop of Nepi, and a deacon, Marinus. They arrived at Constantinople in Sept., 869, and in October the synod was opened which Catholics recognize as the Eighth General Council (Fourth of Constantinople). This synod tried Photius, confirmed his deposition, and, as he refused to renounce his claim, excommunicated him. The bishops of his party received light penances (Mansi, XVI, 308-409). Photius was banished to a monastery at Stenos on the Bosphorus. Here he spent seven years, writing letters to his friends, organizing his party, and waiting for another chance. Meanwhile Ignatius reigned as patriarch. Photius, as part of his policy, professed great admiration for the emperor and sent him a fictitious pedigree showing his descent from St. Gregory the Illuminator and a forged prophecy foretelling his greatness (Mansi, XVI, 284). Basil was so pleased with this that he recalled him in 876 and appointed him tutor to his son Constantine. Photius ingratiated himself with everyone and feigned reconciliation with Ignatius. It is doubtful how far Ignatius believed in him, but Photius at this time never tires of expatiating on his close friendship with the patriarch. He became so popular that when Ignatius died (23 Oct, 877) a strong party demanded that Photius should succeed him; the emperor was now on their side, and an embassy went to Rome to explain that everyone at Constantinople wanted Photius to be patriarch. The pope (John VIII, 872-82) agreed, absolved him from all censure, and acknowledged him as patriarch.

This concession has been much discussed. It has been represented, truly enough, that Photius had shown himself unfit for such a post; John VIII's acknowledgment of him has been described as showing deplorable weakness. On the other hand, by Ignatius's death the See of Constantinople was now really vacant; the clergy had an undoubted right to elect their own patriarch; to refuse to acknowledge Photius would have provoked a fresh breach with the East, would not have prevented his occupation of the see, and would have given his party (including the emperor) just reason for a quarrel. The event proved that almost anything would have been better than to allow his succession, if it could be prevented. But the pope could not foresee that, and no doubt hoped that Photius, having reached the height of his ambition, would drop the quarrel.
​

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The entire article is a hit piece.

I expect that you see it that way. Being on the inside - so to speak - EO views are favourable to Photius. Catholics, not being on the EO inside, see this quite differently. As a parallel, the French tend to see Napoleon as a hero. They think very highly of him. The English, however, see Napoleon as a war criminal, almost a 19th century Hitler. Thus, one's perspective is, to some degree, settled by one's allegiance and one's environment.

 

[Fervent]

I expect that you see it that way. Being on the inside - so to speak - EO views are favourable to Photius. Catholics, not being on the EO inside, seem his quite differently. As a parallel, the French tend to see Napoleon as a hero. The think very highly of him. The English, however, see Napoleon as a war criminal, almost a 19th century Hitler. Thus, one's perspective is, to some degree, settled by one's allegiance and one environment.

If you think that's ok, I suggest you give 1 Cor. a thorough read.

 

[prodromos]

I expect that you see it that way. Being on the inside - so to speak - EO views are favourable to Photius. Catholics, not being on the EO inside, seem his quite differently. As a parallel, the French tend to see Napoleon as a hero. The think very highly of him. The English, however, see Napoleon as a war criminal, almost a 19th century Hitler. Thus, one's perspective is, to some degree, settled by one's allegiance and one environment.

The articles on the Catholic Encyclopedia regarding St Photius reflect the biased 'scholarship' of the time, which has all pretty much been discredited by Catholic historian Francis Dvornik. It is quite shameful that such falsehood is still promoted amongst Catholics

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The articles on the Catholic Encyclopedia regarding St Photius reflect the biased 'scholarship' of the time, which has all pretty much been discredited by Catholic historian Francis Dvornik. It is quite shameful that such falsehood is still promoted amongst Catholics

Newadvent.org's credentials are known, some of its statements are in error, and now in 2023, Catholics have a less negative attitude towards Photius. But for centuries the negative perspective was the norm, many centuries, starting when Photius was still living.

The Orthodoxies change their perspectives with time too, as I am sure you are aware. Nevertheless, Catholics are not about to make Photius a saint by acclimation nor by popular vote nor by papal decree. So, speaking as a Catholic, at an official level Photius and his errors are still unacceptable.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

If you think that's ok, I suggest you give 1 Cor. a thorough read.

What do you think I ought to look for in First Corinthians?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Newadvent.org goes on to state the following: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Photius of Constantinople

That Photius was one of the greatest men of the Middle Ages, one of the most remarkable characters in all church history, will not be disputed. His fatal quarrel with Rome, though the most famous, was only one result of his many-sided activity. During the stormy years he spent on the patriarch's throne, while he was warring against the Latins, he was negotiating with the Moslem Khalifa for the protection of the Christians under Moslem rule and the care of the Holy Places, and carrying on controversies against various Eastern heretics, Armenians, Paulicians etc. His interest in letters never abated. Amid all his cares he found time to write works on dogma, Biblical criticism, canon law, homilies, an encyclopædia of all kinds of learning, and letters on all questions of the day. Had it not been for his disastrous schism, he might be counted the last, and one of the greatest, of the Greek Fathers. There is no shadow of suspicion against his private life. He bore his exiles and other troubles manfully and well. He never despaired of his cause and spent the years of adversity in building up his party, writing letters to encourage his old friends and make new ones.

And yet the other side of his character is no less evident. His insatiable ambition, his determination to obtain and keep the patriarchal see, led him to the extreme of dishonesty. His claim was worthless. That Ignatius was the rightful patriarch as long as he lived, and Photius an intruder, cannot be denied by any one who does not conceive the Church as merely the slave of a civil government. And to keep this place Photius descended to the lowest depth of deceit. At the very time he was protesting his obedience to the pope he was dictating to the emperor insolent letters that denied all papal jurisdiction. He misrepresented the story of Ignatius's deposition with unblushing lies, and he at least connived at Ignatius's ill-treatment in banishment. He proclaimed openly his entire subservience to the State in the whole question of his intrusion. He stops at nothing in his war against the Latins. He heaps up accusations against them that he must have known were lies. His effrontery on occasions is almost incredible. For instance, as one more grievance against Rome, he never tires of inveighing against the fact that Pope Marinus I (882-84), John VIII's successor, was translated from another see, instead of being ordained from the Roman clergy. He describes this as an atrocious breach of canon law, quoting against it the first and second canons of Sardica; and at the same time he himself continually transferred bishops in his patriarchate. The Orthodox, who look upon him, rightly, as the great champion of their cause against Rome, have forgiven all his offences for the sake of this championship. They have canonized him, and on 6 Feb., when they keep his feast, their office overflows with his praise. He is the "far-shining radiant star of the church", the "most inspired guide of the Orthodox", "thrice blessed speaker for God", "wise and divine glory of the hierarchy, who broke the horns of Roman pride" ("Menologion" for 6 Feb., ed. Maltzew, I, 916 sq.). The Catholic remembers this extraordinary man with mixed feelings. We do not deny his eminent qualities and yet we certainly do not remember him as a thrice blessed speaker for God. One may perhaps sum up Photius by saying that he was a great man with one blot on his character---his insatiable and unscrupulous ambition. But that blot so covers his life that it eclipses everything else and makes him deserve our final judgment as one of the worst enemies the Church of Christ ever had, and the cause of the greatest calamity that ever befell her.

The Catholic remembers this extraordinary man with mixed feelings. We do not deny his eminent qualities and yet we certainly do not remember him as a thrice blessed speaker for God. One may perhaps sum up Photius by saying that he was a great man with one blot on his character---his insatiable and unscrupulous ambition. But that blot so covers his life that it eclipses everything else and makes him deserve our final judgment as one of the worst enemies the Church of Christ ever had, and the cause of the greatest calamity that ever befell her.​

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

One last thing, for @prodromos, the Newadvent.Org article gives these as its sources:

Sources​

The Acts of the Synods of 869 and 879 are the most important sources (Mansi, XVI and XVII). THEOGNOSTUS (Archimandrite at Constantinople), Libellos periechon panta ta kata ton megan, a contemporary account of the beginning of the schism (in Mansi, XVI, 295, sq.); NIKETAS DAVID PAPHLAGON (d. 890); Bios Ignatiou (Mansi, XVI, 209 sq.). PAPADOPULOS-KERAMEUS declared this to be a fourteenth-century forgery in the Vizant. Vremennik (1899), 13-38, Pseudoniketas ho paphlagon; he was successfully refuted by VASILJEWSKI (ibid., 39-56); cf. Byzant. Zeitschrift, IX, (1900), 268 sq. GENESIOS, Basileiai (written between 945-959), a history of the emperors and Court from Leo V (813-20) to Basil I (867-86), published in Corpus Scriptorum Hist. Byzantinæ (Bonn, 1834) and P.G., CIX,15 sqq.; LEO GRAMMATICUS, re-edition of SYMEON MAGISTER, Chronicle, in Corpus Script., 1842, and P.G. CVIII, 1037 sqq.​

​

HERGENRÖTHER, Photius, Patriarch von Konstantinopel, sein Leben, seine Schriften u. das griechische Schisma (Ratisbon, 1867-69) (the most learned and exhaustive work on the subject). DEMETRAKOPULOS, Historia tou schismatos tes latinikes apo tes orthodoxou ekklesias (Leipzig, 1867), is an attempted rejoinder to HERGENRÖTHER, as is also KREMOS, Historia tou schismatos ton duo ekklesion (Athens, 1905-07, two volumes published out of four). LÄMMER, Papst Nikolaus u. die byzantinsche Staatskirche seiner Zeit (Berlin, 1857); PICHLER, Geschichte der kirchlichen Trennung zwischen dem Orient. u. Occident (Munich, 1864-65); NORDEN, Das Papsttum und Byzanz (Berlin, 1903); KRUMBACHER, Geschichte der Byzantinischen Litteratur (Munich, 1897), 73-79, 515-524 (with copious bibliography); FORTESCUE, The Orthodox Eastern Church (London, 1907), 135-171; RUINAUT, Le schisme de Photius (Paris, 1910).​

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Fourth Council of Constantinople - Papal Encyclicals

This council, designated as the eighth ecumenical council by western canonists, is not found in any canonical collections of the Byzantines.

www.papalencyclicals.net

I am including as a service to readers the introduction to the council's records below, click the link above to read the full document.

Fourth Council of Constantinople : 869-870
Council Fathers - 869-870 A.D.
INTRODUCTION
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.

Emperor Basil I and the patriarch Ignatius, after being restored to his see of Constantinople, asked Pope Nicholas I to call a council to decide about the bishops and priests who had been ordained by Photius. It was held at Constantinople after the arrival of legates from Pope Hadrian II, who had meanwhile succeeded Nicholas. These legates were Donatus, Stephen and Marinus and they presided at the council. It began in the cathedral of Hagia Sophia on 5 October 869. The tenth and last session was held on 28 February 870, when 27 canons were read out and approved by the council. All who were willing to sign the Liber satisfactionis, which had been sent by Pope Hadrian II, were admitted to the council. The account made by Anastasius contains the authentic list of those who signed the acts of the council. Emperor Basil I and his sons, Constantine and Leo, signed the acts after the patriarchs and in the same year they promulgated the council’s decisions, after drawing up a decree for this purpose.

As regards the canonical authority of these deliberations, various facts regarding the council held in the cathedral of Hagia Sophia in November 879, so that Photius might be restored to the see of Constantinople, should be remembered. Peter, a Roman cardinal, presided at this council. It took account of a letter of Pope John VIII, which had been sent to the emperor and translated into Greek. This reads (chapter 4): “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”. Some people have thought that this text had been altered by Photius; but in the so-called “unaltered” text of the letter this passage is replaced by dots (. . .), and the following passage reads: “For the see of blessed Peter, the key-bearer of the heavenly kingdom, has the power to dissolve, after suitable appraisal, any bonds imposed by bishops. This is so because it is agreed that already many patriarchs, for example Athanasius .. .. after having been condemned by a synod, have been, after formal acquittal by the apostolic see, promptly reinstated”. Ivo of Chartres explicitly affirms: “The synod of Constantinople which was held against Photius must not be recognised. John VIII wrote to the patriarch Photius (in 879): We make void that synod which was held against Photius at Constantinople and we have completely blotted it out for various reasons as well as for the fact that Pope Hadrian did not sign its acts”. Ivo adds from the instructions that John VIII gave to his legates for the council in 879: “You will say that, as regards the synods which were held against Photius under Pope Hadrian at Rome or Constantinople, we annul them and wholly exclude them from the number of the holy synods”. For these reasons there is no ground for thinking that the text was altered by Photius.

An authentic copy of the acts of the council of 869-870 was sent to Rome, as of right. Anastasius, the librarian, ordered a complete copy to be made for himself. Then, when the legates’ copy was stolen, he translated his own copy into Latin, on Pope Hadrian’s orders, making a word for word translation. Anastasius also makes it plain that the Greeks adopted every means to distort the acts, “by abbreviating here and by expanding or changing there”. He adds: “Whatever is found in the Latin copy of the acts of the eighth synod is completely free from the alloy of falsehood; however, whatever more is found in the Greek text is thoroughly infected with poisonous lies”.

The Greek text has been partly preserved from total destruction in the summary of an anonymous writer who copied out anti-Photian texts. This summary has 14 canons, as opposed to the 27 of Anastasius, and only contains excerpts, dealing with the most important points, of these canons. Where comparison is possible, the Latin version of Anastasius hardly departs from the Greek text. Indeed it is so literal that at times it can only be understood by comparison with the Greek text, and when the latter is missing we must sometimes rely on conjecture.

The documents printed below are taken from the following: the “Definition” from the Roman edition, (Concilia generalia Ecclesiae catholicae [Editio Romana], Rome 4 vols, 1608-1612) 3, 284-287; the canons from Les canons des conciles oecumeniques, ed. P-P. Jouannou (Pontificia commissione per la redazione del codice di diritto canonico orientale. Fonti. Fasc. IX: Discipline generale antique [IIe-IXe s.] tome 1 part 1), Grottaferata 1962 289-342.

The English translation is from the Latin text, for the reasons mentioned above. The material in curly brackets { } has been added by the hypertext editor, as also has some of the formatting.​

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

You equate Roman Catholic Church Historical Theory with Theology, (The study of the nature of God)?

How so?

By now it must be clear that the history of three Apostolic Sees plays a significant role in the theology of the church (ecclesiology). And that the three sees, Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria, being Petrine sees, and in the earliest days of the church after the destruction of Jerusalem, being the only apostolic sees is a significant theological matter. It was not until Constantinople and Jerusalem were included that the Orthodoxies started to speak of the five sees and some new ideas about ecclesiology. Constantinople and Jerusalem were included because the former was the new capital of the Roman Empire (still a largely pagan empire) and the latter because it was the city where the Lord preached, was crucified, rose again, and where the first church was establishes, but Jerusalem was destroyed as Christ said it would be. It was restored centuries later when Christianity was on the road to becoming the state religion of the Roman empire. So history works in different ways according to the different perspectives that people have; the OO sees matters one way, the EO has its view, the Catholic Church has its view, and some protestants have their views on these matters. So, this thread is very theological.

 

[prodromos]

The Orthodoxies

The Orthodox

change their perspectives with time too, as I am sure you are aware.

Regarding what?

Nevertheless, Catholics are not about to make Photius a saint by acclimation nor by popular vote nor by papal decree. So, speaking as a Catholic, at an official level Photius and his errors are still unacceptable.

You still haven't stated what those errors are.

 

[prodromos]

One last thing, for @prodromos, the Newadvent.Org article gives these as its sources:

Sources​

The Acts of the Synods of 869 and 879 are the most important sources (Mansi, XVI and XVII). THEOGNOSTUS (Archimandrite at Constantinople), Libellos periechon panta ta kata ton megan, a contemporary account of the beginning of the schism (in Mansi, XVI, 295, sq.); NIKETAS DAVID PAPHLAGON (d. 890); Bios Ignatiou (Mansi, XVI, 209 sq.). PAPADOPULOS-KERAMEUS declared this to be a fourteenth-century forgery in the Vizant. Vremennik (1899), 13-38, Pseudoniketas ho paphlagon; he was successfully refuted by VASILJEWSKI (ibid., 39-56); cf. Byzant. Zeitschrift, IX, (1900), 268 sq. GENESIOS, Basileiai (written between 945-959), a history of the emperors and Court from Leo V (813-20) to Basil I (867-86), published in Corpus Scriptorum Hist. Byzantinæ (Bonn, 1834) and P.G., CIX,15 sqq.; LEO GRAMMATICUS, re-edition of SYMEON MAGISTER, Chronicle, in Corpus Script., 1842, and P.G. CVIII, 1037 sqq.​

​

HERGENRÖTHER, Photius, Patriarch von Konstantinopel, sein Leben, seine Schriften u. das griechische Schisma (Ratisbon, 1867-69) (the most learned and exhaustive work on the subject). DEMETRAKOPULOS, Historia tou schismatos tes latinikes apo tes orthodoxou ekklesias (Leipzig, 1867), is an attempted rejoinder to HERGENRÖTHER, as is also KREMOS, Historia tou schismatos ton duo ekklesion (Athens, 1905-07, two volumes published out of four). LÄMMER, Papst Nikolaus u. die byzantinsche Staatskirche seiner Zeit (Berlin, 1857); PICHLER, Geschichte der kirchlichen Trennung zwischen dem Orient. u. Occident (Munich, 1864-65); NORDEN, Das Papsttum und Byzanz (Berlin, 1903); KRUMBACHER, Geschichte der Byzantinischen Litteratur (Munich, 1897), 73-79, 515-524 (with copious bibliography); FORTESCUE, The Orthodox Eastern Church (London, 1907), 135-171; RUINAUT, Le schisme de Photius (Paris, 1910).​

I recommend you read Francis Dvornik for an up to date historical analysis.

 

[dzheremi]

We do have synods, have had them for 2,000 years, almost. Here is a news item from 2023

Just for clarification's sake, when I wrote that, I had in mind the Orthodox idea of what the Holy Synod is, that is, the gathering of bishops which is the highest earthly governing authority of the Church. As the Holy Synod is capable of disciplining the Pope/Patriarch who chairs it (as is his prerogative, as "first among equals" among his brother bishops of whom it is composed), I'm going to guess that you guys still do not have synods in this sense, since Pastor Aeternus (1870; emphasis added) states rather clearly: "The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon." From what I read at your link, it seems like the synod that you are referring to acts more in an advisory role to the Pope, whose judgment is nevertheless effectively above it, such that the synod is effectively governed by the Roman Pope, rather than chaired by him. (So it's not really a synodal form of government, when you think about it.)

Yes, that is true, and it is true because - officially speaking with an historical perspective from the holy see - you guys went into schism in 451

What? So you guys have latitude to believe in something that is at variance with every other apostolic see because Chalcedon happened? If that's the case, then why don't the other Chalcedonians agree with you in this matter?

That doesn't really make sense. You're appealing to a later division here (Chalcedon) to apparently do the "heavy lifting" for you in matters ecclesiological when the difference between Rome and the rest of the sees was clearly around before that, as per your own example of Rome's non-acceptance of canons that only it had a problem with at Constantinople in 381.

I must be misunderstanding you here. There's no way that the defense of Rome's ecclesiology can be this disjointed and weird. Can you clarify what you mean and why you think Chalcedon is a point in Rome's favor here? I honestly do not understand how this is supposed to work, and I don't want to mischaracterize you or the point you're making on that account. Thank you.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Just for clarification's sake, when I wrote that, I had in mind the Orthodox idea of what the Holy Synod is, that is, the gathering of bishops which is the highest earthly governing authority of the Church. As the Holy Synod is capable of disciplining the Pope/Patriarch who chairs it (as is his prerogative, as "first among equals" among his brother bishops of whom it is composed), I'm going to guess that you guys still do not have synods in this sense, since Pastor Aeternus (1870; emphasis added) states rather clearly: "The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon." From what I read at your link, it seems like the synod that you are referring to acts more in an advisory role to the Pope, whose judgment is nevertheless effectively above it, such that the synod is effectively governed by the Roman Pope, rather than chaired by him. (So it's not really a synodal form of government, when you think about it.)



What? So you guys have latitude to believe in something that is at variance with every other apostolic see because Chalcedon happened? If that's the case, then why don't the other Chalcedonians agree with you in this matter?

That doesn't really make sense. You're appealing to a later division here (Chalcedon) to apparently do the "heavy lifting" for you in matters ecclesiological when the difference between Rome and the rest of the sees was clearly around before that, as per your own example of Rome's non-acceptance of canons that only it had a problem with at Constantinople in 381.

I must be misunderstanding you here. There's no way that the defense of Rome's ecclesiology can be this disjointed and weird. Can you clarify what you mean and why you think Chalcedon is a point in Rome's favor here? I honestly do not understand how this is supposed to work, and I don't want to mischaracterize you or the point you're making on that account. Thank you.

I am not really sure how to approach your post.

Official information is your stated preference. So, officially speaking, after 451 OO are in schism and are no longer in communion with the Catholic Church (which at this time, 451 AD) included the remaining Orthodoxies which had not yet separated from the Catholic Church.

I am not sure how Constantinople, and Antioch saw themselves in 451, probably they were in substantial agreement with Rome. So, after 451 the OO were treated as Monophysites and since that was defined as heresy, I guess OO were regarded as heretical or something. Sometime later it was slowly agreed that OO Monophysites were not really Monophysites. You can tell me how OO see themselves on this issue.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The Orthodox

Regarding what?

You still haven't stated what those errors are.

In reverse order, I have let Newadvent.org state the errors as they were perceived from ninth century until the 20th century when Newadvent.org "Catholic Encyclopaedia" was published.

I will skip past that; it is not for me to explain.

I used Orthodoxies because I want to include all the shades of Orthodoxy, OO is not the same as EO historically speaking. It's just shorthand. And it is useful as a plural of Orthodox as Catholics is a plural of Catholic.

 

[dzheremi]

I am not really sure how to approach your post.

Official information is your stated preference. So, officially speaking, after 451 OO are in schism and are no longer in communion with the Catholic Church (which at this time, 451 AD) included the remaining Orthodoxies which had not yet separated from the Catholic Church.

I am not sure how Constantinople, and Antioch saw themselves in 451, probably they were in substantial agreement with Rome. So, after 451 the OO were treated as Monophysites and since that was defined as heresy, I guess OO were regarded as heretical or something. Sometime later it was slowly agreed that OO Monophysites were not really Monophysites. You can tell me how OO see themselves on this issue.

Again, I don't understand why you think Chalcedon has anything to do with this question. We're talking about Roman ecclesiology versus the ecclesiology of every other see of antiquity, not Christology.